1705248 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an Indonesian national. The applicant claimed he would face harm if returned to Indonesia due to his relationship with a married woman, and that his claims were identical to those of his partner. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, considering both refugee and complementary protection obligations.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, and alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, he would suffer significant harm. The Tribunal also had to assess the applicant's credibility, particularly in light of inconsistencies between his written application and oral evidence, and consider the relevance of his partner's claims and his stated motivation for seeking protection.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, concluding that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. While acknowledging the applicant's stated fear of harm due to his relationship with a married woman, the Tribunal found inconsistencies in his account, including his initial claim of leaving Indonesia for a holiday and his later assertion that his claims were the same as his partner's, and that he was motivated to protect her after hearing her story in Australia. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had not experienced harm in Indonesia and had not sought help or attempted to relocate within the country. The Tribunal applied the principles of refugee and complementary protection, considering relevant guidelines and country information, but ultimately found the applicant's claims lacked sufficient credibility and substance to warrant the grant of a protection visa.