2000229 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the protection visa application of an Indonesian national of Chinese ethnicity. The applicant claimed he feared persecution upon return to Indonesia due to his mental health condition (bipolar disorder), his history of drug addiction, his ethnicity, and his deportation from Australia with a criminal record. He asserted he would be homeless, unable to subsist, and vulnerable to criminal elements and police brutality.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, which concerns refugee status, or under section 36(2)(aa), which pertains to complementary protection. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess if there was a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or if there were substantial grounds for believing there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Indonesia.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the availability and accessibility of mental health services in Indonesia. It considered country information indicating that while the ratio of psychiatrists is low, basic mental health services are integrated into general healthcare facilities, and psychotropic medications are available. The Tribunal found that the applicant, having lived in urban areas of Indonesia, would likely be able to access these services and afford necessary medication. It concluded that the general scarcity of mental health professionals and potential stigma did not amount to serious harm amounting to persecution, nor did it constitute significant harm faced by the applicant personally, as opposed to the general population. Furthermore, while acknowledging the existence of "pasung" or shackling practices for individuals with mental disabilities, the Tribunal noted this practice is illegal, declining, and primarily occurs in rural and poorer communities, and that the applicant had not provided independent evidence of his condition's severity.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant would face a real chance of persecution or significant harm upon return to Indonesia. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that Australia had no protection obligations towards him under the relevant provisions of the Migration Act.