1816815 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision to refuse a protection visa to an applicant who had returned to Indonesia. The applicant claimed to have attended anti-corruption protests in Indonesia and feared harm upon return, but later stated he had not attended such protests and did not fear harm. The Tribunal considered the applicant's oral evidence and a statutory declaration concerning a former migration agent's alleged fraudulent actions in lodging the protection visa application without the applicant's knowledge.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm if returned to Indonesia, as required for a protection visa under section 36(2) of the Act, or alternatively, qualified for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal was also asked to consider a request for a referral to the Minister for intervention under section 417 of the Act.

The Tribunal applied Ministerial Direction No. 84, the 'Refugee Law Guidelines', and 'Complementary Protection Guidelines', along with country information. Based on the applicant's oral evidence, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had not attended anti-corruption protests and had no foreseeable risk of harm in Indonesia. The applicant confirmed he did not believe he met the criteria for a protection visa or complementary protection. The Tribunal found no substantial reasons to believe there was a real risk of significant harm to the applicant upon removal.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa. While acknowledging the applicant's employer's support and the allegations of migration agent fraud, the Tribunal noted the significant delay in the applicant correcting the information provided in his protection visa application. The Tribunal declined to refer the matter for Ministerial intervention, finding the applicant's circumstances and the information provided did not warrant such a referral.