1803251 (Refugee)
[2025] ARTA 775
•10 January 2025
1803251 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 775 (10 JANUARY 2025)
CORRIGENDUM
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number: 1803251
Tribunal:General Member M. Tubridy
Place:Sydney
Date:10 January 2025
Date of Corrigendum:27 May 2025
Pursuant to s 114 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), the following alteration is made to the statement of reasons for the decision:
The sentence in paragraph 3 of the written statement of reasons for the decision which reads as: “the applicant claimed to fear returning to Malaysia”; is altered to read as: “the applicant claimed to fear returning to Indonesia”. the applicant claimed to fear returning to Indonesia”.
Statement made on 27 May 2025 at 11:44am
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number: 1803251
Tribunal:General Member M. Tubridy
Date:10 January 2025
Place:Sydney
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Statement made on 10 January 2025 at 2:00pmCATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Indonesia – particular social group – victim of loan shark – fear of physical assault – threats from money lenders – criminal gang – state protection – internal relocation – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and transitional Provisions No1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister (the delegate) on 12 January 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
BACKGROUND
The applicant lodged his application for review with the Tribunal on 7 February 2018, and in doing so provided the Tribunal with a copy of the delegate’s decision of 12 January 2018 and a copy of the refusal notification of the same date which was issued by the then Department of Immigration and Border Protection (later the Department of Home Affairs; and hereafter the Department).
The delegate’s decision indicates that the applicant arrived in Australia in July 2015 on a tourist visa which was valid until October 2015. Two years later, on 20 September 2017, the applicant lodged his application for a protection visa. In her decision, the delegate indicates that the applicant claimed to be a citizen of Indonesia (which the delegate accepted) who had left Indonesia because he had had financial problems, and he had borrowed money and had gotten into a fight with a money lender who was connected to the Triad network, and that the applicant claimed to fear returning to Malaysia because he would be hunted down by the money lenders, and he believed the authorities would not be able to protect him as they had not assisted some of his friends who were in the same situation. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant’s fear of persecution was for any of the reasons specified in s.5J(1)(a), and on this basis the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was a refugee. The delegate was also not satisfied that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed to Indonesia there was a real risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm; with the delegate stating: Causing shame to someone’s family does not amount to significant harm.
On 9 February 2018 the Tribunal emailed the applicant an acknowledgement that his application for review of the delegate’s decision had been received, and that the Tribunal had requested that Department provide it with all documents and files which they considered to be relevant to the applicant’s protection visa application. The Tribunal also advised the applicant that if he wished to provide any further material or written arguments for the Tribunal to consider, he should do so as soon as possible. Nothing was received from the applicant in response to this invitation. A response was received from the Department, who provided the Tribunal with a copy of the applicant’s 20 September 2017 lodged protection application (and the illegible copy of the applicant’s passport which was provided with this application), and also a further copy of the delegate’s decision of 12 January 2018, and a further copy of the Department’s refusal notification of the same date. The copy of the applicant’s 20 September 2017 protection visa application indicated that the applicant had put forward the claims summarised by in the delegate’s decision, albeit with the applicant indicating that the harm he feared was not shaming his family, but having his life threatened by the money lender.
On 5 October 2023 the Tribunal emailed the applicant and advised him that his file was being prepared to be given to a Tribunal Member, and he was asked to assist the Tribunal by completing a ‘pre-hearing information form’ and to return this to the Tribunal in seven days. This the applicant did on 9 October 2023, and in so doing he indicated that: he wanted to have a hearing to give evidence and present arguments about his case; and: that his claims remained the same, with the applicant asking for protection so that he could return the loaned money.
On 24 January 2024 the Tribunal emailed the applicant and advised him that it had considered the material before it but was unable to make a favourable decision on this information alone. The Tribunal invited the applicant to appear before it on 28 February 2024 to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in his case. The Tribunal asked the applicant to complete a ‘Response to hearing invitation’ form and to return this within seven days, and to provide all documents he intended to rely on to support his case by 21 February 2024. On 26 January 2024 the applicant returned a completed ‘Response to hearing invitation’ form to the Tribunal in which he indicated that he would participate in the hearing scheduled for 28 February 2024, and that he did not intend to provide any further documents or propose any witnesses.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 28 February 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Indonesian and English languages. The Tribunal also put various concern to the applicant during the course of the hearing about his claims, and the applicant submitted responses to these, and he also requested a month within which to provide additional documentary evidence in support of his claims. The Tribunal gave an undertaking not to make a decision any earlier than 28 March 2024, while also indicating that anything which the applicant provided before a decision was made would be taken into consideration by the Tribunal.
The applicant provided further submissions to the Tribunal by email on 8 March 2024, and he submitted that this was documentary evidence that: debt collectors in Indonesia commit crimes when collecting debts; and: proof of payment of debt to lenders made by the applicant’s [sister]. Nothing further was provided by the applicant to the Tribunal, and he has given no indication that he wishes or intends to provide any further information or evidence to the Tribunal.
On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Criteria for protection visa
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs (the Department), and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
Receiving country
The applicant claims to be a citizen of Indonesia by birth, and to have been born in [specified year]. At the time the applicant was born Indonesia’s Law No. 62 of 1958 made citizenship of Indonesia available to: persons who at their birth have a legal family relationship with their father, a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia.[1] I note that the applicant has indicated both of his parents were citizens of Indonesia, and I have no reason to doubt this. I note also that Indonesia’s current citizenship law, Law No. 12 of 2006, left undisturbed the status of anyone who had by previous law already become citizens of the Republic of Indonesia.[2] At the February 2024 hearing he presented his original July 2019 Indonesia issued passport to the Tribunal for inspection and this confirms that the applicant was born in [year], and that his nationality is Indonesian.
[1] 'Law No. 62 of 1958, Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia (Unofficial translation)', Government of Indonesia, August 1958, CX271848; Harijanti, S.D. 'Report on Citizenship Law - Indonesia', GlobalCit, February 2017, CISEDB50AD5927.
[2] ‘Law No. 12 of 2006 on Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia', Government of Indonesia, August 2006, CIS20125; Harijanti, S.D. 'Report on Citizenship Law - Indonesia', GlobalCit, February 2017, CISEDB50AD5927.
I accept that the applicant is a citizen and a national of Indonesia, and I find Indonesia to be his receiving country for the purpose of this review.
Protection claims
As has been noted above, the delegate’s decision indicates that the applicant arrived in Australia in July 2015. Two years later, on 20 September 2017, the applicant lodged his application for a protection visa. In this, the applicant presented himself an ethnic Chinese Christian whose preferred language was Indonesian, and who was also literate in English, and who after being born in Lampung had resided his entire life in Indonesia in Jakarta, where he had completed a bachelor’s degree in [year] after which he worked in merchandising until 2011, when he became a procurement supervisor. He indicated he had both of his parents and [specified family members] residing in Indonesia, with whom he was in contact via WhatsApp. He claimed that his only previous international travel was to [Country 1] for a holiday for three days in January 2015, and that he had left Indonesia in July 2015 for Australia because he had had financial problems, and he had borrowed money and had gotten into a fight with a money lender who was connected to the Triad organised crime network, and that he feared returning to Indonesia because he would be hunted down by the money lenders who would threaten his life, and he believed the authorities would not be able to protect him as they had not assisted some of his friends who were in the same situation, and he could not relocate to seek safety because the Triad network was big in Indonesia.
I note that at the time the applicant lodged his protection visa application, and over subsequent years up to the present, there have been reports of persons experiencing varying degrees of harassment in Indonesia from debt collectors when that have not met loan repayments. There been occasional reports of abductions, and several instances of physical assaults (and/or of altercations which developed into a physical clash) or of the unlawful theft of the debtor’s property in lieu of payment but, more typically, reporting about debt collectors (who have resorted to abusive behaviour to compel payments) have reported instances of debt collectors threatening to shame the borrower by publicising information about their debts, or to publicly humiliate them in some other way, or in more extreme cases of making repeated harassing telephone calls or chasing borrowers, or making menacing visits to their home or workplace and/or threating to abduct or kill the borrower; and there have also been occasional reports of borrowers committing suicide as a result of suffering harassment of this kind.[3]
[3] Thee, M. ‘A Friendly Chat with Indonesia’s Toughest Debt Collector’, Vice, 15 February 2016, ; ‘Debt collectors kidnap teenager amid overdue motorcycle instalments’, Jakarta Post, 7 July 2018, ; Straits Times, ‘A call to the boss: Indonesia contends with aggressive Chinese online lenders;, 21 September 2018, ; 'Fighting Loan Sharks in Indonesia', Bamboo Microcredit, 17 August 2018, CXBB8A1DA33801; 'Indonesia’s online P2P loan sharks are driving people to suicide', South China Morning Post, 04 March 2019, 20200518210149; 'PT Indo Tekno Nusantara Raided, These Are the Facts about the Pinjol Collector', Detikom also Detik.com -Indonesia, 15 October 2021, 20240305183615; Mulia, K. 'Under presidential order, Indonesia is at war with online loan sharks', KrAsia, 25 October 2021, 20240305181848; 'Gen Z and Millennials Threatened with Civil “Death” due to Online “Loan Shark” Debt Trap', Apriyani, Infobanknews, 13 September 2023, 20240305191020; Nela, ‘Indonesian fintech borrower allegedly takes his life amid collection harassment’, Gutzy, 23 September 2023, ; Setiawan, Y.A. et al, ‘Legal Reconstruction Of Debt Collection By Debt Collector Services To Default Debtor Based On Justice Values’, International Journal of Business, Economics and Law, Vol. 28, Issue 3 (April), 2023, pp.200-201,
But it is not clear that it is typical for debt collectors in Indonesia to engage in abusive behaviour of this kind, as there are also reports of how debt collectors go about their business by visiting debtors to remind them of their repayment agreement and/or to negotiate some form of revised repayment program, and that although the man employed to do this may have an intimidating appearance (due to his size and/or tattoos or other features) he will never expressly threaten violence or harm of any kind;[4] and although there have been a number of reports of debt collectors engaging in abusive behaviour, it is also the case that millions of Indonesians are known to be in debt and facing difficulties in making repayments, often to illegal money lenders.[5] It should also be noted that, although police protection cannot be assumed in circumstances where Indonesian debt collectors do engage in abusive behaviour,[6] there have been regular reports of Indonesia’s police and other authorities taking action against entities engaging in such behaviour or which have otherwise been deemed to be operating in the manner of loan sharks and/or as an illegal lending operation.[7]
[4] Renaldi, A. ‘The Discrimination at the Heart of Indonesia’s Debt Collection Industry’, Vice, 2 July 2018, ; Nisaputra, R. ‘Welcome Debt Collectors: Debt Collectors Can Reap Rp484 T, Who Refuse to Pay?’, Infobanknews, 3 June 2021, ; BFI Finance, ‘This is it! How to Deal With Debt Collectors Properly and Correctly’, 29 May 2022, ; ‘Debt collectors: The other side of a misunderstood occupation’, Jakarta Post, 24 June 2022, ; Wisanggeni, S.P. et al, ‘Bees Sting Loan Customers and Debtors’, Kompas, 25 November 2023, ;
[5] 'Police Intensify Crack Downs on Illegal Online Lending Companies', Jakarta Globe, 15 October 2021, 20211015153327; 'Gen Z and Millennials Threatened with Civil “Death” due to Online “Loan Shark” Debt Trap', Apriyani, Infobanknews, 13 September 2023, 20240305191020; '331,000 Gen Zs and Millenials Trapped in Online Debt', Jakarta Globe, 06 December 2023, 20240305190158; Loasana, N.A. ‘Debt trap: Millions of Jakartans owe trillions to online lending platforms’, Jakarta Post, 10 July 2023,
[6] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia’, 24 July 2023, 20230724102537, 3.116-3.119.
[7] 'Indonesia tightens net on digital loan sharks', PwC, 29 September 2019, 20200518205509; 'Police Intensify Crack Downs on Illegal Online Lending Companies', Jakarta Globe, 15 October 2021, 20211015153327; Mulia, K. 'Under presidential order, Indonesia is at war with online loan sharks', KrAsia, 25 October 2021, 20240305181848; 'Gov't has zero tolerance for illegal online lending: minister', Antara, 11 February 2022, 20220221141553; 'Minister Setiadi commits to eradicating illegal loans, online gambling', Antara, 21 September 2023, 20240215094242; Antara, ‘Debt collectors must not violate law, propriety: OJK’, 27 February 2023,
Consistent with the above, in July 2023 DFAT assessed of the threat posed by loan sharks in Indonesia that it is difficult to assess generally whether harm would come to borrowers, and outcomes differ from case to case.[8]
[8] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia’, 24 July 2023, 20230724102537, 3.116-3.119.
As has been noted above, on 7 February 2018 the applicant lodged his application with the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision to refuse him a protection visa. The applicant did not, however, provide the Tribunal with any additional evidence or information about his matter (other than to reiterate in October 2023 that he maintained his claims) until he appeared before the Tribunal on 28 February 2024 to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in his case (and this 2024 hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Indonesian and English languages).
The hearing began with some clarifications. This established that reason the applicant had been born in Lampung was that this was where his parents originated from, and where members of his father’s family continued to reside. The applicant indicated that following this he had resided at several different locations in West Jakarta with his family before travelling to Australia, and that between [specified ages] he resided in Bali and completed a [Qualification 1]. He also indicated that prior to arriving in Australia he travelled to [Country 1] many times, and that he first went there at [age] for about six months (that is, for the second half of [year]) as part of his [training] and for his first paid employment, and then following this he went to [Country 1] two or three times for a holiday with his January 2015 trip being his most recent trip, and he had also been for a holiday to [Country 2] and [Country 3] when he was around [age] years of age (in around 2007). He said that in Indonesia he had first worked in retail at a supermarket ([between specified years]), and then at a [product 1] company (from around 2010 to 2013) where he worked in purchasing, and in Australia he worked as a house cleaner and after obtaining work rights he also worked for a [product 2] company. He indicated that his father had separated from his mother and was not residing in Surabaya, while his mother was still residing at the family home. He indicated that he had [specified family members] who were all residing at separate residences in Jakarta.
Asked if he had had any assistance with completing his protection visa application, the applicant said he had (the applicant indicated that although he could speak English his ability to read and write in English was limited). Asked if his protection visa application had been read back to him before it was submitted, the applicant said that it was. Asked if there was any information which had been submitted his protection visa application which he wished to correct, he said there was not.
Asked why he felt he could not return to Indonesia, the applicant submitted that in 2012 his mother had been diagnosed with [a medical condition], and that to pay for her treatment the family had borrowed a large amount of some three billion Indonesian Rupiahs, the equivalent of around AUD300,000. The applicant submitted that some of the money was borrowed from a bank, but some was borrowed from a money lender, and that if this money was not repaid it was going to be a big problem because a debt collector would come to his house, and so he had travelled to Australia (to be able to earn a higher wage) to help with repaying the debt, and with paying for his mother’s treatment. The debt was now smaller, and perhaps within two years it would be fully paid off, but if he returned to Indonesia before this was done, he would not be able to earn enough money to repay the debt, and he would face intimidation by debt collectors.
I asked the applicant whether his mother was still receiving treatment, and he said she was still receiving some chemotherapy. Asked to estimate how much money was loaned from the bank, the applicant said he did not know because he was only told about the total amount borrowed. Asked if any money was still owed to the bank, the applicant said all of this was organised by his [sister], [Sister A] (born [year]), so he did not know for sure, and all he knew was that there was still some money owed but he did not know if this was to the bank or the lender. Asked for the name of the bank form which the money was loaned, the applicant said that he did not know because his sister organised all of this and did not tell him. I asked the applicant whether [Sister A] had told him anything about who the other lender was. The applicant said that his sister did not want to tell the much because she did not want to worry them. I asked the applicant how much was still owed to the money lender. The applicant said he did not know exactly, but his sister said it was not that much anymore. The applicant repeated that maybe in around two years the debt would be fully paid. Even so, when I again asked the applicant whether his sister had given him an indication of around how much was owed, the applicant said she had not and she had just told him that the amount was not that huge anymore.
Thus, the applicant claimed to somehow be aware that that there was a remaining debt which would likely be paid off in two years, and yet he also claimed that he had no idea of even roughly how much money was owed or to who, even though he was also claiming to fear that the lenders involved were of a kind who would make use of intimidation as a debt collection tactic. I did not find this persuasive, and this at the outset has raised doubts about whether the applicant’s sister has a continuing debt of any significance, and/or about whether the applicant genuinely has a fear that he, and/or his sister and/or other family members, will be threatened with some kind of harm if repayments are not made as per the purported lender’s expectations.
Asked how much money he had sent back to Indonesia since his arrival in Australia, the applicant said that he did not send a fixed amount and this depended on his income, and in one month he might send 1,000 or in a good month he might send 4,000. I asked the applicant again to estimate how much money in total he had sent to Indonesia. He estimated between 140,000 to 160,000. I asked the applicant to explain exactly what it was he thought would happen if he had to return to Indonesia within a matter of months. The applicant said that the debt collector would come and look for him, and his family, if the debt could not be paid off. I asked the applicant to explain what it was he thought would happen in this regard. The applicant said he did not know, but that perhaps they might try to intimidate them by coming to his front door, or to his older sister’s office, or the office of [another relative]. Asked if he felt anything else would happen, the applicant said he was sure, but they would have many ways to intimidate them.
I asked the applicant whether it would be possible for him after returning to Indonesia to work there and continue contributing to paying off the debt. The applicant said that he could work in Indonesia, but the wages would be very small. Asked if other family members were contributing to repaying this debt, the applicant said they were but not as much as him because he was working overseas, and his siblings were married and had families, whereas he was single. Asked why he felt the debt collector would come looking for him, the applicant said this would happen because he would live at his parents’ home (his mother’s home in Jakarta). I put it to the applicant that the money was borrowed by his sister. The applicant now said that his sister had used his mother’s address for the loan, because the house his mother was living in was owned by his sister and was in her husband’s name. I did not find this persuasive, and I had the impression that the applicant was now disingenuously improvising explanations for why he would be targeted; moreover, and even if all of this were the case, I find it difficult to believe (and I find it difficult to believe that the applicant would believe) that a debt collector would focus their attention on whomever was residing at the address of the property owned by a borrower, rather than seeking out the borrower.
I asked the applicant why, if all this was actually the case, he could not just live somewhere else. The applicant said he did not think he could because his siblings all had a family so he could not live with them. Again, and I had the impression that the applicant was now improvising disingenuous explanations, since I find it difficult to believe that he genuinely considers that his accommodation options in Indonesia are limited to residing with his family members. In any event, I asked him why he could not find accommodation for himself as he had done in Australia. The applicant said that he could do this, but only if he did not need to think about his family anymore. Again, I did not find the persuasive. I pointed out that he could establish himself in Lampung where his father’s family resided, and he could live and work there and continue to send money to his family just as he said he was doing while here in Australia. The applicant said that when he last worked in Jakarta his salary was IDR6,000,000 or round AUD600, and so it would not be possible for him to move to a location where the standard of living was lower, and the reason he had moved to Australia was because it had a higher standard of living.
I explained to the applicant that in assessing his matter the first thing I would think not only about whether he would face a real chance or risk of serious or significant harm if he returned to the location he preferred, which in this case he had indicated would be Jakarta, but also about whether he faced a real chance or risk of serious or significant harm in all areas of his country. I explained that if he did not then he would not be a refugee, and if it would be reasonable for him to relocate to a location where he would not face a real risk of significant harm, then he would not meet the complementary protection criteria either. I asked the applicant whether he considered that he would be safe if he went to reside in either Lampung or Surabaya. The applicant agreed he would be safe in either of these locations.
I then asked the applicant whether he considered it would be reasonable for him to relocate to either of these locations, including whether there was any reason why he thought he might be unable to find employment and somewhere to reside. The applicant answered that he might not be able to do these things because he was not familiar with the areas (Lampung and Surabaya) and he was very old, and there were very narrow and limited opportunities in these areas. I put it to the applicant that he appeared to have worked in a range of different jobs, in a supermarket and in hospitality and cleaning. The applicant said that there were only small shops in these locations (Lampung and Surabaya), and all head offices were in Jakarta. I put it the applicant that it was my understanding that both Lampung and Surabaya were large cities, with a range of employment opportunities and, if he had information to the contrary, he should submit this to the Tribunal. I asked the applicant whether his relatives in Lampung or his father in Surabaya could assist him with establishing himself in these locations. The applicant said that all these persons were very old, and his father (in Surabaya) was [age range] and was residing with his younger wife. I asked the applicant whether his father might at least be able to assist him with some accommodation when he first arrived. The applicant agreed that his father could assist him with some temporary accommodation, but he submitted that his father could not assist him with any living costs.
The applicant did not provide any further evidence to the Tribunal about such matters in his subsequent submissions. Given this, and even if I were to accept the applicant’s claims about his sister in Jakarta having organised loan of AUD300,000 from a bank and a lender prior to his July 2015 arrival in Australia some 9 years ago, and that around two years of repayments is still owed, I would nonetheless not be satisfied that the applicant would face a real chance of harm outside of Jakarta. For it is now apparent that the applicant did not himself organise any such loan, nor was this money borrowed from lender connected to the Triad network, nor did the applicant get into a fight with this person; and as is apparent from the country information discussed above, not all money lenders in Indonesia threaten debtors with harm, and outcomes differ from case to case, and there is no evidence that the applicant’s sister owes money to a lender who would engage a debt collector who would threaten harm, and in any event it is difficult to believe that such a debt collector’s attention would move beyond the applicant’s sister to the applicant, and the applicant has himself agreed he would be safe from such attention if he were not in Jakarta. I am not satisfied that the applicant would face a real chance of harm in either Lampung or Surabaya, and so I am not satisfied that the applicant that the applicant would face a real chance of persecution which relates to all areas of a receiving country. On this basis, I am not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution.
Moreover, I would also not be satisfied that the applicant would face a real risk of harm in either Lampung or Surabaya, and with respect to the matter of whether relocation would be reasonable (I have focussed on the case of Surabaya in what follows) I note that, while the applicant has submitted that he is too old for this and he would be unfamiliar with these locations, he is in fact only some [age] years of age, and even allowing for the possibility that the applicant’s father might be unwilling to assist the applicant with anything other than initial accommodation in Surabaya (or even if the applicant’s father did not provided the applicant with any help at all) the applicant has previously demonstrated the ability to relocate to Bali for several years of education (and he has also established himself for periods of time working in both [Country 1] and Australia), and DFAT reports that Indonesian citizens are legally able to move and reside freely within all territories of the Republic of Indonesia, and Indonesians can and do relocate;[9] and Surabaya is known for being a location where informal work can be obtained without much difficulty.[10] The applicant has given no indication that he would need to be in Jakarta to assist his siblings with his mother in some manner other than making financial contributions to the family’s payment of a loan and payment for her medical treatment. The applicant has asserted that, if he were outside of Jakarta, he would be at a considerable disadvantage in terms of his earning potential, and thereby his ability to contribute to his family’s loan repayments, owing to lower wages and fewer opportunities elsewhere. I note, however, that Surabaya (the capital of East Java Province) is reported to be Indonesia’s second largest city with a population of 2.85 million people, and to have a diverse economy where residential, commercial, and hotel projects are experiencing increasing demand.[11] Some sources do indicate that average wages in Surabaya are slightly below those earned in Jakarta, but it is also reported that Surabaya has a lower cost of living than Jakarta;[12] and UN Habitat assesses that the minimum wage in Surabaya is relatively the same as in Jakarta, and that the standard of living in Surabaya is equivalent to that in Jakarta.[13] I note also that although Surabaya, like Jakarta, experiences some street crime it is (as elsewhere in Indonesia) reported to be generally safe, and although it faces challenges like all major cities with managing its infrastructure, it has all the basic services required to provide for a person’s day-to-day needs.[14] Given all this, I am satisfied that it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to Surabaya, an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.
[9] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia’, 24 July 2023, 20230724102537, 5.18.
[10] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia’, 24 July 2023, 20230724102537, 2.11.
[11] Aia Green, ‘Indonesia’s second-tier cities on the move’,
[12] Gosain, S. ‘A Comprehensive Guide to Wages, Working Hours, and Benefits In Indonesia’, Insights, 20 December 2023, ; Afifa, L. ‘BPS: Jakarta Has Highest Living Cost of at Nearly Rp15mn per Month’, Tempo, 12 December 2023,
[13] UN Habitat, ‘Surabaya City’s Voluntary Local Review’, 2021, p.61 DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia’, 24 July 2023, 20230724102537, 2.34; UN Habitat, ‘Surabaya City’s Voluntary Local Review’, 2021,
With respect to the question of whether the applicant would face any harm if he returned to Jakarta (that is from a debt collector if any difficulties were experienced in making repayments), I asked the applicant whether anything had happened in the past which led him to think that either he or other members of his family might be harmed if they had problems making repayments. The applicant said that all Indonesian people knew the risks, and that if you borrowed from the bank and you could not repay there were risks, and if you borrowed from a broker there were risks. Asked if he knew of anyone who had been harmed in this regard, the applicant said he had a neighbour who had ben unable to repay his credit card debt and had been harassed with people coming to his house every day and shouting at him, and almost every day he had been terrorised. Asked what happened to this person, the applicant said he did not know, he just heard people shouting in his neighbour’s house, and sometimes he saw his neighbour run away or leave early in the morning and return late at night. I asked if the applicant’ family had had any direct problems with either the bank or the money lender. The applicant said they had not because they had kept paying, and that he and all his siblings had been helping in repaying the debt.
I asked the applicant whether he could go to the police if he was affected by the problems his neighbour had had. The applicant said he could but in Indonesia the police were not like the police in Australia, and they would just write a report but would not take any action, and that the Indonesian police never helped people with matters like this. I asked the applicant if he was aware of reports that since 2018 Indonesia’s police had been enforcing a crackdown on informal only money lenders who harassed customers. The applicant said he was, but this was all just for appearances and that for every 100 criminals only one was arrested.
I put it to the applicant that in order to be a refugee the reason for the harm he feared would have to be either his race, his religion, his nationality, his membership of a particular social group, or his political opinion. I asked the applicant whether he felt that the harm he feared would be for such a reason. The applicant said he did not. I agreed, and I noted that if all if this was true, then the reason for the harm he feared would be that of compelling him to pay money (and I note that the applicant gave no indication that the reason he would be failed by state protection would be for reason of either his race, religion, nationality, his membership of a particular social group, or his political opinion). Given this, even if I were to accept the applicant’s claims, I would not be satisfied that he has a well-founded fear of persecution.
I put it to the applicant that to meet the complementary protection requirements he would have to face a real risk of certain kinds of harm which were very high levels of harm, and that these were, firstly: the death penalty, and being arbitrarily deprived of his life. I put it to the applicant that he did not appear to be claiming he was at risk of either of these first two types of significant harm, since the first was being executed by the state, and with regard to the latter he (the applicant) appeared to be claiming that he was a risk of harassment rather than being killed. The applicant agreed. I explained to the applicant that to meet the complementary protection requirements he would have to face a real risk of one of the remaining three types of significant harm, and that these were: torture; and: cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; and: degrading treatment or punishment. I explained that these involved a very high level of harm. I asked the applicant if he believed this was what would occur. The applicant replied: perhaps. I asked the applicant if there was anything he would like to add to his concerns about what he thought might happen to him in this respect. The applicant said that they might beat him up when he left the house, or kidnap him and torture him, because this was the way they intimidate people into paying.
I put it to the applicant that instances of person being physically harmed by debt collectors in Indonesia appeared to be unusual, and that to the extent that debt collectors did inflict harm on borrowers this appeared to more typically take the form of harassing telephone calls or menacing visits. I suggested to the applicant that he might wish to provide reporting about what he felt could happen in such circumstances.
The applicant subsequently provided three Indonesian language news reports and English translations for these. The first is dated 10 April 2023 and this relates that there had been a series of debt collector bashings in an area of South Tangerang (an area just to the southwest of Jakarta), and that police had arrested a total of eight persons who were suspected of being perpetrators of such incidents; including two debt collectors who were suspected of having assaulted a man in order to take control of his vehicle, which they had then attempted to steal. The next report is dated 23 December 2023 and this relates that there has been another incident wherein debt collectors had assaulted a man and then had stolen his vehicle (this time in South Tambun, which is just to the east of Jakarta), following which the victim of the assault and theft reported the matter to police who: will take action against the anarchic actions carried out by debt collectors which are increasingly disturbing residents. The third report appeared on 28 November 2023 relates that a resident of Ngargoyoso District had suffered a wound from an airsoft gun; with it being reported that debt collectors had come to a woman’s home to collect a debt instalment, and the woman’s husband had been annoyed by this because he considered that his wife had already made the payment, and this resulted in a verbal altercation and a commotion which saw an airsoft gun being fired at the husband. It was reported that police had identified who the perpetrator was and that he would face criminal charges. It was also reported that a lawyer who handles hundreds of online loans cases had said that the violent actions of debt collectors had resulted in loss of life several times.
It is apparent from the above, as per the country information I had considered already, that debt collectors in Indonesia can sometimes engage in violence. But as noted above, such incidents are not entirely representative of what occurs and, when abusive behaviour does occur, the broader country information I have considered suggests that it is more typical for debt collectors to engage in harassment and the threat of humiliating the debtor. Such behaviour could, of course, in certain circumstances involve the kind of intentionally inflicted pain or suffering (whether physical or mental) that would amount to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or even to torture in order to coerce payment; or it could (with respect to the threat of public shaming) in certain circumstances involve the kind of extreme humiliation which would amount to degrading treatment or punishment. However, as the applicant gave no indication that he had any reason to believe that the specific bank or lender his sister was dealing with had ever employed debt collectors who behaved in this way, and as he was no longer claiming to have himself directly borrowed money from a lender connected to the Triad network with whom he had gotten into a fight, and as many debt collectors in Indonesia go about their business without resorting to threatening debtors with harm, let alone inflicting harm, I cannot be satisfied that the applicant would face a real risk or chance of harm, let alone of significant or serious harm, if he were to return to Jakarta even if it were to be accepted that he and his family might face difficulties in meeting the repayments for the remainder of the loans organised by the applicant’s sister.
At the 2024 hearing I also put it to the applicant that it was a concern for me that he had been unable to provide any information about the identity of the parties from whom money was purported borrowed, or the exact amount which purportedly remained to be repaid; and that while he had indicated that this was all handled by his sister, I found it difficult to believe that he would not be aware of what these details were if all of this were true, particularly given that he claimed to have travelled to Australia and to have remained here in order to repay this purported debt. In response, the applicant submitted that his sister had done a lot for the family, and she had provided a place for the family to live, and it had never crossed his mind that his sister would lie or that she would be trying to cheat him. I did not find this a persuasive response, for whether or not the applicant does or does not have faith in his sister, I find it difficult to believe that the applicant would not have sought information from his sister about exactly how much money remained to be repaid, and who the money had been borrowed from, if he really was remaining in Australia for almost a decade to assist with repaying the last of a debt which originally totalled some AUD300,000, and if he really did have concerns that if he returned to Indonesia his family would face problems with repayments and would face harm from debt collectors as a result.
I then put it to the applicant that another concern was that the information he had provided during the hearing was different to that which he had provided in his written claims in his 2017 protection visa application, wherein he had claimed that he had gotten into a fight with a money lender. The applicant submitted that the [Country 2] man (who assisted the applicant with his protection visa application) had been exaggerating. I asked the applicant to explain why he had submitted this information if it was untrue. The applicant submitted that he (the applicant) had only told his [Country 2] friend a little information, and his friend had said he would do the rest, and because his (the applicant’s) English was poor he had not understood what had been submitted. I have not found this persuasive given that the applicant confirmed (at the outset of the hearing) that his 2017 protection visa application had been read back to him before it was submitted (and I note in this regard that there was minimal detail in the applicant’s 2017 written claims to protection, such that it is difficult to believe that the applicant was unaware of what was submitted in this regard).
I also put it to the applicant that in his written claims in his 2017 protection visa application he had also submitted that the money lender had connections with the Triad network, but he had said nothing about this during the 2024 hearing. The applicant submitted that all brokers had connections with debt collectors, and to thugs and Triads and Mafia. I put it to the applicant that the Triads were a very specific network,[15] and I asked again why he had claimed that the money lender was connected to the Triads. The applicant said that in Indonesia they did not refer to Triads but to preman, and that while westerners might think of Triads as a specific organisation, in Indonesia and Malaysia they used this as a way to refer to all mafia type thugs.[16] I have not found this persuasive, for in his 9 October 2023 submission to the Tribunal the applicant referred not just to Triads but to the Triad ‘network’, and that this Triad ‘network’ was big in Indonesia such that he could not escape them by relocating to another part of Indonesia (whereas, as has been discussed above, at the 2024 hearing he claimed to fear harm which was localised to Jakarta). Thus, in his 2017 protection visa application the applicant was plainly claiming that he feared a money lender who was associated with the Triad network, rather than referring to any kind of organised crime thug.
[15] Bancroft, T. A. ‘The Triads: Past and Present, in: Investigating the Grey Areas of the Chinese Communities in Southeast Asia, ed. A. Leveau, Institut de recherche sur l’Asie du Sud-Est contemporaine, 2007, ; Ksmpmi, A. ‘The Night Comes for Us - Triads in Jakarta?’, Medium, 6 February 2019,
[16] Wilson, I. ‘The rise and fall of a gangster’, Inside Indonesia, 26 July 2008,
I also put it to the applicant that in his written claims in his 2017 protection visa application he had also submitted that he had had a few friends who had had problems of this kind (from debt collectors) whereas at the 2024 hearing he had referred only to knowing about a neighbour who had such problems. I put it to the applicant that such difference suggested that neither claim was true and that these were fabrications. The applicant submitted that he did not know anything about what was written in his 2017 protection visa application, and his English was not very good at the time, and it was all done by his [Country 2] friend. For the reasons already given above, with respect to the claims made about the Triad network, I have not found this persuasive. I consider that the manner in which all of this has unfolded strongly suggests that the applicant’s claims to fear harm on the basis of debt obligations are not genuine, and that they are instead an evolving fabrication.
At the 2024 hearing I put it to the applicant that I would have to consider whether I could accept that his sister had actually borrowed money as he claimed. I asked the applicant whether he was able to provide any evidence which would establish that such a loan existed. The applicant said that this was something which was managed by his sister. The Tribunal indicated that it would undertake not to make a decision until after a specified date to ensure he could provide any evidence he wished in this regard, and the applicant asked for a month within which to do this, and the Tribunal agreed not to make a decision any earlier than 28 March 2024, and beyond this to consider any information or evidence which the applicant provided prior to a decision being made. Before the hearing concluded I asked the applicant if there was anything further which he wish to say. He said there was not, and the hearing concluded.
On 8 March 2024 the applicant emailed the Tribunal copies of three receipts issued by [Business 1] (which is reported to be a peer-to-peer (P2P) lending platform for of financial technology, or FinTech, which is registered with Indonesia’s Financial Services Authority);[17] and these present as loan instalments paid by the applicant’s sister on [dates in] December 2023, [January] 2024, and [February] 2024 each in the amount of Rp30,000,000 (around AUD3,000). I accept that the applicant’s sister did make loan repayments on these days to lender visa the [Business 1] payment system. The applicant has not, however, provided evidence to establish that an outstanding debt of any significance remains to be paid by his sister, and I do not accept that there is a significant amount of debt which remains to be paid in this regard. Moreover, given how little interest the applicant has taken in the specifics of this loan, and given how his evidence has changed over time with respect to his purported fears, I do not accept that the applicant ever genuinely feared that his sister had borrowed this money from a lender who (should he family ever had ever been problems with repaying such a debt), would engage a debt collector who would threaten his sister or himself or anyone else in the family with harm.
[17] Jakarta Post, ‘P2P lending platforms distributed loans worth RP 20t in 2018: OJK’, 10 January 2019, ;
Given this, and given that the applicant has given no indication that he fears harm for any other reason were he to return to Indonesia, I am not satisfied that the applicant would face either a real chance of harm of any kind for any reason, or a real risk of harm of any kind for any reason, no matter whether he returned to live with his mother in Jakarta or anywhere else in Indonesia. I am therefore not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution which relates to all areas of his receiving country; and I am not satisfied that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to his receiving country, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under either s.36(2)(a) or under s.36(2)(aa).
For completeness, there is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Date of hearing: 9 April 2024
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a) severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b) pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d) arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b) that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a) for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b) for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c) for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d) for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e) for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a) a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b) if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a) in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b) in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note: For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a) the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b) there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c) the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note: For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note: For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a) conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b) conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c) without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a) that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b) the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c) the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a) a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b) significant physical harassment of the person;
(c) significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d) significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e) denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f) denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a) a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b) the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c) any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d) the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b) the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a) the person can access the protection; and
(b) the protection is durable; and
(c) in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36 Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a) a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a) the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b) the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c) the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d) the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e) the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a) it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b) the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c) the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…
0
0
0