1815768 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an Indonesian national. The applicant claimed to have fled Indonesia due to significant debts owed to a private finance company, which had subjected him and his business partner to threats of death and physical violence. He asserted that he could not seek assistance from Indonesian authorities due to fear of reprisal and that relocation within Indonesia would be ineffective as long as the debt remained unpaid. The applicant also stated that he would face hardship due to unemployment upon return. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm if returned to Indonesia.

The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims against the criteria for a protection visa, specifically considering whether he met the definition of a refugee or qualified for complementary protection. This involved evaluating the credibility of his account of persecution by the finance company, the availability and effectiveness of state protection in Indonesia, and the possibility of internal relocation. The Tribunal also had to consider the meaning of "significant harm" as defined in the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and whether the applicant's circumstances fell within those definitions, or if any exceptions applied, such as the general risk faced by the population or the availability of reasonable relocation options.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal accepted the applicant's identity and nationality. However, it ultimately concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa. While acknowledging the applicant's fear and the threats he received, the Tribunal did not find that he faced a real risk of serious or significant harm upon return to Indonesia. The decision implies that the applicant's fear of harm from the finance company, while acknowledged, was not assessed as meeting the threshold for protection under the Act, nor was there sufficient evidence presented to establish a lack of effective state protection or the impossibility of internal relocation. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa.