1828882 (Refugee)

This matter concerned the review of decisions not to grant protection visas to two applicants, who claimed to be Indonesian citizens born in Bali. The dispute centred on whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applications were heard by a single member of the Tribunal, Sophie Manera.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants were refugees within the meaning of section 5H of the Act, or whether they faced a real risk of suffering significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Indonesia, pursuant to section 36(2)(aa). This required the Tribunal to assess the credibility of the applicants and the veracity of the claims made in their protection visa applications.

The Tribunal found the applicants to be credible witnesses, noting their oral evidence was consistent and that they took an oath on a Hindu holy book, confirming their religion as Hindu. Crucially, the applicants stated they were unaware that their written applications contained claims of persecution due to their Christian faith, and that these claims were false. They explained that a friend of a friend had prepared the applications without their knowledge of the contents, and that they relied on this person due to their limited English. The Tribunal accepted this explanation and made no adverse credibility findings, despite the incorrect claims in the application forms. However, as the religious and political claims were fabricated and not indicative of a genuine fear of persecution, and no other grounds for protection were established, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decisions not to grant the protection visas to the applicants.