2015178 (Refugee)

The applicant, an Indonesian national, sought a protection visa, claiming she feared death if returned to Indonesia due to threats from her former employer. She alleged that her boss blamed her for the disappearance of USD 10,000 withdrawn from a bank for a customer, which was taken by her boyfriend. She further claimed to have suffered harm in Indonesia, including her car being burned and her house being crashed, and that police protection was ineffective. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had satisfied the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether she had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Indonesia. This required the Tribunal to assess the credibility and evidentiary support for the applicant's claims, considering both refugee and complementary protection criteria. The Tribunal also had to determine if the applicant had fulfilled her responsibility to provide sufficient particulars and evidence to establish her claims.

The Tribunal reasoned that the mere assertion of a fear of persecution or risk of harm does not establish its genuineness or well-foundedness. It reiterated the principle that the onus rests on the applicant to specify all particulars of their claim and provide sufficient evidence, and that a decision-maker is not obliged to construct the applicant's case. The applicant had failed to respond to a section 56 letter from the Department requesting further details, including key dates and locations, and her pre-hearing response offered only general statements about needing funds and supporting her child. Consequently, the Tribunal found her claims lacked credibility and were not substantiated by sufficient evidence to meet the statutory requirements for protection obligations.

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