1811074 (Refugee)

The applicant, an Indonesian national, sought review of a decision to refuse him a protection visa. He had arrived in Australia in September 2015 and applied for the visa in January 2018, having previously had an invalid protection visa application. The applicant's stated reason for leaving Indonesia was economic hardship and debt, claiming he had no job and had to borrow money from family and friends. He also stated he did not fear harm upon return to Indonesia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically under section 36(2)(a) (as a refugee) or section 36(2)(aa) (complementary protection) of the Migration Act 1958. This required determining if he had a well-founded fear of persecution or if there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Indonesia. The court also considered the applicant's background and the consistency of his claims, particularly regarding his employment history and travel.

The court found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for being a refugee under section 36(2)(a) as he had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution. Furthermore, the court determined that he did not meet the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). Despite his claims of significant debt, the applicant had not provided evidence of suffering harm in the past or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Indonesia. His claims of economic problems and debt were not considered to constitute a real risk of significant harm as defined by the Act, particularly as he had not claimed to have suffered any past harm from money lenders and had indicated he would not be harmed or mistreated upon return. The court also noted inconsistencies in his account of his employment and travel history.

Consequently, the court affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, as he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958.