1807969 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Department to refuse a protection visa. The applicant, who was born in Indonesia of Chinese ethnicity, arrived in Australia in December 2016 and applied for the visa in March 2017. He claimed to have left Indonesia due to discrimination and violence from Muslim Indonesians, who allegedly beat him, threatened his life, and demanded money because of his ethnicity. The applicant also stated that the police offered no protection and advised him to avoid Muslims, and that he could not find safety elsewhere in Indonesia. The delegate refused the visa in February 2018, and the applicant sought review. The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal that he did not wish to attend a hearing and consented to a decision being made on the papers.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This involved assessing whether 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 whether there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia. The court also considered whether the applicant was a member of the same family unit as a person who met these criteria.

The court affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant had not provided sufficient material to establish his claims. The court noted that it is the applicant's responsibility to specify all particulars of their protection claims and provide sufficient evidence. In this instance, the applicant had not satisfied the burden of proof required to demonstrate a real chance of persecution or a real risk of significant harm in Indonesia. Consequently, the court was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant.

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