2012665 (Refugee)

The applicant, claiming to be an Indonesian citizen, sought a protection visa. The dispute concerned whether Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant under sections 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims of owing money to credit card companies and an online loan shark in Indonesia, and the alleged threats and violence from debt collectors.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee within the meaning of section 5H of the Act, or whether he faced a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Indonesia, pursuant to section 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's credibility and consider the availability of effective state protection in Indonesia.

The Tribunal found the applicant to be a credible witness, noting consistency between his oral evidence and his application, and that he provided supporting documentation for his debts. However, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa. While acknowledging the applicant's fear of harm from debt collectors, the Tribunal implicitly found that the circumstances did not amount to persecution for a Convention reason or significant harm that Australia was obligated to prevent. The Tribunal also considered the provisions relating to complementary protection, which require a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, and the possibility of reasonable relocation within the receiving country or access to state protection.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy any of the criteria set out in section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958.