2015651 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a woman from Sulawesi, Indonesia. The applicant arrived in Australia in 2016 as a student and subsequently gave birth to a child out of wedlock. She claimed that her family discovered her situation and were angry, with some threatening to kill her if she returned to Indonesia due to the perceived shame it brought to their noble and Muslim family. The applicant also referenced a past incident where a neighbour was killed for having a "scandal," suggesting a similar fate awaited her. The case was heard by the Refugee Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons outlined in s 5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958, and whether there was a real chance she would be persecuted or suffer serious harm upon return to Indonesia. Alternatively, the Tribunal was required to assess whether the applicant met the complementary protection criteria under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act, which involves a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the 'Refugee Law Guidelines' and 'Complementary Protection Guidelines'. While acknowledging the applicant's fear and the potential for harm, the Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not sought assistance within Indonesia and had not attempted to relocate within the country, nor had she demonstrated that effective protection measures were unavailable. The Tribunal also considered the definition of "significant harm" and the circumstances under which a real risk is not taken to exist, including the possibility of reasonable relocation or the availability of state protection. Despite the applicant's stated fears, the Tribunal found that the criteria for a protection visa were not met.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. However, the Tribunal indicated it was moved to present the case to the Minister for consideration of potential intervention.