2317572 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection visa by a citizen of Timor-Leste. The applicant claimed to have borrowed money in Timor-Leste and was unable to repay the debt, leading to threats from money lenders, including the potential confiscation of family assets and physical harm. The applicant also asserted that the authorities in Timor-Leste would not provide effective protection due to poverty, lack of government assistance, and the pervasive nature of corruption. The applicant arrived in Australia on a Subclass 403 visa under the Pacific Australia Mobility (PALM) scheme and subsequently applied for a Protection visa. The delegate of the Minister refused the visa, and the applicant sought review by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, as required by section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), and whether the applicant met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia, the applicant would suffer significant harm due to the unavailability of effective protection in Timor-Leste. This involved assessing the applicant's claims against available country information regarding the capacity and willingness of Timor-Leste authorities to provide protection.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the available country information, which suggested that the authorities in Timor-Leste were generally effective in maintaining order and peace, with functioning criminal laws and an independent judiciary. While acknowledging the existence of corruption and arbitrary practices, the Tribunal concluded that these issues were not so rampant as to deny the applicant effective protection. Applying sections 5J and 5LA of the Migration Act, the Tribunal found that effective protection measures were available to the applicant throughout Timor-Leste, regardless of his location or circumstances. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason and therefore did not satisfy section 36(2)(a). The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection criterion but, based on the finding of available state protection, did not find that the applicant would suffer significant harm.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the Protection visa.