1707410 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered the case of an Indonesian citizen seeking a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear persecution from the Indonesian government due to his participation in anti-corruption protests, and alternatively, feared harm from his girlfriend's family and associated "Muslim extremists" due to their relationship. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) or under the complementary protection provisions in section 36(2)(aa).

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on assessing the applicant's claims against the relevant legislative criteria. It first considered the claim of persecution by the Indonesian government, noting the applicant's participation in protests and prior arrest. However, the Tribunal found no suggestion that the applicant had a profile of interest to the Indonesian authorities beyond personal anger from his girlfriend's family. Regarding the claim of harm from the girlfriend's family, the Tribunal concluded that the reasons for the alleged attacks were personal and did not amount to persecution for a Convention reason. The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection criterion, which requires substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. It found that the applicant did not satisfy the definition of a refugee due to a lack of a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the applicant had not established a real risk of significant harm upon return to Indonesia, concluding that the apprehended harm was primarily personal in nature and not indicative of persecution or significant harm as contemplated by the Act.