1803188 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse the applicants Protection visas. The applicants claimed they feared harm upon return to Indonesia due to workplace conflict, which involved allegations of insulting a religion and subsequent threats and assaults by individuals linked to an underground network and religious groups. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicants faced a real chance of suffering serious or significant harm, nor that they met the definition of a refugee under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether they were refugees as defined by section 5H of the Act, or whether Australia owed them protection obligations under the complementary protection criterion in section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims regarding the workplace conflict, the threats and assaults, and the likelihood of suffering significant harm upon return to Indonesia.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, concluding that while it accepted that a conflict had arisen at the applicant's workplace and that he had been threatened and assaulted, the evidence did not establish a real chance of suffering significant harm upon return to Indonesia. The Tribunal noted that aspects of the applicant's evidence were vague and lacked persuasive detail, particularly concerning the identity of the individuals involved and the nature of the alleged religious insult. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not established that the threats and assaults were for reasons of race or religion, nor that they were systematic or discriminatory. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations towards the applicants.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.