1803261 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual who claimed to fear persecution in Indonesia. The applicant sought review of a decision made by the Department of Home Affairs. The case was heard by Member Rachel Da Costa of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as a refugee, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) as a person facing significant harm under the complementary protection provisions. The Tribunal was required to assess whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm, considering the evidence and claims presented.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had elected to have the decision made "on the papers" without a hearing, meaning the Tribunal's assessment was limited to the information and evidence previously provided. The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims lacked sufficient detail and substance in several respects. For instance, details regarding the applicant's restaurant business, the alleged bribery of government officers, the nature and organisation of demonstrations attended, and the circumstances of claimed arrests and detentions were not adequately substantiated. Without the opportunity to explore these claims further in a hearing, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.

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