1728865 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Indonesia, sought review of a decision by the Minister to refuse to grant a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear a debt collector in Indonesia, alleging that the debt collector had threatened to harm him and his family if he did not repay a debt. The applicant also claimed to fear harm in Fiji, where he had previously resided. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirmed the Minister's decision, finding that the applicant had not established a real chance of suffering significant harm in Indonesia or Fiji. The applicant then sought judicial review of the AAT's decision in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the AAT had erred in law in its assessment of the applicant's claims. Specifically, the court was required to determine whether the AAT had correctly applied the relevant legal principles in assessing whether the feared harm from the debt collector in Indonesia constituted "significant harm" for the purposes of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The court also considered whether the AAT had adequately assessed the risk of harm to the applicant in Fiji.

The court affirmed the AAT's reasoning. It held that the enforcement of a security by a creditor against a defaulting debtor, even if involving threats, would not in and of itself amount to "significant harm" as contemplated by the *Migration Act*. The court found that the AAT had correctly considered the available evidence and had not made any legal errors in its assessment of the risk of harm. The court also noted the applicant's delay in applying for protection in Australia, which was a factor considered by the AAT.

The application for judicial review was dismissed, and the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was affirmed.