1610643 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a non-citizen who claimed to fear harm upon return to Indonesia. The applicant alleged he faced threats from his brother over inherited land and retribution from members of the Muslim community for insulting Islam. The applicant had been in Australia on various temporary visas since 1993, with his most recent visa expiring in November 2013. He lodged his protection visa application in January 2016, over two years after his visa expired. The applicant sought merits review of the delegate's decision to refuse the visa.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Indonesia. This involved assessing the credibility of his claims, the consistency of his evidence, and the reasons for the significant delay in lodging his application. The court also considered the applicant's claims regarding his brother's threats, the alleged animosity from the Muslim community, and his assertion that Indonesian authorities would not provide protection due to corruption.

In its reasoning, the court considered Ministerial Direction No. 56, relevant policy guidelines, and country information. The court found significant issues with the applicant's evidence, including a lack of detail, inconsistencies, and credibility concerns. The court noted that the applicant's claims appeared to have been concocted to support his application, particularly in light of the substantial delay in lodging it. The court concluded that there were no substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the applicant a protection visa.