2014433 (Refugee)

The applicant, an Indonesian national, sought review of a decision to refuse him a protection visa. The dispute concerned whether he met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Indonesia. The matter was heard by Khanh Hoang of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were to determine if the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or if he would face significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia. This required assessing the credibility and substance of his claims regarding past threats from a drug-dealing group and the adequacy of his evidence. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant could reasonably relocate within Indonesia to avoid any claimed harm.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims lacked sufficient detail and supporting evidence. Despite being given an opportunity to provide further information following a section 56 notice from the Department, the applicant failed to respond adequately. His statement in the pre-hearing information form was vague and did not sufficiently particularise the nature of the feared persecution, the identity of those he feared, or the specific incidents and dates. The Tribunal noted that the mere assertion of fear does not establish its genuineness or well-foundedness, and the onus remained on the applicant to satisfy the statutory elements.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958, as he failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Indonesia. Furthermore, there was no indication that he qualified for a visa as a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa.