1731486 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an ethnic Chinese Indonesian national seeking a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear persecution upon return to Indonesia due to the country being racist, past bullying at school, and her parents being subjected to demands for money by indigenous Indonesians. The applicant asserted that indigenous Indonesians "may" harm her if she returns.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958. This required determining if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or if there were substantial grounds for believing she faced a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Indonesia.

The Tribunal reasoned that the onus is on the applicant to establish all statutory elements of their claim with sufficient evidence. It noted that mere assertions of fear do not establish genuineness or that the fear is well-founded or for a claimed reason. The Tribunal found the applicant's claims to be unsupported, vague, and factually thin. Applying the principles from *MIEA v Guo* and *Prasad v MIEA*, the Tribunal concluded that it was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(aa) or (b) or (c).

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.