1709842 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision not to grant him a protection visa. He had applied for the visa as a member of the family unit of his mother, who was the primary applicant. The delegate found that the applicant's mother had departed Australia and remained outside the migration zone, thus failing to meet the criterion that an applicant must be in Australia to be granted a protection visa. Consequently, the delegate determined that the applicant, as a member of his mother's family unit, was also not entitled to a protection visa, as he had not made claims in his own right.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either as a refugee or under the complementary protection provisions, or as a member of the family unit of a person who met those criteria. This involved determining if the applicant's reliance on his mother's claims was sufficient, given her departure from Australia, and whether he had established any independent grounds for protection.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence that he had relied entirely on his mother's claims for protection and was unaware of their specific grounds. It was established that the applicant's mother had returned to Indonesia to care for his ill father and younger sister. The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not meet the criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) because his mother, the primary applicant, did not meet the requirements for a protection visa. The Tribunal also considered country information regarding economic and employment prospects in Indonesia, concluding that any financial hardship faced by the applicant would not constitute a threat to his subsistence, and therefore did not amount to significant harm under the complementary protection criterion.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).