2015913 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the protection visa applications of two applicants who claimed to fear harm from money lenders in Indonesia due to an outstanding debt. The dispute centred on whether the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Indonesia.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) as refugees, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) as persons facing a real risk of significant harm if returned to Indonesia. This required the Tribunal to assess the credibility of the applicants' claims, the consistency of their evidence, and the objective country information regarding the risks faced by ethnic Chinese Indonesians and those in debt.

The Tribunal found significant credibility concerns with the applicants' evidence, particularly concerning the timing of their decision to leave Indonesia and the wife's conflicting accounts of travel to Europe. The Tribunal noted that the applicants obtained Schengen visas in January 2019, before their claimed problems with money lenders escalated, and that they delayed their departure from Indonesia for approximately six weeks after being granted their Australian visas. This delay, coupled with the inconsistent evidence regarding their planning to leave, undermined their claims of an urgent need to flee due to fear of harm. While accepting that the applicants had experienced harassment from money lenders and a violent incident at their home, the Tribunal was not satisfied that these events indicated an ongoing threat or a real risk of significant harm upon return. The Tribunal also considered the applicants' claims of discrimination based on their Chinese ethnicity, but concluded, based on country information, that while some discrimination might occur, it did not reach the threshold of serious or significant harm.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, finding that they did not satisfy the criteria under either section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).