1605660 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection visa by an Indonesian national. The applicant claimed he left Indonesia to avoid arrest by the Indonesian government and police due to his participation in anti-corruption demonstrations. He asserted that if returned to Indonesia, he would face arrest and lack protection from the authorities, and that internal relocation was not a viable option. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, specifically an imputed political opinion, or alternatively, whether he met the criteria for complementary protection. This involved assessing the credibility of his claims regarding past arrests and the likelihood of future harm upon return to Indonesia, considering the available evidence and relevant policy guidelines. The Tribunal also had to consider the provisions of sections 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which outline the requirements for refugee and complementary protection respectively.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims, including his assertions of multiple arrests and detentions in Indonesia for attending anti-corruption protests. It also noted the documentary evidence provided, such as his Indonesian passport, national identity card, and driving licence, as well as a summons without an English translation. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant had failed to attend a hearing, and the evidence presented was limited. Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa, concluding that he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the Act.