1813988 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of an Indonesian citizen seeking a protection visa. The applicant claimed to have a debt with a loan shark in Indonesia, fearing death, kidnapping, and physical violence if returned. The Tribunal had invited the applicant to a hearing, but he declined, consenting to a decision based on the submitted documents.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved determining if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, as defined in section 5H, or if there were substantial grounds for believing he would suffer significant harm upon return to Indonesia, as per section 36(2)(aa).

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient detail regarding his claims. His assertions about the loan shark debt, the threats, and the feared harm were vague and lacked supporting evidence. The Tribunal noted that it is the applicant's responsibility to particularise their claims and provide evidence, and it is not required to make the case for them. Given the lack of specific information, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of suffering significant harm if returned to Indonesia.

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