2013743 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an Indonesian national. The applicant arrived in Australia on a visitor visa and subsequently applied for a protection visa, which was refused by the primary decision maker. The applicant then sought review of this decision by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia owed protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This required the Tribunal to assess whether the applicant faced persecution or significant harm if returned to Indonesia. A further issue was the applicant's responsibility, pursuant to s 5AAA of the Act, to provide all particulars of their claim and sufficient evidence to establish it, without obligation on the Tribunal to assist in this regard.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims regarding substantial debts, stress, and pressure from creditors in Indonesia, which he asserted prevented his return. However, the Tribunal noted significant contradictions between the applicant's written statements and his oral evidence concerning his employment and education history. Specifically, the applicant claimed to have never been employed or studied, yet later testified to completing high school, attending university, and holding various occupations before arriving in Australia. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had consolidated various debts into a single loan from a legitimate institution and had received advice from an agent to enter Australia on a visitor visa and then apply for a protection visa to gain work rights. The Tribunal found that the applicant's identity as an Indonesian citizen was established, and his claims would be assessed against Indonesia as the country of reference.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, concluding that the applicant had not discharged his responsibility under s 5AAA to provide sufficient particulars and evidence to establish his claim for protection. The inconsistencies in his evidence regarding his background and the circumstances of his debts and financial situation led the Tribunal to find that he had not demonstrated he was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations.