2012702 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual who claimed to fear persecution in Indonesia due to alleged debts to money lenders and criminal gangs, and general harsh economic conditions. The applicant also asserted distrust in the Indonesian judiciary and law enforcement. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Cth) was required to determine whether Australia owed protection obligations to the applicant, necessitating an assessment of the credibility of his claims and their alignment with the applicable legal framework.

The Tribunal was tasked with determining if the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) as a refugee, or under section 36(2)(aa) as a person facing significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. This involved evaluating the applicant's evidence against the definitions of "refugee" and "significant harm" as provided in the Act and relevant guidelines, and considering whether effective protection measures were available in Indonesia.

At the hearing, the applicant provided evidence that contradicted his initial claims. He testified that his application form was completed with the assistance of a friend who drafted the details of his claims, and that he was not in debt. He stated he had a business that failed, leading to a debt which he has since repaid, and that he now works in Australia to support his family. He expressed no fear for his safety or rights in Indonesia. The Tribunal accepted this evidence as true, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa.