2014285 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for a protection visa made by a non-citizen who claimed to fear persecution upon return to Indonesia. The applicant's claims were primarily based on alleged debts to loan sharks and past experiences of being assaulted in Australia. The AAT was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of a protection visa, specifically whether Australia had protection obligations towards him.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and whether there was a real risk of significant harm if he were removed from Australia to Indonesia. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's responsibility to provide sufficient evidence to establish his claims and the weight to be given to the absence of corroborative evidence and any credibility concerns.

The Tribunal reasoned that it was the applicant's responsibility to specify and substantiate his claims, and it was not obliged to assist in establishing them or to accept all allegations uncritically. Despite the applicant being represented by a lawyer, the Tribunal noted concerns regarding the lack of independent corroborative evidence for key aspects of his claims, particularly concerning the existence of a loan and the reasons for his fear. Furthermore, the Tribunal found aspects of the applicant's evidence to be lacking in credibility, including his assertion that he did not understand the contents of his protection visa application form which he had signed. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, concluding that he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958*.