1814133 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision regarding a protection visa. The applicants, who claimed to be citizens of Indonesia, sought protection on the grounds of riot, racism, corruption, terrorism, and crime in their home country. They asserted that they had not previously experienced harm but feared joblessness, an inability to survive, and a lack of safety if returned. The review was heard by Matthew Tubridy.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically considering the refugee criterion under s 36(2)(a) and the complementary protection criterion under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The court was required to determine if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Indonesia, the applicants would suffer significant harm. This involved assessing the relevance and weight of country information, including assessments from the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as mandated by Ministerial Direction No. 84.

The court affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicants were nationals of Indonesia and that Indonesia was their receiving country. While acknowledging the applicants' stated fears of general societal issues such as corruption and weak enforcement, the court found no evidence that they had personally experienced harm or that they would face a real risk of significant harm upon return. The court considered the applicants' claims of widespread societal problems but concluded that these did not establish an individualised risk of persecution or significant harm sufficient to warrant the grant of a protection visa. The court also noted that the applicants had not previously experienced harm in their home country.