2303883 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 2206

2303883 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 2206 (30 September 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent:Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Tribunal Number: 2303883
Tribunal:General Member S Waring
Date:30 September 2025

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

Statement made on 30 September 2025 at 8:53am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – East Timor – financial hardship – lack of employment opportunities in home country – new claims – domestic violence – inconsistent evidence – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 5H, 5J–5LA, 36, 65, 367A, 369, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
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 15 March 2023 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 East Timor, applied for the visa on 19 November 2022. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant does not engage Australia’s protection obligations under the refugee or the complementary protection criteria in s36(2)(a) and s36(2)(aa) of the Act.
On 18 March 2023 the applicant lodged an application for review with the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT). The applicant provided a copy of the delegate’s refusal decision as part of the review application.
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.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 1 September 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Tetum and English languages.
The issue to be considered in this case is whether the applicant engages Australia’s protection obligations under the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion prescribed in the Act.
BACKGROUND
[The applicant] is now [age] years-of-age. She first entered Australia [in] May 2017 and has, since then, travelled overseas between:
- [October] 2017 to [May] 2018
- [November] 2018 to [July] 2019
- [March] 2020 to [August] 2022
The applicant was born in [Subdistrict 1], Baucau province, East Timor. She joined the seasonal worker program and during her visits to Australia she worked in a number of [Occupation 1] jobs.
[The applicant] follows the Christian religion and has literacy skills in the English, Tetum and Indonesian languages.
Evidence before the Department and the Tribunal
No interview was undertaken by the Department.
When the protection visa application was lodged the Department wrote to the applicant acknowledging the application and advising that she could present further information for consideration - including via her s online account. The applicant did not submit any further material to the Department. As such, the evidence taken into account by the Department included:
·the applicant’s protection visa application.
·supporting documents including personal identifiers sighted by the Department as part of an identification test.
Statements made by the applicant in a pre-hearing form she submitted to the Tribunal which re-state the claims put to the delegate.
In addition to the above documents, a movement record of the applicant’s transits into and out of Australia is before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal also received evidence from the applicant at hearing.
Screenshot evidence of messages and social media posts (together with an unauthorised translation) submitted by the applicant after hearing.
The totality of evidence before the Tribunal is discussed and examined below.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The applicant provided a copy of the biodata page of her Timorese passport to the Department as part of her protection visa application. The delegate accepted that the applicant is a citizen of East Timor and there is no information before the Tribunal to the contrary. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is a citizen of East Timor, and that East Timor is her receiving country for the purposes of assessing her claims for protection.
Claims made in the visa application
In her protection visa application [the applicant] discloses her claims for protection as follows:
·she experienced harm in her home country as she had difficulties gaining employment there prior to being selected for the seasonal workers program. She was never selected for jobs she applied for in her home country
·she came to work in Australia to have a stable income that would allow her to support her family and improve their living conditions
- she did not try to relocate to another part of the country.
New claims made at hearing
The applicant disclosed the following further claims to the Tribunal at hearing:
- her ex-partner has made threats of violence against her
- she fears returning to East Timor because of the problems which will arise with her ex-partner who wants her to live with him his second wife
- she suffered physical violence at the hands of her ex-partner. She tried to gain assistance with this family violence by appealing to her family (and the family of her ex-partner) but they did not help her.
The pre-hearing submission
On 12 March 2025 the applicant submitted the following statement to the Tribunal :
In the past few years I have went through a very difficult time. I never been selected when applying for a job and did not have enough courage to look at others success. Until I realised that I still have something in myself to be proud off when I was selected to come and work in Australia. This is where I start my dream to be the women in the family to always support them In any way I can. Also to give an affordable life conditions for my family. I wish that I can be granted this visa, so I can continue encourage myself to work hard and support my family to have stable income and sustainable life conditions.
I have no more courage to go back and living in the same life condition where I have encounter few years back. I really want to grow with what I have reach now and continue to be success an any field interest through the opportunity I have been given. I was having a difficult life a few years back for…
The hearing
The applicant told the Tribunal that she prepared the protection visa application herself as her literacy in English language allowed her to do so. She stated that she applied based on:
·the economic circumstances in her home country
·her parents’ financial situation as they are not employed
·the lack of employment opportunities available to her in East Timor, because her education did not progress beyond senior high school.
The Tribunal heard that, in November 2022 (when the protection visa application was submitted) the applicant’s family had ‘no money’ as her parents had borrowed funds She has 3 younger siblings living in East Timor - 2 brothers and a sister.
[The applicant] stated that, when she was offered the opportunity to work in Australia on the ‘seasonal workers program’ she intended to repay her parents’ debts. On her first visit to Australia (May 2017 to October 2017) she was poorly paid by the agency which employed her [in Occupation 1]. She was again poorly paid by the agency when she returned to work in Australia ([in Occupation 1]) between May 2018 and November 2018.
[The applicant] explained that when she returned to Australia (July 2019 to March 2020) she sent some money back to Timor:
·to financially support her family. She has three younger siblings and her financial support helped them with their schooling. Her parents support themselves through ‘subsistence farming’ on a small strip of land along side of their house. They do not have jobs outside the home - they farm vegetables for their own consumption and purchase rice in the market
·to fund the building of a house in Dili - near [Landmark 1]. She estimated that, in total, she contributed more than AU$[amount] towards building materials however she did not share in the legal ownership of the property.
Following her return to Australia in August 2022, the applicant estimated that :
·during 2022 she sent as much as AU$[amount] to assist her family. The remittances were in the range AU$[amount range]
·during 2023 she sent AU$[amount] in family assistance. Her siblings did not need as much financial support at this time (except for the youngest) as her siblings had finished their schooling and her brothers were living with their partners
·during 2024 she sent AU$[amount] to her parents to repay the debts (to family members) they had incurred to fund her siblings’ schooling
·during 2025 she sent more than AU$[amount] to her family to assist them in repaying debt and to improve their house.
The applicant stated that, if she returned to East Timor she would live with her parents in the family home in [Subdistrict 1]. She has land available to her in her home town to build her own house. She wants to stay in Australia to accumulate funds so that she can build the house for herself. Her current savings amount to AU$[amount]. She is currently sharing a house (and a car) with her boyfriend and does not have any debts.
Partner threats
[The applicant] told the Tribunal that, during her stay in Australia in 2018, she reconnected with a school friend (Mr [A]) over [Social media 1]. When she returned to East Timor between November 2018 and July 2019, she started a relationship with Mr [A]. They formalised this relationship (in what the applicant called a ‘marriage’) when Mr [A] came to her house in [Subdistrict 1] in December 2018 and asked her parents if she could come and live with him. The ‘marriage’ was not registered formally and no ceremony took place in a church. The applicant stated this ‘marriage’ commenced [in] December 2018. Mr [A] paid her family AU$[amount] and they began cohabiting. The applicant believes Mr [A] had promised to pay her family a larger sum than this.
In July 2019, the applicant returned to Australia and sent money to Mr [A] in order to build a house in [Town 1] (near [Landmark 1] in Dili) for them to share. They lived there together for 6 months after she returned to East Timor in March 2020. [The applicant] stated that she and Mr [A] had a loving relationship up until she moved out (of the [Town 1] home they had built together) in November 2020. She moved out because Mr [A] had commenced a relationship with another person. The applicant held no ownership interest in the [Town 1] home and Mr [A] wanted his new partner to move in - they later had a child together.
The applicant returned from [Town 1] to live with her parents from November 2020 to August 2022 when she then returned to Australia.
The applicant stated that she has had no contact with Mr [A] since December 2021. However, she stated that “he always threatens me that he wants [her] to be his second wife” which she will never agree to. [The applicant] stated that her parents have made the decision that they will not allow that to happen - that it is not permissible.
The Tribunal enquired if there is any reason why she would be forced to return to Mr [A]. [The applicant] responded that there is, in fact, no reason why she would return to any kind of relationship with Mr [A]. She has re-partnered and so has he. He has a child with his new partner. The applicant stated that if she returns to East Timor she would be able to live in safety with her parents in [Subdistrict 1] which is a 4.5 hour drive from Dili where Mr [A] lives.
The applicant then told the Tribunal that, after cutting off contact with Mr [A], he has threatened her indirectly through her family, between 2022 and 2025. He has sent her abusive messages and this makes her concerned for her safety if she returns to East Timor.
[The applicant] stated that Mr [A] has also communicated indirect threats - he told her sister “I will kill her and I am ready to go to prison.” The Tribunal heard that both the applicant and her sister had ‘blocked’ Mr [A] on [Social media 1] but abusive messages (and posts on her social media page) have continued to be delivered because Mr [A] created new [Social media 1] profiles.
The Tribunal heard that Mr [A] has continued to threaten the applicant as recently as 2 months ago. The applicant stated that if she sees a message on her phone from an unknown source she immediately ’blocks’ that number without reading the message. Despite having told the Tribunal that she had not had any contact with Mr [A] since December 2021 (and does not read messages from unknown sources), [the applicant] then stated that she had received a message from Mr [A] in which he swore and threatened her by saying “if you come back to Timor I will kill you.”
The applicant then gave evidence that Mr [A] “blamed me for not having a child and always hit me… He would have romantic relationships with others and come back [home] and hit me.” She stated that she did not report any of his assaults to police because she loved him and did not want him to be put in prison. She did not seek medical attention for her injuries. Instead, she would return to the family home where her parents treated her with traditional remedies.
The Tribunal heard that the applicant had tried to address Mr [A’s] violence towards her by talking to his family however, no ‘decision’ was made by them to assist her. As a result, she returned to her parents. They too seemed unconcerned about the violence - but she herself, “cried day and night”.
The Tribunal invited the applicant to submit copies of any messages Mr [A] has sent to herself or her family. The timeframe for providing this further evidence was discussed and [the applicant] agreed to provide any available documentation of the messages by 17 September 2025.
The applicant told the Tribunal that she is afraid of having a ‘problem’ with Mr [A] if she returns to East Timor. She does not want to go back to her home country - she wants to find a person here who loves her.
The Tribunal observed that the claims of partner threats and violence, being made at hearing, were not put to the delegate for consideration and asked [the applicant] why she had delayed raising these claims. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that the Tribunal must apply the Migration Act and draw an unfavourable inference regarding the credibility of new claims, if no reasonable explanation for the delay in putting them forward is provided.
The applicant stated that she “was going to put them in” but hesitated because she thought Mr [A] “might come back with something nice”. The Tribunal enquired what sort of response this might have been. [The applicant] responded that her ex-partner had once said to her that “even though I have a house and someone new – I really want you and I want you to come back and live with me.”
[The applicant] stated that she wants to live in Australia “where it is safe and there are no problems”. She needs to make some money and hopes the Australian government will allow her to stay here. In relation to circumstances in which Mr [A] may harm her, the applicant stated that she would have some protection from her family in [Subdistrict 1] as she has a paternal uncle and 2 ‘brothers’ (who are not blood relations) living there. Even so, she says that it is possible a ‘problem’ may arise between her family and the family of Mr [A] if she returns to East Timor.
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.
Section 367A      How the ART is to deal with new claims or evidence in review of reviewable protection decisions:
(1)  This section applies if, in relation to an application for review of a reviewable protection decision (the primary decision ), the applicant:
(a)  raises a claim that was not raised before the primary decision was made; or
(b)  presents evidence in the application that was not presented before the primary decision was made.
(2)  In making a decision on the application, the ART is to draw an inference unfavourable to the credibility of the claim or evidence if the ART is satisfied that the applicant does not have a reasonable explanation why the claim was not raised, or the evidence was not presented, before the primary decision was made.
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.
Country information

The Tribunal must consider the applicant’s claims regarding financial hardship in the context of the prevailing economic circumstances in East Timor. In doing so, the Tribunal observes that independent country information identifies East Timor as one of the poorest countries in the world. As of 2020, standards of living continued to remain low across the country -disproportionately affecting poor and rural families who make up the majority of the country’s total population. Much of the government’s spending is reliant on overseas aid.[i]
A 2021 United Nations report indicates that 46 per cent of East Timor’s population is multidimensionally poor and a significant majority (such as the applicant’s family) rely on small-scale subsistence farming. A higher poverty rate is experienced in rural areas. There is low labour market participation, with only 2 per cent of the working-age population having employment in the market economy as of March 2021 (this does not include those engaged in subsistence agriculture which, if counted, would raise the figure to 61.1 per cent). Most of those engaged in the market economy (86.3 per cent) are self-employed or contributing family workers, and many (over 70 percent) are engaged in production and sale of agricultural products. Many jobs are characterised by informal work arrangements, insecure employment, unstable and inadequate earnings and low productivity. Women are employed at a lower rate. The overall unemployment rate is 11.9 per cent, but this rises to 22.1 per cent for people aged 25-29 years - likely related to higher levels of job losses among this group because of COVID-19.[ii]
In considering what community and justice system protections are available to citizens (such as the applicant) who experience family-related disputes, The Tribunal notes:
Community leaders rely heavily upon their knowledge of community traditions and customs, rather than Timorese law, to resolve crimes/disputes brought to them, typically using mediation, which assumes a range of forms. Despite the prominent role of community leaders in dispute resolution, however, addressing crimes and disputes is a collaborative endeavour (consistent with respondents’ understanding of community policing) involving partnerships with both state and non-state actors, most importantly police but also increasingly with non-government and religious organizations, as well as veterans and martial arts groups.[iii]
The national police force in East Timor is known as the Policia Nacional de Timor-Leste (PNTL). The recent US Department of State’s Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) security report[iv] on East Timor provides (in summary) the following assessment of the PNTL:
PNTL (the military) is responsible for external security but also augments some domestic security functions. PNTL reports to the Ministry of Interior, and the military reports to the Ministry of Defence. The current Prime Minister serves concurrently as the Interior Minister. Civilian authorities maintain effective control over the security forces. Members of the security services have been accused of committing human rights abuses.
PNTL’s policing capacity is limited, but improving, with assistance from partners in the international community, including the U.S. Government. PNTL continues developing its community policing capacity and is slowly expanding its capabilities in the areas of criminal investigations, personnel/facility protection, and traffic control.
A 2023 report from the United States Department of State advises that the Ombudsman’s Office for Human Rights and Justice (the PDHJ) is responsible for the promotion of human rights and good governance and has its own budget and dedicated staff. It has the power to investigate and monitor human rights abuses and governance standards as well as make recommendations, including for prosecution, to relevant authorities. The PDHJ has satellite offices in Manufahi, Bobonaro, Oecusse, and Baucau municipalities. During 2022 the office received complaints related to COVID-19 emergency measures and investigated 65 human rights violations allegedly committed by the military, police, teachers, or public servants. There were no reports of significant government interference. The PDHJ, in cooperation with the UN Human Rights Adviser’s Unit, provided human rights training to the PNTL and the military.[v] In 2019, it was reported that PDHJ monitors access to justice.[vi]
A November 2021-January 2022 Asia Foundation nationwide Timor-Leste Safety, Security, and Justice Perceptions Survey reported of ‘Crime and Dispute’:[vii]
Half of all general public respondents had experienced at least one crime or dispute in the previous year. This figure was likely much higher than in previous years due to the inclusion of a broader range of crime/dispute response options.
Divorce and abandonment
Abandonment in the Timor-Leste context often refers to men leaving their wife/partner and/or children without material support. It includes paternity cases where a pregnant woman is seeking material support from someone who promised to marry her; as well as in sexual assault cases resulting in pregnancy where the perpetrator refuses to pay maintenance.
The inclusion of a broader range of crimes/disputes resulted in greater consistency (than in previous years) between what respondents think they would do if affected by a hypothetical crime/dispute and what respondents did do when affected by actual crimes/disputes. In 2022, respondents who had actual experiences of crimes/disputes predominantly first reported to community leaders, consistent with what they thought they would do if they experienced a hypothetical crime/dispute.
Most respondents who experience crimes or disputes do not retaliate, but only just over half seek assistance. Overwhelmingly, general public respondents see community leaders as the most appropriate initial avenue for reporting a crime/dispute. However, they take different matters to different types of leaders, and the degree to which they perceive a role for the PNTL varies according to the nature of the issue at hand. Of those who experienced a crime/dispute and sought assistance, 43 percent first reported to an Aldeia Chief, followed by the PNTL (19 percent), a lian-na’in (10 percent) or Suco Chief (8 percent). Those who seek assistance typically have their issue resolved by the first person they report to and feel that they were fairly treated.
Community leaders report good relationships with the PNTL and see them as the most appropriate initial mechanism to report crimes and disputes. Proximity plays the most decisive role in determining from whom people seek assistance.
Based on the reliable country information extracted above, the Tribunal accepts that:
·many citizens in East Timor (particularly those engaged in small-scale subsistence farming in rural areas) suffer a degree of poverty
·employment in East Timor is often insecure and unstable as well as providing inadequate earnings. In the applicant’s home country, women are employed at a lower rate than the overall unemployment rate of 11.9 per cent
·a great number of citizens make their first report of a crime/dispute to community leaders. This is seen as the most appropriate initial avenue to address their grievance (or harm suffered) and most complainants feel they are fairly treated during the resolution process which often involves mediation
·most citizens who experience crimes or disputes do not retaliate, but only just over half of them seek assistance.
The Tribunal accepts that if the applicant returns to [Subdistrict 1] and joins her family in subsistence farming, she may experience financial disadvantage.
The Tribunal draws no negative inference regarding Mr [A’s] violence towards the applicant on the basis that she did not report it to police but sought resolution by approaching her family and the family of her ex-partner.
ASSESSMENT - CREDIBILITY AND FINDINGS OF FACT
In determining whether an applicant engages protection obligations, it is necessary to make findings of fact on relevant matters which may involve an assessment of the credibility of the applicant’s claims.
In making determinations on credibility, the Tribunal acknowledges and accepts that the benefit of the doubt should be given to asylum seekers who are generally credible but unable to substantiate all of their claims. Notwithstanding this principle, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any or all of the allegations made by an applicant, and further, the Tribunal is not required to have rebutting evidence available to it before it can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been made out. In circumstances where an applicant claims fear of persecution for a particular reason, this in itself, does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is ‘well-founded’. Similarly, that an applicant claims to face a real risk of significant harm, does not establish that such a risk exists or that the harm feared amounts to ‘significant harm’. It is the responsibility of an applicant to specify all the particulars of his or her claim to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and to provide sufficient evidence to establish such a claim.
Initial claims
At the hearing, the applicant confirmed that she maintains her claim that she will suffer financial hardship if she returns to her home country.
New claims
At the hearing, the applicant raised new claims that had not been put to the Department. In relation to these, the Tribunal explained to the applicant that the Tribunal is required to follow provisions in the Migration Act when dealing with new claims or evidence not raised with the department’s delegate. The relevant provision (s 367A extracted above) requires the Tribunal to draw an unfavourable inference regarding the credibility of the claim if not satisfied that the applicant has a reasonable explanation why the claim was not raised or presented prior to the primary decision being made. When the Tribunal asked [the applicant] why she had delayed raising these claims, she stated that she “was going to put them in” but held off doing so because she thought Mr [A] “might come back with something nice”. He had previously said to her that “even though I have a house and someone new – I really want you and I want you to come back and live with me.”
The applicant told the Tribunal at hearing, that she had not had contact with Mr [A] since 2 December 2021. Given the applicant’s evidence that she ‘blocked’ her ex-partner on messaging apps and social media, the Tribunal does not find as credible, her claim that when her protection visa application was submitted (11 months after her last contact with Mr [A]) she was still waiting for him to send her some ‘nice’ or conciliatory remarks.
The Tribunal finds that [the applicant] has not provided the Tribunal with a reasonable explanation as to why the claim of threats and violence by her ex-partner was not disclosed in her protection visa application in order for it to be considered by the delegate. As such, the Tribunal does draw an unfavourable inference regarding the credibility of the applicant’s ex-partner claim.
In addition to applying the s 367A unfavourable inference to the new claim (and the oral and screenshot evidence [the applicant] has submitted in support of it) the Tribunal does not accept:
- that the applicant co-habited with Mr [A] or that she was in a partnered relationship with him. She disclosed that she was ‘never married’ in the protection visa application which, she confirmed, she alone had prepared. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was in a marriage - like relationship with Mr [A]. To a significant degree, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence about Mr [A] to be unreliable and it is noted that there is no documentary or statement evidence before the Tribunal to establish that the applicant was in a partnered relationship with anyone in East Timor
- that the applicant built a home with Mr [A] in [Town 1] or that they lived there together (as a couple) as this is inconsistent with information disclosed in the protection visa application. While [the applicant] told the Tribunal that she moved from [Subdistrict 1] to live, for 6 months, in [Town 1] with Mr [A] in April 2020, the protection visa states that her only home in East Timor was in [Subdistrict 2], Dili. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence at hearing, to be inconsistent (in significant respects) with her disclosures in the protection visa application. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s oral evidence to be reliable where these inconsistencies arise
- that the applicant has been threatened or physically harmed, in East Timor or in Australia, by Mr [A] (or anyone). [The applicant] told the Tribunal that after she ‘blocked’ Mr [A] on messaging apps and social media, he sent abusive messages to her from unknown numbers/profiles but she did not read them. The Tribunal finds this evidence to be unreliable because it is inconsistent with the fact she submitted a screenshot of one such message to the Tribunal following the hearing. It is clear to the Tribunal that the applicant did read the screenshot message – contrary to her evidence at hearing. The Tribunal places little weight on the submitted message as it does not show the name of the sender or the date on which it was sent. Additionally, the translation of the message (by an unknown person) provided by the applicant is not accepted by the Tribunal as accurately establishing the content of the message. The screenshot evidence is submitted in order to support claims that:
- the applicant ‘blocked’ Mr [A] from contacting her. The Tribunal accepts that 2 of the screenshots demonstrate the applicant did block Mr [A] on some social media/messaging profiles however, they do not establish when this action was taken
- Mr [A] uploaded and messaged, abusive comments and threats using the applicant’s social media. The Tribunal wrote to [the applicant] (on 15 and 17 September 2025 requesting a translation of these comments/messages into English by an accredited interpreter. An official interpretation of the text shown in the comments/messages was not provided to the Tribunal.
Ex-partner threat claims
For the reasons stated above (and based on the Tribunal’s overall assessment that the applicant gave unreliable oral evidence), the Tribunal does not accept as credible that the applicant was threatened or assaulted by Mr [A] as claimed.
For the above reasons, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claim that she fears harm from her ex-partner if she returns to East Timor. The Tribunal therefore finds that the applicant does not face a real chance of persecution or a real risk of significant harm for this reason if she were to return to East Timor.
Economic hardship claims
In her protection visa application, [the applicant] has disclosed no employment history (or education undertaken) in East Timor. Based on her oral evidence, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant assisted her family with subsistence farming in her younger years and has sent funds to support them financially while she has been in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is concerned she will be unable to find work if she returns to East Timor.
As stated above, the Tribunal accepts that if the applicant returns to [Subdistrict 1] and joins her family in subsistence farming, she may experience financial disadvantage.
Does the applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?
Based on the oral evidence at the hearing, the Tribunal finds that the applicant would return to her home area of [Subdistrict 1] where her family home (and land she hopes to build a house upon) is located.
The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence that she wishes to remain in Australia for financial and economic reasons including to support her family financially in East Timor. While the Tribunal is sympathetic to the pressure of providing financial support to her family and the economic situation in East Timor nevertheless, the Tribunal must determine whether the socio-economic harm the applicant implied she would face upon return is for any of the reasons set out in s5J(1)(a) of the Act, namely: race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The courts have recognised that while persecution may take a variety of forms of social, political and economic discrimination, it must involve discrimination against a person, whether individually or as a member of a group, because of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group.[viii] As raised in the hearing with the applicant, the economic conditions and lack of employment opportunities throughout East Timor applies to the broader East Timorese population. The Tribunal finds therefore, that any disadvantage the applicant may experience on return to East Timor due to general economic conditions (as challenging as that may be) is not for any of the reasons set out in s5J(1)(a) of the Act.
In relation to the applicant’s claim of being threatened and harmed by her ex-partner, the Tribunal has found this claim not credible for the reasons explained above. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s ex-partner will seek her out or cause her any harm if she were to return to East Timor. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not face a real chance of any harm from her ex-partner should she return to East Timor in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal therefore finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for this reason.
In conclusion (and having considered the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively) the Tribunal finds there is no real chance (being a possibility that is not remote or far-fetched) that, if she returned to East Timor, she would experience any harm pursuant to s 5J(1)(b).
The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution and is not a refugee as defined under s5H(1) of the Act. The Tribunal is not therefore satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s36(2)(a) of the Act.
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 complementary protection criterion in s36(2)(aa).
Under the complementary protection criterion, it is necessary for the Tribunal to consider whether, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to East Timor, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer “significant harm” as defined in s36(2A) of the Act.
Section 36(2)(aa) of the Act refers to a “real risk” of an applicant suffering significant harm. The “real risk” threshold for complementary protection has been held to be the same as the “real chance” threshold applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in the under the refugee criterion. As the Tribunal has not accepted, for the reasons set out above, that there is a real chance the applicant will face any harm from her ex-partner in East Timor, it follows that the Tribunal does not accept there to be a real risk she will face any significant harm in regard to this claim.
Further, based on the applicant’s evidence the Tribunal finds the applicant will not suffer any type of significant harm as defined in s 36(2A) of the Act, by way of being arbitrarily deprived of life, have the death penalty carried out on her, be subjected to torture, be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to East Timor. This is because it is considered that any economic disadvantage the applicant may experience on return to East Timor, resulting from economic conditions (and lack of employment opportunities) applies to the broader East Timorese population. As the definitions of torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, and degrading treatment or punishment in s 5(1) of the Act each refer to “an act or omission” that requires a perpetrator to have an intention, that is an “actual, subjective, state of mind” to inflict certain types of harm. Any disadvantage that the applicant may experience due to general economic conditions in East Timor would not satisfy those definitions as there is no perpetrator with the intention to inflict harm of the type described therein upon the applicant.

The applicant has not claimed to fear harm for any other reason if she returns to East Timor and the Tribunal finds that no other protection claims arise on the accepted facts.
Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the applicant will not suffer any type of significant harm as defined in s 36(2A) of the Act as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her removal from Australia to East Timor, and the criterion under s 36(2)(aa) is not met. The Tribunal therefore finds that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Conclusion
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)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. There is also 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) of the Act and the decision to not grant the applicant a protection visa is affirmed.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Date of hearing: 1 September 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.
…

[i]    United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) 2015-2020 in Timor-Leste: Evaluation Report’ United nations development program (UNDP), May 2019
[ii]   United Nations in Timor-Leste, Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of COVID-19 in Timor-Leste, 2021
[iii]   ‘Timor-Leste Safety, Security, and Justice Perceptions Survey, 2022. Summary Findings', McLeod A & Denney L, The Asia Foundation
[iv] Timor-Leste country security report’, overseas security advisory Council (OSAC), bureau of diplomatic security, united states department of state, 21 November 2022 p.3
[v]   Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2022 - Timor-Leste', US Department of State, 20 March 2023
[vi]   Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018 - Timor-Leste', US Department of State, 13 March 2019
[vii]   ‘Timor-Leste Safety, Security, and Justice Perceptions Survey, 2022. Summary Findings', McLeod A & Denney L, The Asia Foundation
[viii]