1806772 (Refugee)

The case concerned an applicant seeking a protection visa, who claimed to be a member of a particular social group as a Buddhist woman in Indonesia who had experienced sexual abuse and ongoing threats of serious harm from a perpetrator. The applicant argued that she had no family support, was unable to relocate within Indonesia, and faced a real chance of serious harm if returned, with no effective state protection available. The decision was made by Senior Member Jason Pennell.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), specifically whether she would, if removed from Australia to Indonesia, have substantial grounds for fearing that she would suffer serious harm. This required the Tribunal to assess the credibility of the applicant's claims of past sexual assault and ongoing threats, her inability to relocate, and the availability and effectiveness of state protection in Indonesia.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence that she had been sexually assaulted and was subsequently threatened by the perpetrator, who continued to contact her despite her attempts to relocate and change her contact details. It found that the applicant was unable to relocate to avoid the real chance of serious harm. Drawing on country information, the Tribunal concluded that state protection in Indonesia was inconsistent and ineffective, particularly for women who are victims of sexual assault, citing issues such as police distrust, lack of training, corruption, and a tendency for police to encourage victims to return to abusers. The Tribunal found that the Indonesian National Police would not offer effective protection to the applicant due to her membership in a particular social group.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that if the applicant were removed to Indonesia, there was a real chance she would suffer serious harm as a woman who had experienced sexual assault. Therefore, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant met the criterion set out in section 36(2)(a) of the Act and remitted the matter for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant satisfied this criterion.