1813018 (Refugee)

The applicant, an Indonesian citizen, sought a Protection visa in Australia after his Visitor visa ceased. He claimed to fear harm upon return to Indonesia due to threats from a government officer involved in corruption, who had allegedly arranged his travel to Australia and was holding his family. The Department refused his application, finding he did not meet the definition of a refugee and that Australia did not owe him complementary protection, as Indonesia possessed a functioning legal system.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa, either as a refugee under section 5H of the Act or under the complementary protection provisions of section 36(2)(aa). This involved assessing the applicant's claims of fear of harm from a government official and considering whether such fear constituted a real risk of significant harm, taking into account the applicant's nationality and the country of reference, Indonesia.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision. It found that the applicant's claims did not establish him as a refugee under section 5H, as he did not claim to fear harm based on race, religion, nationality, or membership of a particular social or political group. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Indonesia, the applicant would suffer significant harm. The Tribunal noted that Indonesia had a functioning police force and judicial system, and the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate he could not access protection within Indonesia, despite his claims about the corrupt official's influence. The applicant's evidence regarding the nature and persistence of the threats, and his inability to relocate or seek alternative employment, was found to be vague and lacking in credibility.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the protection visa application.