1615898 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the protection visa applications of an Indonesian couple and their child. The applicants, who are ethnic Chinese and Christian, claimed they had suffered racism and violence in Indonesia, including property damage to their business and threats to their safety, which they alleged were linked to their ethnicity and religion. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act), which relates to a well-founded fear of persecution, or the alternative complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, which concerns a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia.

The Tribunal applied the principles outlined in section 5J of the Act regarding a well-founded fear of persecution, considering whether the applicants had a genuine fear of persecution for reasons of race or religion, whether there was a real chance of such persecution upon return to Indonesia, and whether such persecution would involve serious harm and systematic, discriminatory conduct. The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection criterion, which requires a substantial ground for believing that removal would result in a real risk of significant harm, as defined in section 36(2A) of the Act. In its assessment, the Tribunal took into account relevant policy guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal found that while the applicants had experienced discrimination, including wage delays, property damage, and threats, these incidents did not amount to persecution for the purposes of section 5J of the Act, nor did they establish a real risk of significant harm under section 36(2)(aa). Specifically, the Tribunal noted the absence of physical assault in some instances and the limited nature of the discrimination faced. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.