1612394 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an Indonesian citizen of Chinese Christian ethnicity. The applicant arrived in Australia in September 2010 and remained in Australia unlawfully after his visa expired in October 2010, lodging his protection visa application in June 2015. The applicant's claims were largely based on those of his parents, with whom he had a joint hearing before the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Act, or alternatively, the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), which requires a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider claims of persecution based on the applicant's ethnicity and religion, and a dispute his father had with local authorities regarding business taxes and permits.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant may have faced some past discrimination and might face future discrimination in Indonesia due to his religion and ethnicity, this did not rise to the level of significant harm as envisaged by the Act. Regarding the business dispute, the Tribunal accepted that the applicant's father ran a business and had issues with local authorities, but found no evidence that this dispute was motivated by the applicant's Chinese ethnicity or Christian faith, nor that the applicant was directly involved. The Tribunal noted a lack of country information suggesting specific targeting of Chinese or Christian Indonesians by local authorities in this manner, and found the father's reasons for believing the dispute was ethnically or religiously motivated to be speculative. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant faced a real chance of persecution involving serious harm upon return to Indonesia.

The Tribunal affirmed the refusal of the protection visa application.