2013434 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an Indonesian national. The applicant claimed to fear persecution in Indonesia due to his Hindu religion, alleging he was targeted for forced conversion by Muslims and had been threatened with death. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) reviewed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa.

The primary legal issues before the AAT were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), specifically whether he was a refugee due to a well-founded fear of persecution, or alternatively, whether Australia had protection obligations under the complementary protection criterion. A key procedural issue was the applicant's failure to attend a scheduled hearing before the Tribunal and his lack of explanation for this non-attendance.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa. The AAT reasoned that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient information or evidence to substantiate his claims of persecution. Despite multiple opportunities, the applicant did not respond to requests for further details regarding the alleged harm, including evidence of reporting the incidents to authorities or attempts to relocate within Indonesia. The Tribunal noted that it is the applicant's responsibility to present their case and provide supporting evidence, and a decision-maker is not obliged to construct the case for the applicant. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no country information to support the claim that Hindus in Bali, a province with a Hindu majority, were targets of forced conversion by Muslims. The applicant's failure to attend the hearing, without providing any reason or seeking a postponement, meant the Tribunal could not test his claims and was unable to reach the requisite level of satisfaction required to grant a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.