1619231 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an applicant who had left Indonesia. The applicant claimed that upon return to Indonesia, she faced a real risk of significant harm due to her interfaith relationship, her parents' disapproval, and the potential for forced marriage. She also raised concerns about her ability to access necessary medical treatment for a diagnosed condition and the potential for ostracism and mental harm within Indonesian society.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the definition of a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). If not, the court had to consider whether the applicant met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), meaning there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her removal to Indonesia, she faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. The court also had to consider the meaning of "significant harm" and the circumstances under which a person would not be taken to face such a risk, as outlined in sections 36(2A) and (2B) of the Act.

The court considered the applicant's claims regarding her strict Muslim upbringing, her father's violent temper, and the cultural practices in her community, including arranged marriages and the potential for a "kidnapping" ceremony to formalise a marriage. It noted her relationship with a non-Muslim partner of ten years and her fear that her father would kill her or force her into a marriage with a relative if she returned. The court also took into account her concerns about societal judgment regarding her interfaith relationship and her children's future, as well as her medical condition and the perceived inadequacy of healthcare in Indonesia. The court applied Ministerial Direction No. 84, the 'Refugee Law Guidelines', and 'Complementary Protection Guidelines', along with country information.

The decision affirmed the previous decision under review.