2313786 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming he left Timor-Leste due to general criminal activity, a poor economy, and the rising cost of living. The delegate refused the application, finding that economic hardship did not constitute persecution and that effective state protection was available in Timor-Leste against crime. The applicant subsequently raised new claims before the Tribunal, alleging that his family faced persecution due to his father's former role as a village chief during Indonesian control, leading to them being viewed as pro-Indonesian militia.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, which requires a well-founded fear of persecution, or under section 36(2)(aa), which requires a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims of persecution based on his family's past association with the Indonesian military and the alleged subsequent harm, as well as his initial claims regarding economic hardship and general crime.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's oral evidence, which detailed his family's move to West Timor in 1999 due to accusations of being militia, their return to Timor-Leste in 2008, and subsequent incidents of theft of his father's animals. A key event described was the burning of the family home and the killing of his father and brother in May 2022, following a police report about stolen animals. The Tribunal noted that the perpetrators were arrested and convicted, and that police protection was provided to the applicant and his mother and sister for a period. The Tribunal found that the applicant had failed to provide any documentary evidence to support his claims, and that general economic conditions did not amount to persecution. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a real chance of suffering serious harm from relatives of the imprisoned men, nor had he established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.