2102127 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse the applicant, an Indonesian citizen, a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear returning to Indonesia due to debt, family problems, and the general economic situation. The delegate had refused the visa on the basis that the applicant was not a refugee as defined by s5H(1) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and that there were no substantial grounds to believe he would suffer significant harm upon removal.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the definition of a refugee under s5H(1) of the Act, and whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Indonesia, he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. This required the court to consider whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, and if effective protection measures were available to him in Indonesia.

The court considered the applicant's evidence regarding his debt to an official bank, which he was repaying from his Australian earnings, and his claims of family problems stemming from past loans. While the applicant expressed a fear of his cousin, stemming from threats made in 2010, the court noted that the debt to family members had been repaid around 2013 and there had been no communication since. The applicant also stated that he could move to another province for safety and that the Indonesian police would likely assist him if he felt threatened. The court found that the applicant's inability to earn a sufficient wage in Indonesia to repay his bank debt did not constitute significant economic hardship that threatened his capacity to subsist, nor did it amount to a denial of his capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind. Furthermore, the court determined that effective protection measures were available to the applicant in Indonesia, including the possibility of relocating within the country and accessing police protection.

Consequently, the court affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.