1813531 (Refugee)

[2025] ARTA 1426

1813531 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1426 (20 MARCH 2025)

DECISION AND  

REASONS FOR DECISION

Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number:  1813531

Tribunal:General Member M. Tubridy

Date:20 March 2025

Place:Sydney

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.

Statement made on 20 March 2025 at 4:12pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – Protection Visa – Indonesia – race – ethnically Chinese – fear of being harmed or killed by native Indonesians – a physical altercation with a person at work – some low-level societal discrimination – not satisfied that the applicant faces a real risk of serious or significant harm – not satisfied the applicants have a well-founded fear – credibility concerns – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024

Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 46, 65, 91, 499

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 13 April 2018 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   Criteria for protection visa

2. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

3. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.

4. A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).

5. Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

6. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

   Mandatory considerations

7. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs (the Department), and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

   REASONS AND FINDINGS

   Receiving Country

8. The first named applicant (hereafter [Mr A]) and the second named applicant (hereafter [Ms B]) present as a husband and wife, and as citizens of Indonesia who were born in Indonesia to parents who were themselves citizens of Indonesia (with [Mr A] born [year]; and [Ms B] born [year]). I note that at the time the applicants were born Indonesia’s Law No. 62 of 1958 made citizenship of Indonesia available to persons born from a marriage in which the father was a citizen of Indonesia;[1] and I note that Indonesia’s current citizenship law, Law No. 12 of 2006, left undisturbed the status of anyone who had by previous law already become citizens of the Republic of Indonesia.[2] I note also that the applicants have presented their respective Indonesian passports to the Tribunal and these present them both as nationals of Indonesia; and [Mr A]’s passport lists him as born in [year] in [City 1]; which I note is located in Riau [Province],[3] and [Ms B]’s passport lists her as born in [year] in [Pekalongan].[4]

   [1] 'Law No. 62 of 1958, Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia (Unofficial translation)', Government of Indonesia, August 1958, CX271848; Harijanti, S.D. 'Report on Citizenship Law - Indonesia', GlobalCit, February 2017, CISEDB50AD5927.

   [2] ‘Law No. 12 of 2006 on Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia', Government of Indonesia, August 2006, CIS20125; Harijanti, S.D. 'Report on Citizenship Law - Indonesia', GlobalCit, February 2017, CISEDB50AD5927.

   [3] [source deleted]

   [4] [deleted]

9. I accept that the applicants are citizens and nationals of Indonesia, and I find Indonesia to be their receiving country for the purpose of this review.

   Protection Claims

   15 December 2017 protection visa application

10. The applicants arrived in Australia on [date] May 2017 as the holders of tourist visas. These expired on [date] August 2017. On 15 December 2017 the applicants lodged their protection visa application. They indicated that their preferred language was Indonesian, and that they would require an interpreter if invited to an interview, but they also indicated that they were both literate in English and that they had received no assistance with completing their application. They provided a contact email address in the name of the first named applicant (this being: [email]; hereafter the [Mr A] email address). Their application attached copies of their respective Indonesian passports, but they otherwise provided no supporting documentary evidence.

11. In response to the questions in the protection visa application form, [Mr A] indicated that he was ethnically Chinese, and that prior to his arrival in Australia he had resided over the preceding 20 years in [Subdistrict 1] in [a] [District] [Country 1].[5] He indicated that he completed high school in 2003, and that he then worked in [a] shop until 2010. From 2010 he worked as a [Occupation 1] for [a] company until December 2016. From [Mr A]’s August 2014 passport (and its various visas, visit passes, and its many exit and entry stamps), it is apparent that between August 2014 to May 2017 [Mr A] spent as much time abroad and/or at sea as he did in Indonesia; and that he was briefly onshore in [a country] in April 2015 (on a temporary residence permit), and in [a country] in January 2015 and again in April 2016 (on two maritime visas), and in [Country 1] on multiple occasions (on visit passes). The delegate’s decision indicates that [Mr A] was also onshore in Australia for three days in December 2014 and for eight days in March 2015, and that on each occasion this was as the holder of a maritime visa. Some, though not all, of this travel is listed in the travel table of [Mr A]’s December 2017 protection visa application.

    [5] [deleted]

12. [Ms B] indicated that she was ethnically Indonesian, and that (like her husband) she had resided over the preceding 20 years in [Subdistrict 1] (that is, in Batam City). In her education and employment tables she indicated that after completing junior high school in 2000 she worked in a [store] until May 2017. In her travel table she indicated that she had travelled to [countries] for a few days in January 2017, and that in April 2017 she spent two days in [Country 1].

13. Only [Mr A] raised protection claims. In doing so he submitted that he had left Indonesia to avoid the risk of being harmed or killed by native Indonesians because he was Chinese Indonesian. He claimed to have experienced discrimination in school when he was young, and that in 2009 he had a fight in his shop with a native Indonesian customer who was stealing things, and that this person’s parents were leaders of a local native Indonesian group, and these parents came to [Mr A]’s home and asked for money because [Mr A] had injured their son. [Mr A]’s parents gave them all the money they had but, a few days later, these persons came back again, accompanied by a group of native Indonesians, and asked for more money. [Mr A]’s parents did not have more money and the native Indonesians smashed the furniture and everything in [Mr A]’s family’s home. They then took [Mr A] away and put him in dark room and beat him up and threatened to kill him because he was Chinese. Following this [Mr A] had panic attacks and was depressed. The police refused to help him. His parents got him job on a cruise ship to recover from mental illness. But he could not continue to work on cruise ships all his life, so he sought asylum in Australia. [Mr A] claimed to fear return to Indonesia because of the discrimination and racism he would suffer from native Indonesians, and which would put his life in danger. He claimed that the Indonesian government covers up the racism in Indonesia, and that police will not help ethnic Chinese, and that he would not feel safe living in Indonesia.

14. On 5 January 2018 the Department emailed the applicants (via the [Mr A] email address) and notified them that their protection visa application had been deemed to be valid, and that they had thus been issued a bridging visa which would allow them to remain lawfully in Australia while their application was considered. They were advised that they must present at the Department’s Sydney office in person on 27 February 2018 to provide their personal identifiers (biometric information in the form of fingerprints and being photographed); and if they did not their visa application would be invalid, and their associated bridging visas would cease within 35 calendar days. They were also advised that a decision on their protection visa application could now be made at any time based on the information they had provided and without another opportunity for them to present any further information at an interview. They were advised that they could submit any further information which they would like considered by the Department with respect to their protection claims. They were also requested to provide (within 28 days) a fully completed Part C of their application form (the applicants had provided no details whatsoever about what living or deceased family members they had; and [Mr A] had only entered some of the details of his travel history).

15. A Departmental document indicates that on 27 February 2018 the applicants presented at the Department’s Sydney office in person and provided their personal identifiers. As a consequence, their protection visa application and their associated bridging visas remained valid. But the applicants did not provide the Department with any further information with respect to the request that they complete their protection visa application forms, nor did they provide any further information in support of the protection claims made by [Mr A].

    13 April 2018 delegate’s decision

16. On 13 April 2018 the delegate refused to grant the applicants protection visas. The delegate considered that country information indicated that effective protection measures were available to ethnic Chinese Indonesians in Indonesia; and that, given this, [Mr A] would not face a real chance of persecution in Indonesia for reason of being ethnically Chinese, or a real risk of significant harm. On 13 April 2018 the Department notified the applicants (via the [Mr A] email address) that their application for a protection visa had been refused, and that they could apply to the Tribunal for a merits review of this decision. They were advised that they had 28 days to do so, and that (unless they applied for review within 28 days) their bridging visas would cease in 35 calendar days.

    10 May 2018 review application

17. On 10 May 2018 the Tribunal received an application for review of the decision to refuse the applicants a protection visa. This attached a copy of the delegate’s decision and the associated refusal notification of 13 April 2018. The application for review provided a new contact email address for the applicants (with this being: [emai]; hereafter the LN email address), but the applicants gave no indication that they were appointing an authorised recipient, or that they were receiving assistance from a third party.

18. On 11 May 2018 the Tribunal emailed the applicants (at the LN email address) and advised them that their application had been received. This notification also provided the applicants with information about the Tribunal’s processes, and it advised them that if they wished to provide material or written arguments for the Tribunal to consider, they should do so as soon as possible. Nothing was received from the applicants in response to this request.

19. On 1 May 2019 the Tribunal received an email from the LN email address. The transmission details for this presented the LN email address as belonging to [Ms B]. The email itself presented as having been authored by [Mr A], and it requested a letter from the Tribunal to enable him and his wife to apply for access to Australia’s Medicare universal health insurance scheme. On 1 May 2019 the Tribunal issued a letter to the applicants (via the LN email address) for this purpose (that is, which confirmed for Medicare that the applicant’s had an application for review before the Tribunal).

20. On 10 November 2023 the Tribunal emailed the applicants (via the LN email address) and advised them that their file was now being prepared to be given to a Tribunal member. They were asked to assist the Tribunal by completing a ‘pre-hearing information form’ and returning this to the Tribunal within 7 days. The applicants did not respond to this request.

21. On 5 February 2024 the Tribunal emailed the applicants (via the LN email address) and advised them that it had considered the material before it but was unable to make a favourable decision on this information alone. They were invited to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in their case at a hearing scheduled for 19 March 2024. They were asked to complete the enclosed ‘Response to hearing invitation’ form and to return this to the Tribunal within seven days. The applicants were also advised that if they did not appear at the hearing the Tribunal might make a decision on the review without taking any further action to allow or enable them to appear before it, and that the Tribunal might dismiss their application without any further consideration of their application. The applicants did not complete and return the ‘Response to hearing invitation’ form, nor did they give the Tribunal any indication that they intended to attend the hearing listed for 19 March 2024. However, on 19 March 2024 the applicants appeared before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments. Before considering what was discussed, it is convenient to discuss what the available country information indicates about the situation of Chinese Indonesians.

    Country information background

22. Indonesia is one of the world’s most ethnically diverse countries and, although Indonesians of Chinese descent are estimated to comprise only around 1.2 percent of the population (compared to 40 percent for the Javanese, and 15 percent for the Sundanese),[6] successive waves of immigration to Indonesia from China have resulted in well-established ethnically Chinese Indonesian communities throughout the country.[7]

    [6] Coppel, C.A. ‘Reassessing assumptions about Chinese Indonesians’, Indonesia at Melbourne, 26 October 2017, ; DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia’, 24 July 2023, 20230724102537, 3.1, 3.6.

    [7] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia’, 24 July 2023, 20230724102537, 3.2.

23. DFAT has reported of Indonesia that it is not aware of a pattern of incidents of official discrimination based on race or ethnicity. The only apparent exception to this is a situation specific to locality of Yogyakarta; a special administrative region run as a sultanate where members of communities deemed non-native are restricted from owning property in certain locales.[8] Problems of this kind were once more widespread. In the 1960s and 70s Chinese Indonesians were, under the New Order regime of President Suharto, forbidden from speaking Chinese languages publicly, practicing certain cultural traditions, or even using Chinese names (as part of an effort to compel assimilation). But since the end of the New Order regime in 1998, successive governments have removed official policy measures discriminating against ethnically Chinese Indonesians. Chinese New Year is now a national public holiday, Confucianism is an officially recognised religion, Chinese-language newspapers are published, and there are no barriers to Chinese cultural celebrations or education.[9] Indonesia’s recent governments have promoted racial tolerance, and legislation prohibiting racial discrimination and vilification has been in force since 2008.[10]

    [8] DFAT, 'DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia', 25 January 2019, 20190125124336, 3.12; Prayoga, T. ‘Not Just Expats, But ‘Non-native’ Locals Are Not Allowed to Own Land In Yogyakarta’, Indonesia Expat, 13 October 2016, ; Tania, R.A. & I. Satriawan, ‘Discriminatory policy of land ownership of the Chinese in the special region of Yogyakarta in constitutional and local regulation perspective’, E3S Web of Conferences, 2021,

    [9] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia’, 24 July 2023, 20230724102537, 3.7; Soedirgo, J. ‘Exploring forced assimilation: the resilience of Chinese Indonesians’, University of Amsterdam, 13 November 2024,

    [10] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia’, 24 July 2023, 20230724102537, 3.4-3.5.

1. With respect to societal issues, DFAT and other sources report that some low-level ethnic discrimination continues to occur in Indonesia (such as stereotypes and the use of racist slurs), and that Chinese Indonesians can experience societal discrimination in the form of negative stereotypes that portray them as not only wealthy but greedy, and/or as criminals, and/or as being associated with China and its policies (and discrimination of this type reportedly increased around the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic due to the extensive media coverage of China and various claims about the origins of the virus at the time).[11] It is also the case that Chinese Indonesians continue to be seen by many other Indonesians as a non-native community (unlike largely Muslim ethnic communities like the Javanese and Sundanese, who are collectively referred to as the ‘inlanders’ or: pribumi), and consequently Chinese Indonesians may experience such slurs as being told that they do not belong in Indonesia and/or that they should go home to China.[12] But, generally speaking, reports of Chinese Indonesians experiencing more serious and significant kinds of harm have been rare in recent decades and, even though some societal prejudice persists, Chinese Indonesians now much more accepted as part of Indonesian’s national culture;[13] and although most Indonesians continue to marry within their own ethnic community, marriages between Indonesian Chinese and pribumi Indonesians are increasingly commonplace and accepted.[14]

   [11] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia’, 24 July 2023, 20230724102537, 3.4-3.5, 3.9, 3.11; Dhaneswara, N. ‘Minority Feelings: Chinese Ethnic In Indonesia’, ICSHA, April 2023, pp.39-41, ; Muhtadi, B. et al , ‘The Indonesia National Survey Project 2022’, ISEAS, 2023, pp.46-49, 59; ; Setijadi, C. ‘Chinese Indonesians in the Eyes of the Pribumi Public’, ISEAS, 27 September 2017, ; Herlijanto, J. ‘How Indonesia’s pribumi elite view the ethnic Chinese today’, Today Online, 6 August 2016,

   [12] Setijadi, C. ‘Chinese Indonesians in the Eyes of the Pribumi Public’, ISEAS, 27 September 2017, ; Indrayana, D. ‘Pribumi: making sense of a troubled term’, Indonesia At Melbourne, 24 October 2017, ; Arbi, I.A. ‘Chinese-Indonesians still feel like outsiders’, Jakarta Post, 24 January 2020,

   [13] Soedirgo, J. ‘Exploring forced assimilation: the resilience of Chinese Indonesians’, University of Amsterdam, 13 November 2024, ; Chen, J. ‘Representing Chinese Indonesians: Pribumi Discourse and Regional Elections in Post-Reform Indonesia’, Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 41(1), 2021, ; Anggraeni, D. ‘Chinese Indonesians after May 1998 How they fit in the big picture’, Wacana, Journal of the Humanities of Indonesia: Vol.18:No.1, 2017, ; Setijadi, C. ‘Chinese Indonesians in the Eyes of the Pribumi Public’, ISEAS, 27 September 2017,

   [14] Yulianto, J.E. et al, ‘Navigating tensions in inter-ethnic marriages in Indonesia: Cultural, relational, spatial and material considerations’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, January 2022, ; Ibrahim, R. ‘Marrying into Chinese-Indonesian families: Stories of interethnic relationships’, Jakarta Post, 30 January 2022, ; Adi, G.N. “‘Ampyang” marriage and Javanese-ethnic Chinese coexistence in Surakarta’, Jakarta Pot, 9 February 2019, ; Utomo, A. ‘Contemporary Indonesian marriage: who marries whom and why it matters’, Indonesia At Melbourne, 5 November 2019, ; Muhtadi, B. et al , ‘The Indonesia National Survey Project 2022’, ISEAS, 2023, pp.49, 59,

2. The situation in Indonesia was very different under the New Order regime of President Suharto whose rule ended after the major outbreak of anti-Chinese violence which occurred in May 1998. Over the preceding year the then Asian Financial Crisis was causing high rates of inflation, and escalating the price of basic goods, and this resulted in rising resentment on the part of consumers towards retail businesses and, in particular, the ethnic Chinese (who, although they only amounted to around two percent of the population, were estimated to control as much as 80 percent of the country's private-sector commerce, from small shops to distribution networks to giant banks). The Suharto government did little to correct the misperception that such traders were to blame, being eager to fend off an increasingly hostile public. In January and February 1998 rumours about shop-owners hoarding food, and imminent price rises, caused a panic which boiled over into food riots largely against ethnic Chinese traders. It has been observed that: By the time the political crisis reached its peak in early to mid-May 1998, the groundwork had been laid for heightened anti-Chinese sentiment and a normalising of violence against this group as a legitimate expression of dissatisfaction. The resulting riots of May 1998 saw the murder of more than 1,000 people trapped in shopping malls which had been set alight, and an estimated 100-plus women raped and sexually assaulted, with most of the victims being ethnic Chinese, and with it being widely suspected that Suharto’s regime may have purposefully done little to contain the initial outbreaks of violence. Several locations were affected including Solo, Surabaya, Medan, Palembang and Lampung, and with most of the violence occurring in Jakarta.[15]

   [15] Purdey, J. ‘Could violence against the ethnic Chinese in Indonesia happen again?’, University of Melbourne, 9 May 2018, ethnic-chinese-in-indonesia-happen-again/ ; ‘Final Report of the Joint Fact-Finding Team (TGPF) on the May 13-15 1998 Riot', 23 October 1998, CX34577; 'Some Indonesian Chinese wary of Prabowo Subianto amid painful memories of 1998 riots', South China Morning Post, 22 February 2024, 20240715122931; Glionna, J.M. 'In Indonesia, 1998 violence against ethnic Chinese remains unaddressed', Los Angeles Times, 03 July 2010, CX245920; Richburg, K.B. 'Ethnic Chinese - Indonesia's scapegoats', Washington Post, 23 December 1998, CX34579; and more recently, see: Kusumabrata, A. ‘Essay: What remains of the 1998 tragedy for the post-1998 generation’, Inside Indonesia, 27 June 2024,

3. By contrast, Batam and the Riau Islands did not experience any such violence, and during May 1998 many ethnic Chinese from Jakarta and other cities in Java took refuge in Batam.[16] It has been observed of the Riau Islands Province that its ethnic Chinese community have come to be uniquely secure for a number of reasons; including its size (which at around 8.5% of the province’s total population represents the highest proportion of ethnic Chinese of any province in Indonesia), and its location (their existence as borderland people located in close proximity to ethnic Chinese Singapore, and far from Indonesia’s capital of Jakarta, has meant that the Riau Islands Chinese have been relatively sheltered from past anti-Chinese sentiments at the national level, and the state’s past assimilation efforts).[17]

   [16] Setijadi, C. ‘“We are people of the Islands”: Translocal belonging among the ethnic Chinese of the Riau Islands’, Asian Ethnicity, 2022, p.11, Setijadi, C. ‘“We are people of the Islands”: Translocal belonging among the ethnic Chinese of the Riau Islands’, Asian Ethnicity, 2022, p.2,

4. May 1998 is widely considered to have been a watershed moment in the history of Indonesia, and in subsequent decades societal views about Chinese Indonesians have become more sympathetic, alongside the adoption of a series of more accommodative policies toward this group by post-New Order governments.[18] Even so, anti-minority sentiment may be heightened during election campaigns and at other sensitive times, even though in recent years Chinese Indonesians have increasingly won political office and have done so with support from Indonesia’s mainstream Muslim communities.[19] Extremist elements remain an occasional problem in this regard, and the most recent significant examples of this manifested in two events which took place in 2016. The first of these occurred in a town in North Sumatra where small-scale local riots were caused by an allegation of blasphemy against a Chinese Indonesian woman who had complained about the volume of the loudspeaker of a local mosque. Rumours circulated that she had been trying to ban the mosque’s call to prayer, and an angry mob of local Muslims ransacked and/or destroyed some local Buddhist temples, and also a number of local Chinese owned businesses (with some reports relating that resentment towards the wealth of local Chinese had played a role in this). A number of the rioters were arrested and prosecuted and imprisoned but, concerningly, the Chinese Indonesian woman was also prosecuted for blasphemy against Islam.[20] The latter part of 2016 saw another incident of concern when hundreds of thousands of protesters demonstrate in Jakarta on several occasions to demand the detention of the Christian and Chinese-Indonesian Governor of Jakarta, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (often referred to as ‘Ahok’), after he was arrested for allegedly insulting Islam. However, and although violence between protesters and police was reported, there was no violence against ordinary citizens, as occurred in 1998.[21]

   [18] Chen, J. ‘Representing Chinese Indonesians: Pribumi Discourse and Regional Elections in Post-Reform Indonesia’, Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 41(1), 2021, ; Anggraeni, D. ‘Chinese Indonesians after May 1998 How they fit in the big picture’, Wacana, Journal of the Humanities of Indonesia: Vol.18:No.1, 2017, ; Herlijanto, J. ‘How Indonesia’s pribumi elite view the ethnic Chinese today’, Today Online, 6 August 2016, ;

   [19] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia’, 24 July 2023, 20230724102537, 3.11; Mulyanto, R. ‘“Fix it from within”: More Chinese Indonesians chase seats in parliament’, Al Jazeera, 13 February 2024, ; and more recently, see: Faridz, D. ‘A growing number of Chinese Indonesians are winning political offices’, VOA, 15 May 2024, 20240715121555; Mulyanto, R. & C.K. Roeslie, 'Chinese Indonesians reflect on life 25 years from Soeharto’s fall', Aljazeera, 24 May 2023, 20230525125341; Suryana, A. ‘Why Identity Polarisation Mattered Less in Indonesia’s 2024 Presidential Election’, Fulcrum, 8 May 2024, ; Chen, J. ‘Representing Chinese Indonesians: Pribumi Discourse and Regional Elections in Post-Reform Indonesia’, Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 41(1), 2021, ; Herlijanto, J. ‘How Indonesia’s pribumi elite view the ethnic Chinese today’, Today Online, 6 August 2016,

   [20] DFAT, 'DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia', 25 January 2019, 20190125124336, 3.12; USDOS, ‘Indonesia 2018 International Religious Freedom Report’, 21 June 2019, 20190626141217, pp.8-9; Mulyartono, S. et al ‘How did a complaint about a mosque loudspeaker end up in a blasphemy conviction?’, Indonesia At Melbourne, 4 September 2018, ; Tehusijarana, K.M. & A. Gunawan, ‘The Meiliana Case: How a noise complaint resulted in an 18-month jail sentence’, Jakarta Post, 23 August 2018, ; 'Supreme Court rejects Buddhist woman’s appeal of blasphemy verdict ', Jakarta Post, The, 08 April 2019, 20200910154517.

   [21] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia’, 24 July 2023, 20230724102537, 3.8; Associated Press, ‘Indonesia Protests Awaken Fears for Minority Chinese’, Irrawaddy, 1 December 2016, ; Emok, J.           'Chinese-Indonesian Governor’s Struggles Worry Some in His Ethnic Group', New York Times, 11 February 2017, CXC9040661654.

5. Even so, and while anti-Chinese violence has otherwise been low since the events of May 1998, memories of the crisis have caused continued anxiety amongst many members of the Chinese Indonesian community, exacerbated by events such as the Ahok blasphemy trial and the 2016 riots.[22] Although many Chinese Indonesians are not wealthy, most of the country’s richest and most prominent businesspeople are ethnically Chinese Indonesian, which is a source of resentment for some non-Chinese Indonesians; and DFAT has reported that jealousy of such perceived wealth can lead to threats and that some Chinese Indonesians keep a low profile as a result.[23] This noted, and while violence has occurred in the past, DFAT reports that violence is not an everyday experience for Chinese Indonesians;[24] and while mid-2016 did see the targeting of Chinese Indonesian owned businesses in North Sumatra in mid-2016, and while some Chinese Indonesians may choose not to engage in lavish behaviour so as not to appear insensitive toward the circumstances of poorer neighbours, there is little evidence to indicate that in recent decades Chinese Indonesians have had to keep a low profile to avoid being threatened because of their wealth or perceived wealth, and Indonesian Chinese plainly live their lives openly (and in a manner often contrasted with how things were under Suharto’s New Order).[25]

   [22] DFAT, 'DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia', 25 January 2019, 20190125124336, 3.13; DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia’, 24 July 2023, 20230724102537, 3.11;.

   [23] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia’, 24 July 2023, 20230724102537, 3.11; DFAT, 'DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia', 25 January 2019, 20190125124336, 3.13; and more recently, see: Soedirgo, J. ‘Exploring forced assimilation: the resilience of Chinese Indonesians’, University of Amsterdam, 13 November 2024, ; Kusumabrata, A. ‘Essay: What remains of the 1998 tragedy for the post-1998 generation’, Inside Indonesia, 27 June 2024,

   [24] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia’, 24 July 2023, 20230724102537, 3.11.

   [25] Sutrisno, E.L. ‘Struggling for Multiculturalism: The Revival of Chinese Festivals in Three Cities of Java during the Post-Reformation Era and Its Challenges’, Humanoria, vol.35: no.1, 2023, p.41, Suprajitno, S. ‘Negotiating the Cultural and the Religious: The Recasting of the Chinese Indonesian Buddhist’, BiblioAsia, Oct-Dec 2011, ; Hoon, C.Y. ‘Mapping Chineseness on the landscape of Christian churches in Indonesia’, Asian Ethnicity, vol.17: no.2, 2016, ; Hutton, J. ‘In a first, Indonesia's capital gets an ethnic Chinese governor’, Christian Science Monitor, 20 August 2014,

6. There is thus little evidence of Chinese Indonesians being at risk of violence in recent decades, and although there is a risk of some low-level societal discrimination it is not apparent that this extends beyond the expression of stereotypes or racial slurs of an unpleasant nature, let alone that Chinese Indonesians face discrimination of a kind that would result in denial of access to basic services or the capacity to earn a livelihood; and I note in this regard that DFAT has observed that many Chinese Indonesians work in family businesses or within their own ethnic community, which reduces the chances of discrimination at work. DFAT reports that those without such networks or wealth would be more at risk of discrimination, but that applies to all Indonesians, not just Chinese Indonesians.[26] Overall, DFAT assesses that Chinese Indonesians currently face a low risk of societal violence and a moderate risk of low-level societal discrimination.[27]

   [26] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia’, 24 July 2023, 20230724102537, 3.10.

   [27] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia’, 24 July 2023, 20230724102537, 3.12.

7. DFAT reports of Indonesia that some journalists self-censor on certain sensitive issues (like LGBTI issues, matters related to religion, and the restive Papua provinces) but more broadly Indonesian journalists and social media users are generally able to operate without interference throughout Indonesia.[28] I note, moreover (and as is apparent from the sources referenced in this decision), that a range of Indonesian and international sources report on the situation of the Indonesian Chinese community, including about when instances of anti-Chinese sentiment and violence have occurred (such that it is difficult to believe that the available country information would not provide an accurate indication of what the situation is and has been for Chinese Indonesians in Indonesia).

   19 March 2024 Tribunal Hearing

   [28] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia’, 24 July 2023, 20230724102537, 3.82.

8. On 19 March 2024 the applicants appeared before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments. The applicants indicated that in addition to Indonesian they also both spoke a little English, and a little Hokkien Chinese and also Mandarin Chinese, but that their preferred language was Indonesian; and so, the hearing was as conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Bahasa Indonesian and English languages. Both [Mr A] and [Ms B] were present in the hearing room throughout.

1. The hearing began with the Tribunal confirming with the applicants that they were currently in good health and feeling well enough to undertake the hearing. Asked about their ethnicity, [Mr A] indicated that he was ethnic Chinese, while [Ms B] indicated that she was ethnically Javanese. Asked if they remembered lodging their December 2017 protection visa application, [Mr A] said that this was done by their then agent (hereafter Mr L) but who had some kind of trouble and now no longer did this kind of work. The Tribunal noted that the email address which had been provided to the Tribunal for communication with the applicants was the LN email address. [Mr A] submitted that the LN email address was being operated by Mr L’s assistant, and that on 28 February 2024 this person had forwarded the applicants the invitation for them to attend the 19 March 2024 hearing. I advised [Mr A] that he should provide the Tribunal with written notification of his own current contact details if he wished for the Tribunal to correspond him directly. This he did later that day, providing his [email] for all future correspondence (that is, the [Mr A] email address which had been provided with the December 2017 protection visa application).

2. When I asked [Mr A] whether the information in the December 2017 protection visa application had been read back to him, and if it was correct, [Mr A] indicated that it had been read back to him, and that he believed it was more-or-less correct. [Mr A] then confirmed that he had resided in Batam as per his December 2017 protection visa application. It was confirmed with [Mr A] that his parents were both still alive (he indicated that they were both in their [age]) and that they continued to reside at the family home in Batam where [Mr A] had also resided while he was in Indonesia. Asked about the wellbeing of his family in Indonesia, [Mr A] said they were okay. Asked if he had any siblings, [Mr A] said he had a brother here in Australia (who was also pursuing a protection visa application, but which had not yet been decided by the Department), and a sister who was residing in Indonesia at home with the parents.

3. Asked about his schooling, [Mr A] said that he completed this when he was [age] years of age, (in around 2002) and that he began paid employment at [age] years of age (in around 2003) working for three years (until 2006) in a store which sold constructions supplies (sand, metal, etc). Asked for the ethnicity of his employer, [Mr A] said that he was Chinese. Asked what he did next for employment, [Mr A] said he was self-employed selling [products] in Batam. Asked what he did next, [Mr A] said that it was after this that he began to work on cruise ships as a [Occupation 1]. He said he completed six contracts over the course of seven years working on cruise ships (this would match with the applicant’s protection visa employment history were he last worked in employment of this kind in December 2016). Asked if he did any other kind of employment before arriving in Australia (on [date] May 2017), [Mr A] said he had not and that he was just in Batam. Asked what he had done after arriving in Australia, [Mr A] said that over the past five years and up to the present day he was employed [doing specified work].

4. When I asked [Ms B] where she had resided, she said that initially she resided in Pekalongan in Batang Province in Central Java. She completed school at [age]-years-of-age (in 2002) and then worked at a [factory] for just three months before going to [Country 1] where she worked [for] four-to-five years (until around 2006). She then went to Batam because she felt there were better employment opportunities there than in Java, and she worked there in a [shop] for four years (until around 2010). She then worked in a [store] for two years, until 2012 when she married [Mr A], and she did not work Indonesia thereafter, though she had (like [Mr A]) been employed in Australia [for] around three years, and she had then worked at a [factory] for around five months, and then at [a workplace] for around a year, and she was currently working at a [workplace]. The Tribunal confirmed with [Ms B] that only [Mr A] was raising protection claims, and if she feared any harm in Indonesia. [Ms B] indicated that she had no such claims herself, and that she was just concerned for her husband.

5. I then asked [Mr A] if he feared that any harm would come to him if he returned to Indonesia. He said that he did more-or-less because of a problem related to work where he had hit somebody, and this person’s family was still looking for him. Thus, and as per his December 2017 protection visa application, [Mr A] submitted that he had had a physical altercation with a person at his workplace and that this person’s family was still looking for him. But when asked for details about what had occurred (and whereas in the December 2017 protection visa application it was submitted that this altercation had occurred in 2009 at his  [store] with a native Indonesian who was stealing, and that it was because of this that he subsequently went to work on cruise liners) at the March 2024 hearing [Mr A] submitted that this altercation had occurred just prior to his May 2017 departure for Australia. Moreover, [Mr A] submitted that the workplace in question had been a [Workplace 1]. I put it to [Mr A] that he had not mentioned this employment earlier in the hearing (when asked about his employment history). [Mr A] said that he had only done this work for about two weeks, so he had not mentioned it before. Asked what he had been doing before and after this employment (at a [Workplace 1]), [Mr A] said that before this he had been working on cruise ships, and after this he came straight to Australia. Asked for the name of this establishment, [Mr A] gave this as the [Workplace 1].

6. I then asked [Mr A] what had happened in this respect. [Mr A] asserted again, in a vague manner, that this person’s family had looked for him, and that he ([Mr A]) had been threatened. I explained to [Mr A] that I was asking him to tell me what had occurred in as much detail as possible, beginning with what he was doing at the [Workplace 1]. [Mr A] said that he was [doing specified work], and that one patron became upset [and] had been impolite to and had then struck a female staff member who was one of [Mr A]’s subordinates, and so [Mr A] had hit the patron on the head with a bottle. I asked [Mr A] if the patron had struck him first. [Mr A] said they had both hit each other. Asked who struck first, [Mr A] said that the patron hit the young lady first, and so [Mr A] had struck the patron. [Mr A] said that he had a scar to prove this, and that he could show this to the Tribunal. I advised [Mr A] that before we considered this, I would like to ask a few more questions.

7. I next asked [Mr A] if he knew who the patron was, and [Mr A] said: no, not really, he was just a guest (a patron of the [Workplace 1]), and I just knew him as a guest. I asked [Mr A] if he knew anything about this person, and [Mr A] said: no. I now asked [Mr A] if he knew what ethnicity this person was. [Mr A] said the person was native Indonesian. Asked if he knew which specific ethnicity this person was, [Mr A] said he did not. Asked if the person had an accent, [Mr A] said: sounded a bit Javanese. I asked [Mr A] if by this he was saying that the person did not sound local or Sumatran (that is, that the person’s accent suggested he was from Java, as opposed to being of the Javanese ethnicity). [Mr A] said that the person could have been Sumatran, but he was not sure.

8. I next asked [Mr A] to explain how he was struck by this person. [Mr A] said it was dark at the [Workplace 1], and they just hit each other, and they both got injured. [Mr A] repeated that he had a scar to prove this. I asked [Mr A] to explain the manner in which he had been struck, such as with fists or an object. [Mr A] said he was hit with something, with a chair. I asked [Mr A] if he received any treatment for his injuries. [Mr A] said he did not, and he just treated himself. I asked [Mr A] to explain what his injuries were. [Mr A] said: my leg, would you like to see it? I asked [Mr A] if he was referring to the scar which he had mentioned already. [Mr A] indicated this was correct. I informed [Mr A] that he could display his scar to the Tribunal if he wished but that, if he felt his scar was significant evidence, he should provide the Tribunal with a photograph of this. I also explained to [Mr A] that viewing the scar might not be particularly helpful in establishing what had happened to cause the injury, and that he should provide any medical evidence he could which would establish the circumstances which caused this injury. [Mr A] then displayed his scar, and the Tribunal noted aloud that this presented as being a scar on [Mr A]’s [body part]. It was possible that such a scar had been caused by a blow in 2017 but, even so, the scar is not in itself persuasive evidence that [Mr A] had had an altercation in 2017 as he claims (and the applicants did not subsequently provide the Tribunal with any medical evidence about this injury or even a photograph of it).

9. I next asked [Mr A] what injuries the other person had sustained. [Mr A] submitted that the other person had been bleeding from the head. Asked if there were any other injuries, and if the other person was knocked unconscious, [Mr A] said he was not and there were no other injuries to the patron. Asked if the police were called, [Mr A] said they were not and that his managers just took care of it, and the next day people came looking for him, and that this occurred everyday until he stopped working, and these people asked his friends for his address, and then he and his wife moved to Australia. Asked how he knew these people had come looking for him, [Mr A] said that a friend at work named [Mr C] had told him about this and that he had better run, or he would be finished. [Mr A] claimed he had now lost contact with [Mr C] because, after arriving in Australia, he lost his phone along with [Mr C]’s contact number.

10. I asked [Mr A] to explain what [Mr C] had told him. [Mr A] said that he was told: They are looking for you, be careful, if possible just go away. I asked [Mr A] how many days had passed after the incident before this occurred. [Mr A] said it was the second or third day. I asked [Mr A] whether he had been at work during this time. [Mr A] said he was not because the manager of [Workplace 1] (who [Mr A] said he knew only as [name]) had told him not to come to work. I asked [Mr A] if he had told his manager that persons had come looking for him at work. [Mr A] said that it was the manager who had told him ([Mr A]) that this was what was happening, and that he ([Mr A]) should not come to work because it was dangerous. I put it to [Mr A] that he had indicated moments earlier that it was his work friend [Mr C] who first told him about this. [Mr A] said he felt sure the manager would have known first. Asked who it was who told him first about this problem, [Mr A] said it was the manager, and [Mr C] told him on the second or third day.

11. I next asked [Mr A] if [Mr C] or the manager told him who the person was who was looking for him. [Mr A] said they did, and that he was told it was the person he had hit. I asked [Mr A] whether he was told if this person was with anyone else or alone. [Mr A] said: With other people or persons is what they said. I asked [Mr A] if he was told how many other people there had been, and who these people were. [Mr A] said: They just said they brought somebody or some people, and just said don’t come to work for now. I asked [Mr A] again if his manager or [Mr C] told him anything at all about who these people were in terms of their names or identities. [Mr A] said: no, I don’t know about that, they just told me to be careful, and [Mr C] said to me be careful, go away if you can. I asked [Mr A] if he had heard anything further about this person who he had hit since all of this occurred. [Mr A] said: no, I only heard from them (the Manager and [Mr C]), they said people were looking for me. I asked [Mr A] if he had contacted his manager since this time. [Mr A] said: no, I just went there to collect my salary, I only worked there for two weeks. I asked [Mr A] if he went to the police about this matter. [Mr A] said he had not because both he and the patron had both been at fault. I next asked [Mr A] why he had left for Australia rather than simply seeking safety elsewhere in Indonesia. [Mr A] said that he had a friend who had come to Australia and who had said it was good, and [Ms B] had heard this also, and so he they applied for a visa and came here.

12. I next asked [Mr A] if he had any reason to think the person (who he claimed to have had an altercation with) would seek to harm him if he returned to Indonesia. [Mr A] submitted that to be frank – and although he did feel a bit afraid, and although it would be good if he could get protection – if he could not get protection then that was okay too. I asked [Mr A] if he had any reason to consider that this person would still want to harm him. [Mr A] submitted said that 95% of Indonesians were like this when it comes to vengeance and, because he ([Mr A]) was Chinese, it was difficult. Asked to explain what he meant by this, [Mr A] said that they (native Indonesians) were jealous of Chinese Indonesians.

13. I next asked [Mr A] whether he feared harm for any reason other than the incident at the [Workplace 1] with this person. [Mr A] said he did not think so and if he could get protection (in Australia) he would be grateful but, if not, then that was okay because he did not want to go through a long process. Thus, and although [Mr A] did maintain that he felt the person he purportedly assaulted would seek to harm him (because the native Indonesians were envious of Chinese Indonesians, and because [Mr A] felt that almost all Indonesians were like this when it came to vengeance), he was not emphatic about having a need for protection, and he indicated that he did not fear harm in Indonesia for any reason other than that this person might seek vengeance against him.

14. An adjournment was then taken for some 10 minutes and, when the hearing resumed, I asked [Mr A] if he was able to provide any documentary evidence to establish that he had been affected by the events he claimed (that is, that he had had a physical altercation with a person at the  [Workplace 1] in 2017 and that this person had then come to the  [Workplace 1] with others on the following days asking about [Mr A]’s whereabouts). [Mr A] said he did not think so, and he could only look for witnesses if he went back to Indonesia. I did not find this persuasive. For, even if it is the case that [Mr A] lost his telephone after arriving in Australia (and thus the contact details of his former workmates), it has been open to him to begin this process by searching for the contact details of his former employer, and making telephone enquiries about the whereabouts of former staff, and it was not apparent why [Mr A] needed to be physically in Indonesia to begin this process, nor was it apparent at the March 2024 hearing that the applicants had taken any steps of this kind.

15. The Tribunal then put several concerns to the applicants. It was first put to them that in their December 2017 protection visa application [Mr A] had put forward a different account of events to what he was claiming now. I noted that in the December 2017 protection visa application it was claimed that [Mr A] had had his fight in 2009, and that this occurred in an  shop where [Mr A] had been working, and [Mr A] got into a fight with a native Indonesian who was stealing from the shop, and this person’s parents were the leaders of a native Indonesian group, and this person’s parents had asked for money because [Mr A] had injured their son, and so [Mr A]’s parents had given them all the money they had in store, but then a few days later these people came to the applicant’s home and asked for more money, and [Mr A]’s parents said they did not have any money, and so these people smashed furniture and took [Mr A] away and put him in a dark room and beat him and threatened to kill him because he was Chinese, and after this [Mr A] went home and had panic attacks and was depressed, and the police refused to help him, and so his parents got him job on cruise ship to help him recover from mental illness, and he eventually came to Australia because he felt he could not continue to work on cruise ships all his life. I put it to the applicants that this was very different to what [Mr A] had said during the hearing, and this could raise doubts about whether any of this was true.

16. I asked [Mr A] if he could explain the inconsistencies identified above. [Mr A] said that the agent (Mr L) made the December 2017 statement, and that the one which was true was the one he ([Mr A]) had just given. I asked [Mr A] if there was anything further which he wished to say about this. [Mr A] said that the agent made the story up, and what he ([Mr A]) had said to the Tribunal at the hearing was the truth. I asked [Mr A] why, if his March 2024 hearing account was the truth, he had not had the agent put these details in his application. [Mr A] said that the agent had told him his story was not good enough, and so they would use the agent’s story, and so [Mr A] had agreed to this. I asked [Ms B] if she wished to add anything to what her husband had just said. She said she did not.

17. I then put it to the applicants that, even if the Tribunal accepted [Mr A]’s March 2024 account of events as true, it might nevertheless be difficult to accept that the person from the purported 2017 altercation would still be looking for [Mr A], and would still wish to harm [Mr A], given that more than seven years would now have passed. [Mr A] said he was not sure either because he agreed it had been a long time. [Ms B] said she had nothing to add.

18. Given this, and even if [Mr A]’s March 2024 claims were accepted, I would not be satisfied that the native Indonesian person (and/or accomplices) in [Mr A]’s claims would seek to harm [Mr A] or [Ms B] if they were to return to Batam; and I note that it is not apparent from the available country information that Javanese or any other native Indonesian groups inhabiting the islands and surround of Sumatra and Java are particularly known for seeking vengeance (the unique ‘carok’ vendetta culture of the Madurese people of Madura Island being the only apparent instance of such a cultural practice; and which is seen as distinct from the cultures of the Javanese and Sundanese),[29] and I note that [Mr A] has given no indication his parents have ever conveyed to him that anyone has ever come in search of him at his family home in Batam.

    [29] Haris, P.I. et al, ‘Understanding Carok in Madura: Legal Reform from Criminal Law and Islamic Law Perspective’, Journal of Law and Legal Reform, April 2024, ; Ratnasari, K. et al, ‘The Maduresse culture: term of “carok”’, IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci., 2021,

19. At the March 2024 hearing I also put it to the applicants that, even it was accepted that there was a real chance or a real risk that [Mr A] would be harmed in Batam by the person from the purported 2017 altercation, the Tribunal would then also need to think about whether [Mr A] could avoid that harm by relocating to somewhere else in Indonesia, and that they might be able to do this by moving to reside with [Ms B]’s mother and sister in Java (in Pekalongan). [Mr A] responded by submitting that he would have to return to Batam because his parents were there. Asked why this would be the case. [Mr A] said his parents were his priority and they were elderly so he would have to look after them. Asked what his father’s circumstances were, [Mr A] said his father was retired and living on his savings. I asked [Mr A] why, given that [Mr A] had been in Australia for seven years and apart from his father, he would now need to return to Batam. [Mr A] said his father was old now.

1. I put it to [Mr A] that his parents had nonetheless been surviving without him, and that he was now seeking to remain in Australia. I asked [Mr A] how the situation would be any different if he remained in Java. [Mr A] said that he was not saying it would be impossible for him go to Java, but his first choice would be to go Batam. I asked [Mr A] whether, putting this aside, he considered that he would be safe in Java. [Mr A] confirmed he would be safe in Java. Asked if there was any other reason he would not want to relocate to Java, aside from his parents being in Batam, [Mr A] said that, even if he resided in Java, he would go back-and-forth to Batam. Asked if he had anything additional that he would like to say about this, [Mr A] said he did not, but he would like to remain in Australia at least another year because his wife liked it here. I asked [Ms B] if she wished to add anything to what her husband had just said about whether it would be possible for [Mr A] to avoid harm by moving to reside with her mother and sister. [Ms B] said she did not mind [Mr A] moving to Java to live with her family if he wanted to, but she joked that he did not like living in Java because there were too many mosquitoes.

2. I accept that it would be disappointing for [Mr A] to be unable to visit his parents in Batam but, were it the case that [Mr A] faced a real risk of significant harm in Batam, I consider that his being unable to do this (owing to his having relocated to Pekalongan in Central Java to avoid such a real risk of significant harm) would nonetheless be reasonable given that in applying for a permanent visa to remain in Australia Mr H has demonstrated a willingness to live apart from his parents for the foreseeable future (and given that Mr H’s parents would more readily be able to visit him if her were in Pekalongan rather than Australia). The applicants have advanced no other serious concerns with respect to the possibility of relocating to Pekalongan, and they have confirmed they would be safe in this location, and I note that that DFAT reports that Indonesian citizens are legally able to move and reside freely within all territories of the Republic of Indonesia, and Indonesians can and do relocate.[30] Given this, and even if Mr H’s March 2024 claims were accepted, and even if it were accepted that he faced a real chance of serious harm in Batam, I would not be satisfied that the applicants would face a real chance of serious harm in all areas of their receiving country; and I would be satisfied that it would be reasonable for the applicants to relocate to Pekalongan where there would not be a real risk that either of the applicants would suffer significant harm.

   [30] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: Indonesia’, 24 July 2023, 20230724102537, 5.18.

3. At the conclusion of the March 2024 hearing, I asked [Mr A] if there was anything further which he wished to say. He said there was not. I then asked [Ms B] if there was anything further that she wished to say. She said there was not. Asked if they required a specific time frame within which to provide any further evidence, [Mr A] said they had no further evidence to provide. The Tribunal nonetheless conveyed that, if the applicants decided to provide any further evidence, the Tribunal would have regard to this. Nothing further was, however, ever provided to the Tribunal by the applicants.

   Findings

4. I have ultimately concluded that [Mr A]’s claims about the purported altercation at the  [Workplace 1] (and its aftermath) are not credible. This is, first and foremost, because at the outset of the March 2024 hearing [Mr A] gave no indication that his December 2017 protection application contained significant fabrications. For, if it had been the case that [Mr A] told his March 2024 account of events to Mr L in 2017, and if Mr L really had introduced fabrications into this account – such that that [Mr A] was now said to have gotten into a fight not in 2017 but in 2009 (some eight years earlier), and expanding what occurred to include the extortion of [Mr A]’s parents by the parents of the native Indonesian patron (and who were leaders of a local native Indonesian group), and the abduction and assault of [Mr A] by these persons, and that he suffered mental illness as a result, and that it was for this reason that he came to be a [Occupation 1] on cruise ships – I find it difficult to believe that [Mr A] would not have said something to the Tribunal about at least some of these specific fabrications at the outset of the March 2024 hearing when I first asked him whether the information in his December 2017 protection visa application was correct (rather than submitting, as he did, that it was more-or-less correct).

5. I am willing to accept that Mr L played a role in formulating the protection claims which were submitted in December 2017 (that a third party played some role in this is certainly suggested by how at the March 2024 hearing [Mr A] did not see to press claims bout fearing harm as a Chinese Indonesian beyond the matter of the purported 2017 altercation with a native Indonesian), but I do not accept that in 2017 [Mr A] presented Mr L with his March 2024 account of the 2017 altercation (and its aftermath), only for Mr L to put down an altered version of this into the December 2017 protection visa application.

6. Instead, the manner in which all of this unfolded suggests that the basis of the December 2017 protection claims (this being that [Mr A] had had a fight with a native Indonesian resulting in an adverse response) was entirely a fabrication, and that [Mr A] arrived at the March 2024 hearing intending to nonetheless maintain these fabricated claims but that he then proved unable to remember their details such that he then had to improvise. For, at the March 2024 hearing, [Mr A] initially submitted that he feared harm because he had hit somebody, and this person’s family was still looking for him. This, in broad outline, was what had been claimed in December 2017. But when the Tribunal insisted that [Mr A] provide a detailed account of what had occurred, his account of what had happened began to diverge not only from the details of the December 2017 claims, but also from what [Mr A] had initially submitted at the March 2024 hearing about being searched for by the person’s family. For in the December 2017 version the targeting of [Mr A] by the native Indonesian’s family was a key aspect of what purportedly occurred. But at the March 2024 [Mr A]’s account of what occurred developed in such a manner that the [Workplace 1] patron’s family ultimately disappeared from the account to be replaced by unknown accomplices about which, like the [Workplace 1] patron himself, nothing was known (and I note that [Mr A] was asked on multiple occasions to tell the Tribunal anything he was told about the names or identities of these persons who accompanied the [Workplace 1] patron). This made sense in the context of how (at the March 2024 hearing) the applicant had claimed he knew nothing about who the native Indonesian was (given this, it made sense that nothing would be known about who the persons with him were either). But at the March 2024 hearing what [Mr A] had initially claimed was (as per the December 2017 protection visa application) that this person’s family was still looking for him.

7. Further to this, matters are not helped by how at the March 2024 hearing [Mr A] made no mention of his having been employed at the [Workplace 1] until he responded to the Tribunal’s request for details about his claim to have had a problem related to work where he had hit somebody; even though the Tribunal had asked him if (following his completion of his most recent cruise ship contract) he did any other kind of employment before arriving in Australia, and to which [Mr A] responded that he had not and that he was just in Batam. [Mr A]’s explanation for his not mentioning this earlier was that he had only worked at the [Workplace 1] for two weeks. I accept that there is an establishment known as the [Workplace 1] in Batam (this is well documented),[31] and I am willing to accept that [Mr A] did overlook mentioning his employment there because he worked there for just two weeks. But I find it difficult to believe that [Mr A] would have neglected to mention this place of employment earlier in the hearing (when asked about his past employment) if it really was the case that while working at the [Workplace 1] he got into a fight which led to his being searched for by the aggrieved other party, and which is purportedly the reason for why he left Indonesia for Australia in May 2017, and which has been the basis of his claim for why he fears he cannot return to Indonesia without suffering harm.

   [31] ‘[source deleted]

8. The fact that [Mr A] has a scar on his [body part] (which might have been caused by being struck with something some years ago) is not sufficient to overcome the serious doubts which arise with respect to the concerns noted above; and given all this, and while I am willing to accept that [Mr A] was employed for a few weeks at the  [Workplace 1] before he and [Ms B] travelled to Australia in May 2017, I am not satisfied and I do not accept that [Mr A] ever had an altercation with a native Indonesian man at this establishment as he claims (or that this person or anyone else came in search of [Mr A] following this, or that he suffered any physical or mental harm as a result of this).

   Does the applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?

9. It is apparent from the country information sources discussed in this decision that in Indonesia [Mr A] may as a Chinese Indonesian (and perhaps [Ms B] may also by way of association or imputation) experience some low-level societal discrimination in the form of stereotypes and the use of racist slurs. But, for the foreseeable future, it is not apparent that there is a real chance that such low-level societal discrimination would manifest in such manner as to cause [Mr A] or [Ms B] serious harm (whether mental or physical), and I note that at the March 2024 hearing [Ms B] indicated that she had no fears with respect to returning to Indonesia other than what might happen to [Mr A], and [Mr A] indicated that he had no fears with respect to returning to Indonesia other than those related to his purported altercation with a native Indonesian (which I do not accept occurred). Given this, and given that it is not apparent from the country information that the applicants would face a real chance of harm of any other kind for reason of [Mr A]’s being Chinese Indonesian, and given that he and [Ms B] would be returning to reside in Batam where the situation is particularly favourable for Chinese Indonesians, I am not satisfied that either of the applicants would, for the foreseeable future, face a real chance of serious harm if they were to return to Indonesia. I am therefore not satisfied that either of the applicants has a well-founded fear of persecution.

10. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that either of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).

    Does the applicant satisfy the complementary protection criterion for protection?

11. It is apparent from the country information sources discussed in this decision that in Indonesia [Mr A] may as a Chinese Indonesian (and perhaps [Ms B] may also by way of association or imputation) experience some low-level societal discrimination in the form of stereotypes and the use of racist slurs. But, for the foreseeable future, it is not apparent that there is a real risk that such low-level societal discrimination would involve an act or omission that would cause the kind of extreme humiliation which amounts to degrading treatment or punishment, or the kind of pain or suffering or severe pain or suffering which amounts to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or the kind of severe pain or suffering which amounts to torture, or that would result in any of the other forms of significant harm specified in s.36(2A), and I note again that at the March 2024 hearing [Ms B] indicated that she had no fears with respect to returning to Indonesia other than what might happen to [Mr A], and [Mr A] indicated that he had no fears with respect to returning to Indonesia other than those related to his purported altercation with a native Indonesian (which I do not accept occurred). Given this, and given that it is not apparent from the country information that the applicants would face a real risk of harm of any other kind for reason of [Mr A]’s being Chinese Indonesian, and given that they would be returning to reside in Batam where the situation is particularly favourable for Chinese Indonesians, I am not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicants being removed from Australia to their receiving country, there is a real risk that either of the applicants will suffer significant harm.

12. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that either of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).

    Other considerations

13. There is no suggestion that the applicants satisfy s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicants do not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).

    DECISION

14. The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.

    Date of Hearing:       19 March 2024

    ATTACHMENT  -  Extract from Migration Act 1958

    5 (1) Interpretation

    …

    cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:

    (a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or

    (b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;

    but does not include an act or omission:

    (c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

    (d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

    …

    degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:

    (a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

    (b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

    …

    torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:

    (a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or

    (b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or

    (c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or

    (d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or

    (e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;

    but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

    …

    receiving country,  in relation to a non-citizen, means:

    (a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or

    (b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.

    …

    5H    Meaning of refugee

    (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:

    (a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or

    (b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.

    Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.

    …

    5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution

    (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:

    (a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and

    (b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and

    (c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.

    Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.

    (2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.

    Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.

    (3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:

    (a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or

    (b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or

    (c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:

    (i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;

    (ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;

    (iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;

    (iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;

    (v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;

    (vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

    (4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):

    (a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and

    (b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and

    (c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.

    (5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:

    (a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;

    (b)     significant physical harassment of the person;

    (c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;

    (d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

    (e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

    (f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.

    (6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

    5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family

    For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:

    (a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and

    (b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:

    (i)the first person has ever experienced; or

    (ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

    where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.

    Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

    5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family

    For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:

    (a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and

    (b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and

    (c)     any of the following apply:

    (i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;

    (ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;

    (iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

    (d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

    5LA Effective protection measures

    (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:

    (a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:

    (i)the relevant State; or

    (ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

    (b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.

    (2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:

    (a)     the person can access the protection; and

    (b)     the protection is durable; and

    (c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.

    …

    36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act

    …

    (2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:

    (a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or

    (aa)  a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    (b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

    (i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and

    (ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

    (c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

    (i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and

    (ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

    (2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:

    (a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or

    (b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or

    (c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or

    (d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or

    (e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.

    (2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:

    (a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    (b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    (c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.

    …