2316663 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a woman from Timor-Leste. The applicant claimed she had borrowed money from neighbours and friends, was unable to repay the debts, and consequently faced threats and physical harm. She also alleged that moving to another part of the country would exacerbate her situation and that authorities could not assist her. The applicant's initial application form contained conflicting information regarding her marital status. The delegate refused the visa, finding that effective protection against debt collectors would be available in Timor-Leste. The applicant sought merits review of this decision before the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations, specifically under the criteria for a protection visa as defined in section 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). This required assessing the credibility of her claims and determining if she met the definition of a refugee, which involves a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and the real chance of such persecution relating to all areas of the receiving country. The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection criterion, which applies if there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, the applicant faces a real risk of suffering significant harm.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence, including her testimony that she had not borrowed money as alleged, had not received threats, and was not married to a woman. While accepting the applicant was a Timorese woman with children and concerns about employment and wages in Timor-Leste, the Tribunal found that she did not satisfy the refugee criterion. The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not present evidence of a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the prescribed reasons, nor did she establish that effective protection measures would not be available to her in Timor-Leste. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa.