1721904 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an Indonesian male who sought review of a decision not to grant him a protection visa. The applicant claimed he feared arrest and harm by the Indonesian government due to his participation in demonstrations against government corruption, including alleged past arrests and detentions. The applicant failed to attend his scheduled hearing before the Tribunal and did not contact the Tribunal to explain his absence.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, or alternatively, whether he faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Indonesia, thereby engaging Australia's protection obligations. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had satisfied the statutory elements necessary to establish these claims, considering the evidence presented and the applicant's failure to appear and provide further evidence.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not satisfied the onus of proof required to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. It noted that a mere claim of fear is insufficient and that the applicant must persuade the decision-maker that all statutory elements are met, referencing the principles from *MIEA v Guo*. The Tribunal found the information provided in the application insufficient to establish a real chance of serious harm or significant harm upon return to Indonesia. Furthermore, the applicant's delay in seeking protection after arriving in Australia and his failure to attend the hearing were considered indicative that his claims were not credible. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm.

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