1720961 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning an Indonesian male's application for a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear persecution due to his involvement in anti-government demonstrations against corruption in Indonesia, alleging he had been arrested and detained previously and would face arrest if returned. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason or if Australia had protection obligations due to a real risk of significant harm upon his return to Indonesia.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's failure to appear at his scheduled hearing without explanation, which led the Tribunal to proceed with the review under s 426A of the Migration Act 1958. The Tribunal found the applicant's claims unsubstantiated, noting that a mere assertion of fear is insufficient to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. The Tribunal applied the principles from *MIEA v Guo* (1997) 191 CLR 559, emphasizing the applicant's onus to satisfy the statutory elements. Given the lack of corroborating evidence, the applicant's delayed application for a protection visa, and his failure to attend the hearing, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had participated in anti-corruption protests, had been arrested, or would be arrested upon return.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution for any reason specified in s 5(J) of the Act, nor did he meet the complementary protection criterion under s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.