2100914 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming fears of harm from loan sharks and debt collectors in Indonesia, and also being a victim survivor of family violence perpetrated by her husband. The dispute concerned whether these claims established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm, thereby engaging Australia's protection obligations. The matter was heard by Victoria Price, a Member of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of section 5H(1)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), or if not, whether she faced a real risk of significant harm if removed from Australia to Indonesia under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant's fear of persecution was well-founded, considering her membership in a particular social group, and whether effective protection measures were available to her in Indonesia.

The Tribunal found the applicant to be a credible witness, accepting her evidence regarding her marriage, separation, and the abuse she suffered from her husband, which led her to borrow money from loan sharks. It was noted that the applicant's mother had attempted to repay some of the debt, but a significant amount remained outstanding, and loan sharks had previously sought her at her home. The Tribunal considered the applicant to be a member of the social group "women in Indonesia" who are victims of family violence and are threatened by loan sharks. Crucially, the Tribunal concluded that effective protection measures were not available to the applicant in Indonesia for the harm she faced. Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant under section 36(2)(a) of the Act.

The Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant satisfies section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act*.