1612577 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an Indonesian national of Chinese ethnicity and Christian faith. The applicant claimed he was forced to leave Indonesia because his life was in danger from Indonesian authorities, stemming from his report of corruption by a taxation officer. He alleged this officer sought revenge, hired gangs who used racist language and threatened to kill him due to his ethnicity, and that he was subsequently beaten and escaped. The applicant further claimed that if he returned, the officer and gangs would continue to pursue him, and that the pervasive corruption within the government meant he could not seek effective protection. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant was owed protection by Australia.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the criteria for a protection visa, including the refugee criterion under s.36(2)(a) and the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Tribunal was mandated to take into account relevant policy guidelines and country information. The core legal issue was whether the applicant had established substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Indonesia, there was a real risk that he would suffer significant harm.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, concluding that the applicant had not established he was owed protection. While accepting the applicant's identity, ethnicity, and religious beliefs, the Tribunal found a significant lack of evidence and explanation to substantiate his claims. The applicant had not provided sufficient detail regarding the alleged corruption report, nor had he attended an interview offered by the delegate. The Tribunal noted that country information indicated Indonesia possessed a functioning, albeit imperfect, police and judicial system, and that the government was taking steps to address corruption. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the alleged persecution was based on a Convention reason or that he would be unable to access the same level of legal protection as other Indonesian citizens, particularly given the prevalence of corruption affecting all segments of society. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not provided a clear reason for the alleged persecution due to the minimal detail and lack of supporting evidence.