2014159 (Refugee)

The applicant, an Indonesian national, sought a protection visa, claiming a fear of harm upon return to Indonesia. The dispute centred on whether the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm if returned. The case was heard by the Tribunal, which ultimately affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant's claims of being threatened and assaulted by a loan shark, and a new claim of fear of black magic, established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's evidence, particularly in light of discrepancies between his visa application and his oral testimony.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding the loan shark to be unpersuasive. It noted significant inconsistencies between the applicant's written claim of physical assault and his oral evidence that he was never physically harmed, only verbally threatened. The Tribunal also found the applicant's explanation for his family's alleged threats to be unconvincing, given his initial assertion that they were threatened. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted a lack of detail in the original application regarding the loan, which was only provided during the hearing, and inconsistencies regarding the applicant's ability to manage a farm while working elsewhere. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm.

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