1614367 (Refugee)

The applicant, Ms [A], an Indonesian citizen, sought review of a decision concerning her application for a protection visa. Ms [A] claimed she feared harm from her ex-boyfriend, [Mr B], due to his violent behaviour and gambling addiction, and that she could not return to Indonesia as he would harm her and the authorities would not protect her. She arrived in Australia in October 2013, her visa ceased in January 2014, and she applied for the protection visa in January 2016. The decision under review was made by the Refugee Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Ms [A] met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Act, specifically whether she had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, and alternatively, whether she met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), which requires substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia. The court was also required to consider the applicant's claims regarding her health and the relevance of Ministerial Direction No. 84, policy guidelines, and country information.

The court found that Ms [A] was an Indonesian citizen and that Indonesia was the receiving country for assessment purposes. It noted that Ms [A] had remained in Australia unlawfully for a significant period before applying for the protection visa. After considering Ms [A]'s claims individually and cumulatively, along with all available evidence and relevant country information, the court concluded that Ms [A] did not face a real chance of persecution on return to Indonesia and that her fear was not well-founded. Consequently, she did not satisfy the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a). The court also found that there were not substantial grounds for believing that Ms [A] would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Indonesia, and therefore she did not satisfy the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). The court was not satisfied that Ms [A] had a relevant medical condition and noted she had not claimed she could not access medical support in Indonesia.

The decision under review was affirmed.