1705250 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming a well-founded fear of persecution and significant harm if returned to Indonesia due to debts owed to loan sharks. The dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The decision was made by Paul Noonan, a Member of the Tribunal.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant qualified as a refugee, as defined by section 5H of the Migration Act, and alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her return to Indonesia, she faced a real risk of suffering significant harm, as contemplated by section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This required an assessment of the applicant's credibility and the objective reality of the threats she alleged.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's written claims and her oral evidence provided at the hearing. While the applicant initially stated her written claims were complete, she later introduced new information about personally borrowing money from loan sharks and her family's substantial debts. The Tribunal noted inconsistencies and a lack of detail regarding these new claims, particularly concerning the identity of the loan sharks and the specifics of the family business. Crucially, the applicant confirmed that neither she nor her family had experienced physical harm from the loan shark, nor had they received threats since she began sending money from Australia. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm, as the alleged threats were not substantiated by evidence of physical harm or ongoing threats, and the applicant's ability to mitigate the risk by sending money from Australia suggested the existence of effective protection measures or the absence of a real risk.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that she did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the Migration Act.