1618371 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision not to grant her a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear harm from loan sharks in Indonesia due to her inability to repay a loan, alleging she had been beaten and threatened with death. She also asserted that Indonesian authorities would not protect her. The court was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a refugee ground, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that her removal to Indonesia would result in a real risk of significant harm.

The court considered the applicant's responsibility to establish her claims and provide sufficient evidence, noting that the Tribunal is not obligated to assist in specifying or establishing claims. In assessing credibility, the court acknowledged the need for a reasonable approach, referencing case law and the UNHCR Handbook, which states that the benefit of the doubt should only be given when all available evidence has been checked and the applicant's general credibility is established, with statements being coherent, plausible, and not contrary to known facts. The court also considered Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information.

The applicant's identity as an Indonesian citizen was accepted, and Indonesia was accepted as her receiving country. However, the court found that the applicant had not satisfied the statutory elements for a protection visa. The decision under review was affirmed, meaning the applicant was not granted a protection visa.