1727115 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse a protection visa. The applicant, an Indonesian citizen of Chinese ethnicity, claimed to have suffered racism and discrimination in Indonesia, including bullying at school and work, demands for money, and a near-fatal assault. He alleged that the police would not protect him due to this discrimination. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Indonesia.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the evidentiary requirements for establishing a well-founded fear of persecution. It noted that while the onus of proof is not strictly applied in administrative inquiries, applicants must provide sufficient detail to enable the Tribunal to establish the relevant facts. The Tribunal found the applicant's claims to be brief and generalised, lacking specific details regarding the perpetrators, the circumstances of the alleged incidents, and his attempts to seek police protection. The Tribunal also had regard to country information indicating that the Indonesian constitution prohibits racial discrimination and that the government has taken steps to protect the Chinese minority.

Applying the principles from cases such as *MIEA v Guo & Anor*, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the statutory elements for a protection visa. The applicant's generalised allegations, unsupported by specific evidence, were insufficient to establish a real chance of persecution or significant harm. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the Indonesian government would fail to protect the applicant, noting the absence of evidence to suggest otherwise. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision.