1811745 (Refugee)

The applicant, an Indonesian national, sought review of a decision by the Refugee Tribunal to affirm the refusal of her protection visa application. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Indonesia, based on claims relating to her conversion to Christianity, property disputes with her late husband's family, past experiences of sexual harassment and exploitation as a widow, and financial difficulties.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, specifically whether she was a refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution due to her religion or membership of a particular social group, or under section 36(2)(aa), whether there were substantial grounds for believing she would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. The definition of "significant harm" under section 36(2A) was also a key consideration, encompassing arbitrary deprivation of life, the death penalty, torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, and degrading treatment or punishment.

The Tribunal, presided over by Member Patricia Tyson, considered extensive country information regarding the treatment of Christians and single women in Indonesia, alongside the applicant's detailed personal claims. While accepting that the applicant had faced some difficulties, including property disputes, past sexual harassment, and pressure from relatives regarding inheritance, the Tribunal found that these circumstances did not amount to a real chance of persecution or significant harm as defined by the Act. The Tribunal noted that while religious discrimination and societal stigma for single women existed, they did not reach the threshold of serious harm. Similarly, past incidents of sexual harassment and attempted rape were not considered to pose a real risk of future harm, particularly given the applicant's remarriage and the passage of time. The Tribunal also found that the applicant's financial difficulties were largely attributable to her inability to work in Australia and did not present a real risk of her capacity to subsist in Indonesia.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, concluding that she did not satisfy the criteria for being a refugee or for protection on the grounds of significant harm. The Tribunal found no real chance of persecution or significant harm in the reasonably foreseeable future in Indonesia, even when considering the cumulative effect of the matters raised by the applicant.