1720774 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a protection visa. The applicant, who is of Chinese ethnicity and Christian faith, claimed to fear persecution in Indonesia. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the definition of a refugee or was entitled to complementary protection.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had discharged his onus to establish that he had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or that he faced a real risk of significant harm, such that Australia owed him protection obligations. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims, particularly in light of significant inconsistencies and new claims emerging throughout the review process.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had failed to satisfy the onus of proof. It noted that the applicant's claims before the Tribunal, including those made shortly before and on the day of the hearing, were substantially different from those made in his initial protection visa application. Specifically, claims relating to persecution based on religion, the alleged rape of his mother during the 1998 riots, and being forced to walk long distances to school were not raised in his original application. The Tribunal considered that the applicant's explanations for these omissions were not credible. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims, and that the Tribunal was not obliged to make the applicant's case for him.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa.