2102721 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1141

2102721 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1141 (4 MARCH 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number: 2102721
Tribunal:General Member L Hill
Date:4 March 2025

Place:Brisbane
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 04 March 2025 at 3:14pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Indonesia – particular social group – mixed religious relationship – avoiding wedding – fear of physical assault – passport renewal – delay in applying for protection – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and transitional Provisions No1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 18 February 2021 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a national of Indonesia, applied for the visa on 13 December 2019. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that on the basis that the applicant was not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as provided for in s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 31 January 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Indonesian and English languages.
On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1)Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.
BACKGROUND
Evidence before the Department
The applicant lodged his application for the protection visa with the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) on 13 December 2019. A copy of the biographical/bidata page of the applicant’s Republic of Indonesia passport accompanied the application.
In the application for the protection visa, the applicant provided the following claims for protection:
Select the country or countries from which this applicant is seeking protection and cannot return to.
Country INDONESIA
Provide reasons why this applicant left that country or those countries:
WHEN I WAS WORKING IN PATI, I MET A GIRL BY THE NAME OF
[MS A]. I AM A MUSLIM AND SHE IS A BUDDISH. AFTER
SOME TIME, WE BECAME FRIENDS. THEN, WE FELL DEEPLY IN
LOVE. WHEN I TOLD MY PARENTS THAT I WANTED TO MARRY
[MS A], THEY WERE FURIOUS.
THEY WANTED ME TO MARRY A RELATIVE OF MINE. THEY DO
NOT WANT ME TO MARRY A BUDDISH. I TOLD MY PARENTS
THAT I LOVE HER SO MUCH. MY PARENTS AND BROTHERS
THREATENED ME. I WAS TOLD TO END THE RELATIONSHIP
WITH HER.
BUT WE CONTINUED OUR RELATIONSHIP. WHEN MY PARENTS
KNEW ABOUT IT, THEY CAME TO MY PLACE OF WORK. THEN,
MY PARENTS AND BROTHERS WENT LOOKING FOR [MS A].
WHEN THEY FOUND HER, THEY THREATENED TO KILL HER IF
SHE CONTINUES THE RELATIONSHIP WITH ME.
WE WERE VERY FRIGHTENED. SO, ON [a day in] NOVEMBER
2019, [MS A] AND I TOOK A FLIGHT TO BRISBANE,
AUSTRALIA. WE WANTED TO RUN AWAY FROM MY FAMILY
AND SEEK PROTECTION FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF
AUSTRALIA. IF WE STAY IN INDONESIA WE WILL NOT BE
ABLE TO GET MARRIED BECAUSE WE ARE OF DIFFERENT
RELIGIONS.
Did this applicant experience harm in that country or those countries?
Yes
Give details including:
• the type of harm this applicant experienced
• the person/people responsible for the harm
• why they harmed this applicant.
MY PARENTS AND BROTHERS THREATENED TO KILL [MS A]
AND I BECAUSE THEY WERE AGAINST MY RELATIONSHIP WITH
HER.
Did this applicant seek help within the country or those countries after the harm?
No
Give details of why this applicant did not try to seek help.
WE WERE TOO AFRAID BECAUSE OUR LIVES WERE
THREATENED. WE ONLY COULD THINK OF TO RUN AWAY
FROM INDONESIA TO A SAFE COUNTRY LIKE AUSTRALIA.
Did this applicant move, or try to move, to another part of that country or those countries to seek safety?
No
Give details for why this applicant did not try to move to another part of the country or those countries.
WE COULD NOT MOVE TO ANOTHER PART OF THE COUNTRY
BECAUSE WE WERE TOO SCARED OF THE THREAT TO OUR
LIVES. WE DID NOT THINK THAT WE ARE SAFE EVEN THOUGH
WE RELOCATE TO ANOTHER PART OF THE COUNTRY.
Explain what the applicant thinks will happen to them if they return to that country or those countries:
[MS A] AND I WILL BE KILLED BY MY PARENTS AND
BROTHERS.
Does this applicant think they will be harmed or mistreated if they return to that country or countries?
Yes
Give details including:
• the type of harm or mistreatment this applicant is likely to experience
• the person/people who would be responsible for the harm or mistreatment
• why they would harm or mistreat this applicant.
MY PARENTS AND BROTHERS THREATENED TO KILL [MS A]
AND I BECAUSE THEY WERE AGAINST MY RELATIONSHIP WITH
HER.
Does this applicant think the authorities of that country or those countries can and will protect this applicant if they go back?
No
Give details about why this applicant thinks the authorities could not, or would not, protect them.
WE DONT THINK THAT THE POLICE COULD PROTECT US ALL
THE TIME.
Does this applicant think they would be able to relocate within that country or those countries to an area where they would not be harmed?
No
Give details about why this applicant is unable to relocate.
WE COULD NOT MOVE TO ANOTHER PART OF THE COUNTRY
BECAUSE WE WERE TOO SCARED OF THE THREAT TO OUR
LIVES. WE DID NOT THINK THAT WE ARE SAFE EVEN THOUGH
WE RELOCATE TO ANOTHER PART OF THE COUNTRY.
On 24 November 2020, the Department wrote to the applicant, requesting more information to help assess his application for a protection visa. In summary, the applicant was advised that:
·His statement of claims lacked substantiating details regarding his claims to have been threatened by his family due to his relationship. Nor had he provided any documentary evidence.
·He was asked to provide further information about what had happened to him in Indonesia and his marital status and any documentary evidence in support. He was also asked to provide why he could not return to Indonesia if he was no longer in a relationship.
·Finally, he was advised that if he was unable to provide the information about his claims or copies of documents, he was to provide a detailed explanation of why he could not provide them.
On 24 November 2020, the Department wrote to the applicant, inviting him to comment on unfavourable information which did not support his application for a protection visa. In summary, the applicant was advised that:
·He had stated in his application that he had left Indonesia because of his relationship. He left Jakarta [in] November 2019 and had never applied to enter any other country other than Australia. He had listed his previous address as Pati, Indonesia between [birth] and [November] 2019.
·However, there was information before the Department that he arrived in Australia on [a day in] November 2019 on a flight from [Country 1] and information which showed that he transited through Australia on [a day in] March 2019, on route to [Country 1].
·It was put to the applicant that this information may suggest that he was spending time in [Country 1], or another Pacific Island country, from March to November 2019, and his claims that he and his claimed partner, [Ms A] were threatened by his family in Indonesia, were not credible.
·The Department put to the applicant that the inconsistencies in his evidence may be taken into account when assessing the genuineness of his protection claims and may lead to a finding that his claims are not credible.
·He was asked to comment on the above information.
On 27 November 2020, the applicant provided the following response to the Department:
14. List details of the informaiton provided on your application which is no longer current and provide the new correct informtion
1. Information which is no longer current:
Furthermore, I transited Australian on [a day in] March 2019, departing on Flight [number] on route to [Country 1]. This suggests you were in [Country 1] or [a nearby] country from March until November 2019.
2. New correct details:
Since I left Indonesia and transited in Australia [in] March 2019 to go to [Country 2] to spend time with my girlfriend, and I don’t want to go back Indonesia because my parents forced me to marry the girl they chose, so I made the decision to stay with my girlfriend and other problems came from my girlfriend parents, they didn’t agree that I was married to their daughter.
On 18 February 2021, the delegate decided to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Act. The delegate considered the information before it and found that the applicant and his girlfriend were not in Indonesia and could not be threatened by the applicant’s parents, as claimed. The delegate finding that the applicant’s claims were not credible in their entirety. The delegate finding that the applicant did not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) or complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa).
Evidence before the Tribunal
The applicant lodged his application for review with the Tribunal on 4 March 2021. He attached a copy of the refusal notification and decision record dated 18 February 2021.
On 4 March 2021, the Tribunal emailed the applicant and clarified the details of his application for review because he had stated that he was seeking a review of a refusal of a bridging visa (WC 030) dated [in] February 2021 and not the refusal of a protection visa (XA 866). On 9 March 2021, the applicant responded to the Tribunal by email and indicated that he had completed the wrong date and his review was for the decision dated 18 February 2021. On 10 March 2021, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and confirmed acknowledgement of his application for review of a decision to refuse to grant a protection visa.
On 8 December 2024, the Tribunal emailed the applicant a ‘Pre-hearing information form’ (pre-hearing form), advising that the matter was being prepared to be given to a Tribunal Member. He was asked to complete the form and return it to the Tribunal.
On 8 December 2024, the applicant emailed the Tribunal a completed and signed ‘Pre-hearing information form’ dated 8 December 2024. In the section ‘claims for protection’, the applicant stated that:
The family of the girl I was matched with still doesn’t accept it,
Because three weeks before the wedding,I ran away from home,
While the girl’s family has prepared everything for our wedding,
And until now the girl’s family is still looking for me and they always ask my family.
And my family didn’t tell me that I was in Australia.
On 3 January 2025, the Tribunal invited the applicant to a hearing by video, scheduled for 31 January 2025. The applicant was asked to read and complete the enclosed ‘Response to hearing notice’ and return it to the Tribunal. On 6 January 2025, the applicant returned a completed hearing form dated 6 January 2025
On 31 January 2025, the applicant appeared before the Tribunal by video to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Indonesian and English languages. At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant’s claims for protection were discussed. A consideration of the applicant’s claims and evidence is set out below.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Criteria for protection visa
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the criteria for a grant of the protection visa. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Findings of fact
At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant confirmed he was born in Pati (Regency) in Central Java in Indonesia and was a practising Muslim. He has [specified siblings] who are all married. His mother passed away last year and his father, who is retired, remains living in the family home. He financially supports his father and sends him approximately 2 million rupees ($200 AU) every month. One of his sister’s lives next to the family home and often visits his father.
The applicant confirmed that his highest level of education was high school which he completed in approximately [year]. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his work history in Indonesia and Australia. He stated that he has worked as a [occupation] and worked as a labourer [at specified locations]. He stated to work in [his industry] in Indonesia as he didn’t need any qualifications to do this work. In Australia, he has been working on farms. He indicated that he moves between different farms (as the seasons change) picking different fruits and vegetables [specified]. On average he is paid approximately $700 to $800 per week.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant the information before the Department and the Tribunal that suggested he had transited through Australia and travelled to [Country 1] on [a day in] March 2019. The applicant stated that prior to his arrival in Australia, he had applied for and been granted a work visa for [Country 2]. The company he was employed by was [working on a project]. It was a two-year contract; however, the company went bankrupt and after eight months they were sent home.
The Tribunal asked if he had ever worked overseas prior to his travel to [Country 2]. He stated yes. In 2011, he worked in [Country 3]. It was a one-year contract working on [another specified project]. After the contract finished, he returned to Indonesia.
The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence regarding his family composition, education, and work history. This aspect of the applicant’s oral evidence at the hearing was detailed and convincing and raised no concerns.
Claims for protection
At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant was asked why he could not return to Indonesia. He stated that the reason he had to leave was because of [Ms A]. [Ms A] has mental health problems. [Ms A’s] family are well off and she had a brother who was [an occupation 1], and he was frightened.
The Tribunal asked the applicant how he met [Ms A]. He stated he had known her since they were little. Her family is well-known by everyone in their village. [Ms A’s] father is wealthy and loans people money. He was asked if he knew how her father had become wealthy. He stated that her father has a [business] and extensive [fields]. He further explained that at the end of [year], before he finished school, his father had borrowed money from [Ms A’s] father. However, his father had a lot of trouble paying the money back. His father had borrowed the money pay for his education and certificates. The Tribunal asked the applicant if his father still owed the money. He responded that he had never asked.
The applicant went onto explain that [Ms A’s] parents wanted him to marry her. The wedding was planned for [a day in] March 2019. [Ms A’s] family had booked everything including the catering. Invitations had been given out to everyone. However, he did not want to marry [Ms A], and planned to run away. He was asked what his parents thought about this marriage. He stated that they didn’t agree with it and did not want him to marry someone crazy. He was asked what he meant by crazy. He explained that when they were in [grade] at high school, [Ms A] got very depressed and tried to kill herself. No one in the village wanted to marry her because of that.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why he was chosen to marry [Ms A]. He stated, firstly, it was because he is poor, and he doesn’t have anything and secondly, “perhaps they could still manage me”. He was asked what he meant by this. He stated that in his village people who have no money, have no power. Money can buy anything in Indonesia.
The applicant was asked whether his parents approached [Ms A’s] parents to express their concerns. He stated they wouldn’t dare refuse the request. He was asked why. He responded that he thinks its because his parents had borrowed too much money from [Ms A’s] parents.
The Tribunal asked the applicant what he did after deciding he did not want to go through with the marriage. He explained that he contacted an agent and enquired about going to [Country 2]. His older sibling had seen an advertisement on Facebook about job opportunities in [Country 2]. He contacted the agent and was accepted because he had the requisite [work] certificates. He went to Jakarta and completed the medical tests and then travelled by plane to [Country 2]. He stayed in Jakarta for approximately one month. The applicant was asked whether he returned to his village/family home after completing the medical tests in Jakarta. He stated no.

The applicant further explained that he left his family home on 10 February 2019 and travelled to Jakarta. He took his passport and some clothes. His parents did not know that he had left. He waited in Jakarta for a month before departing for [Country 2], via Bali and then Australia.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if his family told him what had happened on the day of the wedding. He stated they just cried and couldn’t say anything. He felt guilty for not seeing his mother when she died. He wanted to apply for a bridging visa to return to home but he feared [Ms A’s] family.
It was put to the applicant that at least five years has passed since the wedding, and whether he still feared returning now. He stated that in Indonesia, people are vengeful, and they can do anything. He said he sees the news and there are lots of killings and mutilations.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why he would be harmed. He stated he didn’t think they would harm him directly but order other people to hurt him. In Indonesia, they can pay people to hurt him. He was asked who they would pay and why, particularly given that five years had passed since his marriage to [Ms A] was to have taken place. He responded that [Ms A’s] family feel that he has embarrassed them and lowered their standing and [Ms A] is not married. He was asked how he found out that [Ms A’s] family were embarrassed and wanted to harm him. He stated that it was because he had disrupted their wedding plans. He indicated that as [Ms A] is a Buddhist, this goes against cultural norms and lowers their standing.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why he couldn’t relocate to another area of Indonesia to avoid the harm he feared, particularly given his evidence that prior to leaving he had spent time in Jakarta. He stated that if he lives anywhere in Indonesia, including Jakarta, they will find him. He was asked how he thought they would do that. He stated that [Ms A’s] brother is [an occupation 1], and it would be easy for them to trace him. Her family knows he is currently overseas, but they don’t know where he is. If he returned to Indonesia, and wanted to go overseas again, he would have to do a [security] check and her brother would find him that way. It was put to the applicant, that there were many [occupation 1s] in Indonesia, and was there a reason, he could not seek the assistance of [the police]. He responded, if he reported this, they wouldn’t pay any attention. He also indicated that in Indonesia they only help people who have money, and his family is poor.
The applicant was asked if [Ms A’s] family had discussed this issue with his family. He stated at the time of the wedding, they came to the family home, and her family was crying but his family couldn’t provide any explanation. He was asked if anything had happened since then. He stated that since that time, they approach his father and tried to speak to him and ask where he was. His father has told them that he does not know where he is. When his mother died, the family came to the family home to see his mother because they thought he would return. He was asked if anything was said. He stated they asked his father why he hadn’t returned. His dad responded that he didn’t know anything about me.
The applicant stated that honestly, he would like to go back and see his father, but he is waiting for the right time and for [Ms A] to get married and then he won’t be frightened anymore. He was asked if he had heard whether they had arranged for someone else to marry her. He stated he had heard that there was someone else, but it didn’t get to the wedding stage.
Several times at the Tribunal hearing, the applicant conveyed that he was providing an honest account of his past experiences in Indonesia. Despite his insistence on honesty, the discrepancies between his oral evidence and the material before the Tribunal raises serious concerns about the reliability of his claims for protection.
Firstly, the applicant’s core claim for protection, that being a relationship with a girl, [Ms A] has evolved overtime. As set out above, in the application for a protection visa, the applicant claimed that he was in love with [Ms A], and that it was his family who was unhappy with their relationship, threatening to kill them and prompting their travel to Australia.
However, the applicant’s evidence regarding his relationship with [Ms A] shifted in his response to the Department in November 2020. In response to the Department concerns about the consistency of his claims with his documented travel history, the applicant claimed that he had gone to [Country 2] to spend time with his girlfriend because his parents were forcing him to marry a girl they had chosen. His evidence further evolved, when he claimed that it was his girlfriend’s parents who did not agree with his marriage to their daughter, rather than his own.
After being notified of the delegate’s decision to refuse his application for a protection visa, in December 2024, the applicant provided a brief but new narrative about his relationship with [Ms A], claiming that it was the girl’s ([Ms A]) parents who had arranged their marriage and were looking for and wanted to harm him. During the Tribunal hearing, the applicant further claimed that [Ms A’s] brother was [an occupation 1], and that her family is a very wealthy and a prominent family in his village, who had in the past loaned his father money.
The conflicting details and changing evidence between the application and his oral evidence was put to the applicant for comment at the Tribunal hearing. The applicant responded that he had been honest about his experiences. He strongly follows his religion, and he was telling the Tribunal what he had experienced. He explained that a person had assisted him with his application, and he didn’t know what this person had written in the application. He had explained to this person that he and [Ms A] were never boyfriend and girlfriend, and he was shocked to find out the reasons this person had provided in his application. The Tribunal also put to the applicant that in addition to his claims set out in his application for a protection visa and his oral evidence, his response to the Department’s request for further information in November 2020 also offered a different narrative regarding his relationship with [Ms A] and his reasons for leaving Indonesia. He responded that he didn’t write that response. He paid someone to complete that response for him. At the end of the Tribunal hearing, when the applicant was asked if there was anything further that he would like to add or clarify, he stated that he wanted to stress that he had spoken honestly, and what had been written in the application was not what he had told the person. He had paid him to help him, but he wrote something different to what he had experienced.
The Tribunal has carefully considered the applicant’s responses; however, it finds it difficult to accept that the significant evolution in the applicant’s past experiences in Indonesia can be attributed to errors made by the person the applicant paid to complete his application for a protection visa. Moreover, the applicant’s own evidence indicates that he realised the reasons (claims) were wrong after he received the refusal, yet he made no attempt to correct such discrepancies until three years later, and the Tribunal finds that this delay further undermines the reliability of the applicant’s explanations.
Secondly, the applicant’s delay in applying for protection, after he had transited through Australia and travelled to [Country 2] also raises concerns about the urgency or reliability of his claims for protection. At the Tribunal hearing the applicant was asked why he did not apply for protection when he first transited through Australia. He stated he had a two-year contract to work in [Country 2] and if he did not complete the work contract he would have been fined. He was also trying to be a professional employee but then the company went bankrupt. He further stated he didn’t know he could apply for protection.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s explanations for the delay in applying for the protection visa, however, the Tribunal remains unconvinced and considers that had the applicant’s claims been genuine he would have sought advice and applied earlier than he did.
Finally, given the applicant’s evidence that [Ms A] is a Buddhist, and he is a Muslim, country information relating to interfaith marriages in Indonesia was discussed with the applicant at the Tribunal hearing. It was put to the applicant that the information before the Tribunal suggests that in Indonesia interfaith marriages are limited by law and that such marriages can be difficult unless one party is willing to marry according to the religious rituals of the partner’s religion.[1] The applicant was asked if he had any comments in response. The applicant stated that in Indonesia, one person does have to enter the other’s persons religion and that [Ms A] probably wanted to join him as a Muslim. He stated it was easy to become a Muslim you just needed to say a phrase twice. This is valid and legal according to the government. The applicant was asked why [Ms A’s] family would want her to convert to Islam. He responded they were just happy that someone wanted to marry her. He further indicated that as part of his marriage to [Ms A], his family was to be given business opportunities. His father was to be given a [farm] with the opportunity to raise [animals]. He was asked whether his family was upset with him when he did not go through with the marriage, and they subsequently lost the opportunity to be given a [farm]. He responded that his father wanted him to take this opportunity, but he didn’t want to live in that situation.
[1] Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Country Information Report Indonesia, 24 July 2023.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s responses; however, it finds the applicant’s evidence that as a Muslim he was arranged to marry [Ms A], a Buddhist, to be inconsistent with the country information regarding interfaith marriages in Indonesia. The Indonesian legal and cultural landscape posing significant challenges for interfaith marriages, often necessitating a partner’s conversion to ensure legal recognition.[2] Given these complexities, along with the Tribunal’s concerns outlined above regarding the evolution of the applicant’s evidence regarding his past experiences in Indonesia, the Tribunal finds it highly unlikely that such a marriage would be arranged.
[2] Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Country Information Report Indonesia, 24 July 2023.
Having considered the totality of the evidence, for the reasons expressed above, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s evidence regarding his past experiences in Indonesia. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was in a relationship and/or forced and/or arranged to marry anyone including [Ms A], a Buddhist and that this led to his decision to leave Indonesia. Nor does the Tribunal accept that the applicant fears any harm on these bases should he return to Indonesia.
At the Tribunal hearing, when discussing his travel to [Country 2], the applicant provided evidence about his relationship with a girl he had met while working there. He had met this girl at the airport when he arrived in [Country 1] – she was also travelling to [Country 2]. In [Country 2], they saw each other often. He asked this girl to marry him, however, her family did not approve, as her family are protestant Christians. The applicant was asked if he was still in a relationship with this girl. He stated that it only lasted approximately three months and ended prior to his departure from [Country 2]. After her family regretted him, he had no further contact with the girl. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence that this relationship ceased prior to his arrival in Australia in November 2019. The applicant has not claimed that arising from this relationship he will be harmed on return to Indonesia, and the Tribunal finds that he will not be.
At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant was asked about his Republic of Indonesia passport, which the Tribunal noted had expired in 2021. He was asked if he had applied and been issued with a new passport. The applicant stated that he has been issued with a new passport in December 2021. His new passport expires in 2026. He was whether he had any issues obtaining the new passport. He responded that at the time, he didn’t, but he has since heard it is no longer possible for people to renew their passports. He was asked who had told him this. He stated that a friend had told him this. They had tried to renew their passport but were rejected because they were on a bridging visa. He indicated that the Indonesian government was angry that Indonesians were applying for protection from another country. He was asked whether he was asked any questions at the time he applied to renew his passport. He responded that they did not ask any questions.
It was put to the applicant that arising from his responses, the Tribunal understands that he did not encounter any problems when he applied to renew his passport. He responded that they were angry at him because he had applied for protection. They told him not to apply for protection in Australia. He was asked what he did in response to this. He stated that he went quiet as there were a lot of people witnessing what was happening. They were also applying to renew their passport. He was asked if any questions were asked about why he was applying for protection. He stated that he told them a bit about his problems. They felt sorry for him, but they didn’t have much time as there were other people in the queue.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s responses regarding the renewal of his Republic of Indonesia passport; however, the Tribunal considers that his evidence has evolved over time. Initially, when asked if he had any issues renewing his passport, the applicant responded that he did not. He also confirmed that no questions were asked about his application for protection. However, it was only after the Tribunal confirmed with him his responses, that the applicant mentioned that they (presumably Indonesia government officials) were angry at him because he had applied for protection and told him not to do so. Furthermore, he explained that he briefly told them about his problems, and they felt sorry for him. Based on the inconsistencies and changes in the applicant’s account, the Tribunal find his evidence to be unreliable and lacking in credibility. Specifically, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s evidence that when he renewed his passport the passport officials were angry at him and spoke to him about his application and/or his claims for protection and that he shared his problems with them. The Tribunal does not accept these aspects of his evidence to be reliable or true.
Notwithstanding this, the Tribunal finds that the applicant will return to Indonesia after his application for protection/asylum has been unsuccessful.
Country of reference (and receiving country)
The applicant provided the Department with a copy of the biographical/biodata page of his Republic of Indonesia passport. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a citizen of Indonesia. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant has citizenship of any other country, or that he has a right to enter and/or reside in any third country. Based on the information before it, The Tribunal is satisfied that s 36(3) does not apply.
The Tribunal finds that the receiving country is Indonesia; and on this basis the applicant’s claims have been assessed against Indonesia.
Does the applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?
As set out above, the Tribunal has not accepted the applicant’s claims for protection arising his past experiences in Indonesia and his claims that he was in a relationship and/or forced and/or arranged to marry anyone including [Ms A], a Buddhist and that this led to his decision to leave Indonesia. Nor has the Tribunal accepted that the applicant fears any harm on these bases should he return to Indonesia.
Notwithstanding this, as set out above, the Tribunal has found that the applicant will return to Indonesia after his application for protection/asylum has been unsuccessful. The applicant’s evidence is that since his arrival in Australia, in December 2021, he renewed his Republic of Indonesia passport. The applicant has not claimed and nor is there any evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant has committed any offences in Indonesia or that he had any issues when he departed Indonesia in March 2019. The country information indicates that most Indonesians experience nothing unusual or difficult when entering or leaving Indonesia. Inward and outward travel might be controlled through an entry or exit control list; however, it is unlikely that this is consulted for every enter and exit.[3] Given the applicant’s circumstances, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is on any entry or exit control list and finds that the applicant has no adverse profile.
[3] Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Country Information Report Indonesia, 24 July 2023.
In 2023, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) reported that a failed asylum seeker is unlikely to be held or questioned by authorities and DFAT was not aware of any examples of this occurring.[4] The Tribunal has not located any other information which suggests that there has been an increased level of scrutiny for returnees, including those who have applications for protection/asylum which have been unsuccessful. Given the country information and the applicant’s individual circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that there is not a real chance of the applicant facing any type of harm from any individuals and/or groups and/or the State on account of his profile as a failed asylum seeker and/or asylum seeker should he return to Indonesia, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
[4] Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Country Information Report Indonesia, 24 July 2023.
Having regard to the all the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance of the applicant being harmed on account of any of the reasons claimed and/or his profile, either individually or cumulatively should he return to Indonesia, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Does the applicant satisfy the complementary protection criterion for protection?
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa).
As set out above, the Tribunal has not accepted the applicant’s claims for protection arising from his past experiences in Indonesia and his fears of harm on these bases should he return to Indonesia. The Tribunal has also found that there is not a real chance that the applicant will experience any harm on account of his profile as a failed asylum seeker and/or asylum seeker should he return to Indonesia. The ‘real risk’ test under the complementary protection criterion imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test under the refugee criterion.[5] It follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Indonesia, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm on account of any of the reasons claimed and/or his profile.
[5] MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33.

For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
Member of the same family unit
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Date(s) of hearing:               31 January 2025
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…