1612861 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an Indonesian national. The applicant claimed to fear harm from her ex-husband and associates, alleging a history of domestic violence and threats to kill. The decision under review was made by the Refugee Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Act, relating to the Refugee Convention, and alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa), concerning complementary protection obligations. This required the Tribunal to assess the applicant's credibility and the real risk of significant harm upon return to Indonesia.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information. The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence, particularly regarding claims of threats from militant Islamic organisations, which were only raised at the hearing without a reasonable explanation for the delay. Consequently, the Tribunal did not accept these claims as well-founded. Applying the principles from *MIAC v SZQRB*, the Tribunal determined that there was not a real chance of persecution or a real risk of significant harm to the applicant upon return to Indonesia.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a) nor the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). Accordingly, the decision under review, which affirmed the refusal of the protection visa, was affirmed.