1836733 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant protection visas to the applicants, who claimed to fear persecution in Indonesia due to their Chinese ethnicity, Catholic faith, and the husband's political activities protesting government corruption. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) (as refugees) or section 36(2)(aa) (on complementary protection grounds) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The Tribunal considered the definition of a refugee under section 5H of the Act, which requires a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and that there is a real chance of persecution in all areas of the receiving country. It also examined the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), which requires substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. The Tribunal was mandated to consider relevant guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicants had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Indonesia. The applicants' claims regarding past arrests for political demonstrations and alleged discrimination and harm due to their ethnicity and religion were not sufficiently substantiated to meet the threshold for protection obligations under Australian law. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.