2014449 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a national of Indonesia. The applicant claimed to be a free thinker who had been threatened by members of the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) in Indonesia due to his opposition to their practices, including their demands for donations for jihad. He alleged that these threats led him to fear for his safety, causing him to flee to Australia, and that he had suffered mental health issues as a result. The decision under review was made by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of section 5H of the Act, or if he met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) by facing a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Indonesia. This involved assessing the applicant's claims of persecution for reasons of religion or political opinion, the credibility of his evidence, and the availability of effective protection in Indonesia.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence, including his account of being threatened by approximately 20 FPI members at his home in December 2016, and his assertion that he had spoken out against the FPI for about five months prior to this incident. However, the Tribunal noted that the applicant stated this was the only occasion he was threatened, he was never harmed, and he had felt safe in Indonesia before this incident. The Tribunal applied the principles outlined in sections 5AAA, 5J, 5LA, and 36 of the *Migration Act 1958*, which govern the burden of proof on the applicant, the definition of a well-founded fear of persecution, the availability of effective protection, and the criteria for protection visas, including the complementary protection criterion. The Tribunal also had regard to Ministerial Direction No. 84 and relevant guidelines.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion under section 36(2)(a) as a refugee, nor did it find that he satisfied the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). Consequently, the applicant did not meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa.