2313953 (Refugee)

This case concerned an applicant for a protection visa who was from Timor-Leste. The applicant's primary claims for protection were based on economic hardship in Timor-Leste and a desire to remain in Australia to earn income to support his family. Later in the process, the applicant introduced a new claim alleging he had converted from Islam to Catholicism and feared persecution due to this apostasy, citing violence from his father and brother and a lack of effective protection. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Cth) was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or whether he faced significant harm as a consequence of being removed from Australia. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess the credibility and substance of the applicant's claims, including the late introduction of the religious conversion claim, and consider whether economic hardship alone could constitute grounds for a protection visa. The Tribunal also needed to determine if Timor-Leste was a country to which the applicant could be safely returned, considering any potential third-country protection options.

The Tribunal reasoned that economic hardship, while a significant concern, did not, in itself, meet the definition of persecution or significant harm under the Act, as it did not involve threats to life, liberty, or the capacity to subsist in the manner contemplated by the legislation. Regarding the religious conversion claim, the Tribunal noted that the applicant was born a Catholic and had provided no credible evidence to support his assertion of converting from Islam. The late introduction of this claim, without corroborating documentation or further explanation, led the Tribunal to find it unsubstantiated. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.

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