1835223 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an Indonesian citizen. The applicant claimed to fear harm in Indonesia due to his opposition to the Indonesian government and alleged past detention and harm. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to review the delegate's decision to refuse the visa.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), specifically whether he was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under the 'refugee' or 'complementary protection' grounds. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to establish the genuineness and well-foundedness of his asserted fear of harm.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa. It found that while the applicant was an Indonesian citizen, he had not provided sufficient detail to satisfy the Tribunal that he opposed the Indonesian government, had been arrested, or had suffered or would suffer harm in Indonesia for the reasons claimed. The Tribunal noted that the onus is on the applicant to supply the relevant facts in sufficient detail to enable the decision-maker to establish the facts, and a decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for them. Furthermore, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing or provide requested pre-hearing information, leading the Tribunal to make its decision on the available evidence pursuant to section 426A of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.