2317126 (Refugee)

This case concerned an appeal by a male citizen of Timor-Leste against a decision to affirm the refusal of his protection visa application. The applicant claimed he feared returning to Timor-Leste due to an alleged outstanding debt and threats to his life, as well as general economic hardship. The delegate had found that state protection would be available and that general economic hardship did not constitute significant harm for the purposes of complementary protection.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as a refugee, or under section 36(2)(aa) as a person facing a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. This required an assessment of 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 would suffer significant harm.

The court affirmed the decision under review. It found that the applicant's claims regarding an outstanding debt and threats were not substantiated. Crucially, during the Tribunal hearing, the applicant admitted that his protection visa application claims about the debt were untrue and that he did not fear harm in Timor-Leste for that reason. His stated reason for wishing to remain in Australia was the opportunity to earn money to buy land and build a house, which the court determined did not engage Australia's protection obligations. The court concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for a protection visa under either section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Act.