2317577 (Refugee)

2317577 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 2670 (7 March 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  2317577
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Timor-Leste
MEMBER:Don Smyth
DATE:7 March 2024
PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 07 March 2024 at 5:14pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa – Timor-Leste – race – Timorese – religion – Catholic – marriage to a Protestant in a Protestant church – fears harm from his family – loan – failed to provide a consistent and credible account of the harm he claims to have experienced at the hands of his family – applicant has provided a confused and inconsistent information – applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution –credibility concerns – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
BACKGROUND

The applicant claims to be a citizen of Timor-Leste and has provided a copy of the biodata page from his Timor-Leste passport. I accept that he is a national of Timor-Leste.
According to information provided in the Protection visa application, the applicant was born in Dili in [year]. He has never married.
The applicant indicated that he had departed Timor-Leste on [date] March 2023 and entered Australia on the Seasonal Worker Program. He applied for a Protection visa on 17 September 2013.
On 31 October 2023, a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs (the Minister) made a decision to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). This is a review of that decision.
SUMMARY OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
In his protection visa application, the applicant gave a single address in Dili for the period from [birth] to March 2023. He indicated that he had never studied and that he had never been employed.
In his application, the applicant described his ethnic group as Timorese and his religion as Catholic.
The applicant set out written claims in his protection visa application. With regard to his reason for leaving Timor-Leste and applying for protection, the applicant stated:
I chose not to go back to East Timor and apply for a protection visa because I had been threatened or killed, because I borrowed a lot of money for 540.00 and every week, I had to pay 250 dollars in interest, but I did not have the money to pay that much money because I had no work if I went back to east Timor, so I was threatened with death if I could not pay their debts. and currently they are looking up to me
He indicated that he had experienced harm. He stated that they would be torturing him whenever he went back because he would be jobless and unable to pay the interest every month as the interest and capital would keep increasing every month.
The applicant indicated that he had not sought help within Timor-Leste. He stated that the amount he had borrowed was so huge and no one would help him to settle this amount. When he started to pay them monthly interest he also signed some documents with them. No one could help him. He stated that ‘even Police or local Politician Keep avoiding from me, as they do not want to get involved in this case’.
He stated that he had not tried to move to another part of the country. He did not have relatives in any other part of the country. Also he could not run or move from them since his relatives knew about this matter and they were all trying to avoid him, including his family.
The applicant claimed that they wanted to kill him even if he managed to pay the interest every 6 months while working in Australia. Once he returned to East Timor he would be jobless so could not make payments to them. The interest would keep increasing and this would make them keep torturing him in his daily life so he would feel insecure if he returned. He expressed a fear of being harmed or mistreated because they wanted him to pay their money back but he did not have money to pay that much. He stated that the authorities would not protect him because they did not want to get involved. He indicated that he did not think he would be able to relocate to an area where he would not be harmed. He stated that it was extremely easy for them to ‘fire’ him if he tried to relocate to another area because Timor-Leste was a small country.
On 31 October 2023, a delegate of the Minister made a decision to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. The delegate found that government institutions provided state protection. The delegate placed weight on penalties for unregistered moneylending practices and laws to protect citizens against intimidation measures such as extortion and physical assault. The delegate found that state protection was available through the police and the judiciary. The delegate was satisfied that the applicant could obtain protection from the authorities. The delegate found that there were effective protection measures, as defined in section 5LA of the Act, available to the applicant in Timor-Leste and that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution under s 5J(2). With regard to complementary protection, the delegate found that the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that they would suffer significant harm as provided for in s 36(2B)(b).
The applicant attended an initial hearing on 18 January 2024. The applicant was subsequently given additional time (until 25 January 2024) to provide documentation and produced marriage certificates in Portuguese and English (as discussed in my consideration, below). Following receipt of the documentation, the applicant was invited to a further hearing on 19 February 2024. The hearings were conducted with the assistance of interpreters in the Tetum and English languages. Although it is not necessary to set this out in full, I have had regard to all of the applicant’s evidence at hearing. Aspects of this evidence are set out in my consideration, below. As discussed below, the applicant raised at the hearing claims that had not been set out in his protection visa application.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Claims in Protection Visa Application
As noted above, the applicant made claims in his protection visa application about having borrowed ‘a lot of money for 540.00’, having to pay 250 dollars in interest every week and having been threatened with death. He made claims about fearing harm as a result of this matter.
When asked at the hearing about whether he was aware of what was in his protection visa application, the applicant stated that he did not know. He indicated that it had been done by a [person] who organised the protection visa application and asked the applicant for money. The applicant said that he conveyed his reasons but the person did not stick to them. He described himself as a victim. When asked what it was that he told this person, the applicant indicated that the reasons that he conveyed was a conflict with his family, his problem between him and his family regarding religion. He said he was Catholic but he got together with a girl who was Protestant. They married in a Protestant church. His family did not like that. I put to the applicant that the protection visa application stated that he had never married. The applicant stated that he conveyed his concerns to that person. That person did not stick to his reasons.
When asked about whether there were any other reasons he feared going back to Timor-Leste other than this matter to do with his religion and his marriage to a Protestant, the applicant stated that, because of that pressure from his parents and his older brother, he was sad because his parents completely did not want anything to do with him and they denied him as their son. I asked the applicant whether, apart from that issue, there were any other reasons he feared going back to Timor-Leste. The applicant stated that he would be afraid to go back to Timor because of the pressure from his older brother. The applicant stated that his brother threatened him with a weapon and said if the applicant became a Protestant he needed to die and he was ready to go to jail. The applicant said that this made him feel sad.
At the hearing, I discussed with the applicant the gist of the claims he had made in his protection visa application. I read to him the reasons he had put for leaving the country. I put to him the gist of his claims. I put to him, for instance, that he had said they would be torturing him if he went back because he would be jobless and unable to pay the interest. He had said that he did not seek help in Timor-Leste because the amount he had borrowed was so huge and no one would help him to settle that amount. I put to him that he said he had signed some documents and said no one could help him; even police and local politicians kept avoiding him because they did not want to get involved in the case. I put to him that he had said he did not have relatives in any other part of the country and he could not move because his relatives knew about this matter and all of them were trying to avoid him. He had indicated that the people looking for him wanted to kill him and he would be jobless in Timor-Leste so he could not make the payment to them and the interest would keep increasing every month. I put to him that he had referred to them torturing him. He had said he would be harmed or mistreated if he returned because they wanted him to pay the money back but he did not have money to pay that much.
When this was raised with him at the hearing, the applicant indicated that the reason he did not want to go back was the one he had told today. If he went back his older brother and the others had dangerous intentions towards him. He could use a dangerous weapon and hurt him. The applicant could die and his brother was ready to go to prison.
When asked about this at the hearing, the applicant indicated that those reasons from the protection visa application were not his reasons and that information was not true. He referred to conveying all the reasons but said that the person did not use them. He described himself as a victim. The applicant agreed that the things in the protection visa application about not wanting to go back were made up by the person who filled out the form. I checked with the applicant that they were not the real reasons he did not want to go back to Timor-Leste. The applicant stated that the reasons he did not want to go back were number 1, the conflict about religion; and number 2, the money for getting the visa. He indicated that it should be $4,500; together with the interest it would be $10,000. He said he gave the reasons to the person in relation to the visa application but he did not use them; he just put down what he wanted to. The applicant confirmed later in the hearing that the original claims in his protection visa application were made up by someone else and were not his claims.
In all the circumstances, I accept that the claims in the applicant’s protection visa application do not reflect the claims that the applicant wishes to make and that they do not reflect his true circumstances. I accept that someone else prepared the application. I find that these claims do not represent the truth or the applicant’s true circumstances. In these circumstances, I do not accept that the events described in the application occurred and am not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant would be persecuted based on the matters raised in the protection visa application. Nor do these matters give rise to substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed to Timor-Leste, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. I have considered below the claims that the applicant raised at the hearing. I find that the claims made in the protection visa application do not represent the applicant’s true circumstances.
I note also that, while the information in the protection visa application indicated that the applicant was Catholic and that he had never married, his claim at the hearing was that he attended the Protestant church and had married in a Protestant church. I will consider below the applicant’s claims about marrying a Protestant.
As the applicant has raised new claims at hearing, I put to him the effect of s 423A of the Act. When this was raised with him, the applicant referred to having been a victim when it came to putting in the visa application. He said that the person who filled out the visa application did not put down any of his concerns; he did not put down the things the applicant was facing. All he did was demand payment. I am willing to accept that another person filled out the application form and that the claims in the form did not represent the claims the applicant wishes to make. I consider that this provides a satisfactory explanation for the failure to raise with the Department claims that have been made on review.
Claims in relation to religion / marriage to a Protestant
At the hearing, the applicant raised a claim to the effect that he was Catholic but he got together with a girl who was Protestant. They married in a Protestant church. His family did not like that. He went on to say that, if he went back, his brother and others had dangerous intentions towards him. He could use a dangerous weapon and hurt the applicant. The applicant could die. The applicant gave evidence to the effect that his brother was ready to go to prison. The applicant described experiencing threats and harm at the hands of his family. His evidence in this regard is discussed further below. He expressed a fear of his family. He expressed a fear about what would happen if he was out and met with his family and they had bad intentions towards him. He referred to feeling sad when he thought about who would look after his children. He referred to feeling afraid and wondering who would look after his children if he was hurt by his older brother and the others. He gave evidence to the effect that this made him sad.
As discussed above, the applicant has indicated that information provided in his protection visa application was not correct. I discussed with him at hearing information concerning his family and this is of some relevance to his claims. In summary, he indicated that he had an older brother (aged [age]), a younger brother (aged [age]) and two sisters who had passed away. He named his brothers and indicated that they worked doing farming (the applicant indicated that he himself also did farming in Timor-Leste). The applicant claimed that he did not have contact with his parents. He said in Timor-Leste culture you had to resolve the issue and then you could speak. He gave evidence to the effect that, because they had denied that he was their son and his older brother said the applicant was not his younger brother, he did not have any information from his older brother or his parents.
In his evidence at the hearing, the applicant made claims to the effect that his family’s opposition was related to his decision to marry his wife in accordance with her religion in the Timor Lorosae Protestant Church. He said they did not agree with this. They were not satisfied because the majority of people were Catholic.
With regard to his wife, the applicant gave her name as [name]. He described having met her at school and indicated that they married on [date] December 2018. He named two children of the relationship, a girl aged [age] (born in [year]) and a boy aged [age]. The applicant gave evidence to the effect that his wife was Protestant and attended church. When asked which church or denomination she belonged to, he referred to the Timor Lorosae Protestant Church. When asked how long he had been living with his wife, the applicant indicated that it was 4 years, from 2018 or 2019. He initially confirmed that he went and lived with his wife straight after they married in December 2018. The applicant claimed that he went to the same Protestant church as his wife.
I note that I discussed with the applicant, at both the initial hearing and the second hearing, the places at which his and his wife’s family were living. While I raised a concern at the second hearing that he might not have provided consistent evidence about this, having carefully considered all of the evidence I am satisfied that he provided a broadly consistent account in this regard. I note that at the second hearing the applicant gave evidence to the effect that his parents originated in [a town] but all of the children, including the applicant, were born in Dili. He indicated that he was from a small suburb [in] the suburb of [Suburb 1] which was in the sub-district of [District 1]. He indicated that [Suburb 1] was a bit more than an hour’s walk from the centre of Dili and agreed that it would be roughly 5 kilometres. He indicated that where they were living was right on the outskirts of Dili. He confirmed that this was where his parents and brother lived. He indicated that his wife’s parents were from [a city] but lived in Dili. When asked about how far his wife’s house was from where his family lived, the applicant referred to it being in a different small suburb within the same big suburb. He named the smaller suburb as [Suburb 2].

Having reviewed the evidence, I accept that the applicant indicated at the initial hearing that he was born in [Suburb 1] Village in the [District 1] administrative post. He indicated that his wife was from the same village but a different sub-village. I do not consider the reference to the village to be significant and accept that he was indicating that his wife was also from [Suburb 1]. This is consistent with his evidence at the second hearing to the effect that his family lived in [Suburb 1] in Dili and his wife’s family were living in the same suburb but in a different smaller suburb. I have some difficulty reconciling this with his suggestion that his wife’s house was about 15 kilometres from his house (noting also that the applicant indicated that [Suburb 1] was on the outskirts of Dili and about an hour’s walk from the centre of Dili). However, I note that the applicant appeared unable at the second hearing to describe how far apart the houses were other than to say that they were in different small suburbs in the same large suburb. I am willing to accept that the gist of the applicant’s evidence in the first hearing, to the effect that his wife lived in a different sub-village in the same village, is consistent with his evidence at the second hearing that his wife’s family’s home is in the same large suburb as his family’s home but in a different small suburb. While the applicant appeared to indicate at the first hearing that he was born in a village 100 kilometres from Dili, I accept his evidence at the second hearing that [Suburb 1] is a suburb on the outskirts of Dili, a little over an hour’s walk from the centre. Notwithstanding the apparent discrepancy as to the distance, I accept that he was indicating at the initial hearing that his and his wife’s family both lived in [Suburb 1]. I accept that both families live in [Suburb 1] in Dili, although his wife’s family lives in a different small suburb.
I note that, in discussing these locations, the applicant has also made claims to the effect that, when he had problems with his family, he and his wife moved to his wife’s parents’ place. He made claims to the effect that, when the problem started, he and his wife had to move away so they moved to her parents’ place in [Suburb 2] (which he described as a separate smaller suburb within the bigger suburb). He said that they had to go into hiding and so they were staying in [Suburb 2]. The applicant’s claims about experiencing problems from his wife’s family and having to move as a result are discussed below. As outlined in the discussion below, there are a number of difficulties with the claims and evidence in that regard.
Following the initial hearing, the applicant was provided with time to submit additional documentation and subsequently provided a copy of a marriage certificate. The initial certificate was provided in Portuguese. After the applicant was requested to provide an English translation of the document, the applicant produced a certificate in English, which was of similar appearance to the initial Portuguese certificate. When asked at the second hearing about how the English certificate was obtained, the applicant stated that, when he found out that it had to be in English, he told his wife. He said his wife and some others went back to the church and said it had to be in English so the church issued it with the same letterhead and stamp. He said that it was an original marriage certificate from the church. I am willing to accept that it is an original certificate. I am willing to accept that it was issued by a pastor of the Protestant Church in Timor-Leste (IPTL). It records that the applicant married [his wife] in [a] Church in Dili on[date] December 2018.
I accept that the applicant married a Protestant in a Protestant church. While there are difficulties with a number of aspects of the applicant’s evidence as discussed below, independent evidence indicates that the overwhelming majority of the population in Timor-Leste is Catholic.[1] In these circumstances, I am willing to accept for the purposes of this decision that the applicant comes from a Catholic family. I am willing to accept that he has married in a Protestant church and now attends a Protestant church. However, for reasons set out below, there are a number of difficulties with the applicant’s evidence about the nature of the difficulties and harm he claims to have experienced from his family as a result of this matter.
[1] US Department of State, 2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: Timor-Leste (15 May 2023)
In considering the applicant’s claims, I have had regard to independent information (discussed further below) indicating that members of minority religious groups, including from Protestant communities, generally report religious tolerance in Timor-Leste, although it is also reported that there is continuing strong societal pressure for people to remain in the Catholic church. While the information suggests that there is generally religious tolerance, it is nevertheless plausible that a person marrying a Protestant might face some pressure to remain in the Catholic church. However, for reasons outlined below, I find that the applicant has failed to provide a consistent and credible account of the harm he claims to have experienced at the hands of his family. I note that he has claimed that this included threats (including death threats), people approaching him or threatening him with weapons, pressure with weapons and being beaten.
The applicant gave evidence about the claimed difficulties and harm at the initial hearing and at the second hearing on 19 February 2024. Relevant aspects of this evidence are summarised below.
When asked at the initial hearing about problems after he married, the applicant referred to his older brother and others in the family putting pressure on him with weapons. He said he was afraid and got his wife and daughter and immediately ran away and went to live with his wife’s family. I asked when it was that they put pressure on him with weapons. The applicant said that they got married in 2018. It happened in 2018. I asked what he meant when he said they put pressure on him with weapons. He said that that meant they came towards him with a bladed weapon, they made threats to kill him. They said he was not their son, he was not their younger brother. He gave evidence to the effect that they said he was a piece of trash to be thrown in the river and swept out to sea, and described feeling very upset. The applicant also referred at this point to getting information from his wife to the effect that his older brother had come to the house on 3 January 2024, that his older brother had asked when the applicant was coming back, and that his older brother said the applicant must die and he was ready to go to jail. (I note that the applicant indicated later in his evidence that the people had sharp weapons when they came on 3 January and that made his wife afraid. He referred also to his wife being traumatised in relation to his older brother looking for him.) When asked about why his brother would do that in January 2024, the applicant said that, according to custom in Timor-Leste, if you hated somebody you would pursue that problem for a very long time. Only when that person was dead would you forget about it. He referred to them being unaware that he was going to Australia, finding out from a neighbour and then going on 3 January and asking his wife.
When I sought to confirm with the applicant that he had been threatened by his brother and family members in 2018, he indicated that the marriage was in 2018 and referred to being threatened by members of his family directly afterwards. He indicated that he immediately went and lived with his wife and her family after that. The applicant confirmed that it was then another 4 years before he came to Australia. When asked about whether he had any problems in that time, he replied in the affirmative. When asked about what the problems were, he referred to pressure and a serious threat from his family. He said that was all. He referred to there being a threat before he came to Australia and to just wanting to go to Australia. He indicated that it was only his wife and his wife’s family who accompanied him to the airport.
I raised with the applicant that it appeared that he had lived with his wife for more than 4 years after he got married but that I was not sure from what he had told me that he had suffered serious or significant harm in that time. The applicant referred to them having bad intentions towards him and to this making him upset in relation to what they wanted to do to him. He referred to receiving information from his wife on 3 January 2024. He said the reaction from him was that they had bad intentions and he would have to die and his older brother was ready to go to jail. His wife said that one day he will. I raised with the applicant that I might have some doubt about that because I might wonder how it was that he was able to live with his wife for over 4 years after he married without that type of thing happening to him if his brother and his family wanted to harm him in that way. I also raised with the applicant that I might need to consider whether the threats were serious harm or significant harm. I put to him also that I would need to think about whether there was a real chance of serious harm or significant harm from his family in the future.
I subsequently asked the applicant about whether he had gone to the police about threats from his family. He replied in the affirmative and then said that he had been beaten by his older brother. When asked about why he had not mentioned this earlier, he referred to saying before that there was pressure and the use of a knife. He said they had bad intentions and they beat him. He described being afraid for his wife and children, and to wanting to defend his children. He described holding onto one of his children. He said if they hit him and by mistake hit his child the child would die. The applicant said his wife was holding onto their daughter and they immediately left the house and went to stay with his wife’s family. I asked the applicant when this was. The applicant said that before the marriage his older brother and the others beat him. They had sharp weapons and they had bad intentions towards him. They wanted to do him harm. That was in 2018 before they got married. Then they got married and they put pressure on him. The applicant went on to claim that he informed the local authorities to resolve it at the village level and that was done but his older brother was not happy with him. He resolved it at the village level and when he came back his parents said it’s better that we don’t acknowledge you as our son. If you are going to go along with your wife it’s better that you leave the home because if you stay in the home you have to die. So he came from the village but his older brother was waiting for him at the house so he thought it was better they not go there so they went to his wife’s parents and then they could go and get the children’s clothing later on. The applicant confirmed that this was before they got married.
I raised with the applicant that he had said earlier in the hearing that he had been threatened after he got married and that it was after that that he went to live with his wife. I put to him that this might seem different to what he was now telling the Tribunal. I also asked about why, if he had been beaten, he had not mentioned this earlier. The applicant replied that, as he said already, they put pressure on him, they had sharp weapons and what they did to him. This was in relation to the beating. He stated, ‘You said wait, we’ll talk about that later’ so he stopped. He said he was going to talk about it but he forgot. When asked about whether he received medical treatment when his brother beat him, the applicant replied in the affirmative. He said that after they hit him he suffered blood in his urine. He had treatment for his health for about one week. He asked whether he could show the Tribunal his side but I indicated that this did not seem necessary.
I note that the applicant gave evidence at hearing to the effect that he could not go back yet. He said that if he got information from his wife that they wanted to meet with him and they wanted to apologise to each other then okay but he had to wait for that information from his wife. The applicant also said at the hearing that he would give it some time and see if they wanted to talk about reconciling and making peace with each other; he would wait for information from his wife. He referred on a number of occasions to his brother going to his wife’s family’s house on 3 January and asking when he was coming back. He claimed to be afraid of his older brother and the others and said that the threats made him sad. He referred to them having bad intentions towards him.
At the second hearing, I raised with the applicant that he seemed to say towards the end of the initial hearing that he had been beaten and that this happened before he was married in December 2018. The applicant then said that it was after he was married that he got pressure from them and got beaten by them. He confirmed that it was after he got married that he got beaten and that he was not beaten by them before he was married. He said that, after they married, then they beat him. He went on to indicate that it was only after they married that they actually beat him because they were not satisfied with him being married and so that was when the incident occurred and they beat him on his side. He confirmed that there was pressure before he got married but they did not beat him before he got married. He confirmed that he was beaten after he got married.
I put to the applicant that he seemed to say at the previous hearing that the beating happened before he got married and that, in responding to questions about what had happened after he got married, he did not appear to mention that he had been beaten. The applicant stated that what he remembered from the first hearing was that at the end he said that the incident where they beat him was after he was married and he was beaten on his side and he was hoping to show where he was beaten on his side. I put to the applicant that my understanding of what he told me at the previous hearing was that he was threatened immediately after he was married. I put to him also that he said that he immediately went and lived with his wife’s family. The applicant stated that what he remembered from the previous hearing was that before they got married they threatened him. They were not satisfied because they were from a Catholic family and he was marrying into a Protestant family. Before the wedding they already threatened. But it was immediately after the wedding that the pressure turned physical and they beat him up. Then they immediately moved because he felt it was better to move than to be killed. He was really sad to have to move his family but that was why they moved straight after marriage. When asked about how long after the marriage that happened, the applicant replied that first before they were married they started threatening. He said this was what he said at the first hearing. Before they were married he had a lot of pressure from his parents, from his family. Then he married on [date] December 2018. After that, he did not know the date, it was in January 2019 that the incident occurred. They married on [date] December and then it was in January that the incident occurred. The applicant confirmed that it was in January 2019. I raised with the applicant that this might seem different to what he had said at the previous hearing and raised with him that I might have concern about the credibility of his claims and evidence.
I have carefully considered all of the applicant’s evidence in this regard but ultimately find that the applicant has failed to provide a consistent and credible account of the difficulties and harm he claims to have suffered at the hands of his family while in Timor-Leste. As outlined above, he gave evidence at the initial hearing to the effect that there was an incident in 2018 in which they came towards him with bladed weapons, made threats to kill him, told him he was not their son/brother and verbally abused him. In his initial evidence about this incident, he did not refer to being beaten in the incident. He went on to confirm that he was threatened in 2018 and referred to being threatened by members of his family directly after he was married. He indicated that he immediately went and lived with his wife after that. This information appeared consistent with information he had given earlier in the hearing to the effect that he went and lived with his wife straight after they married in December 2018. Later in the hearing, after being asked about whether he had gone to the police, the applicant referred to an incident in which he claimed that he had been beaten by his older brother. He indicated that before the marriage his older brother and the others beat him. He went on to describe going to his wife’s parents and confirmed that this was before he got married.
The applicant’s evidence at the initial hearing to the effect that he had been beaten before he was married and went to his wife’s parents before he was married appeared somewhat difficult to reconcile with his earlier evidence which referred to an occurrence directly after he married and indicated that he had then immediately gone and lived with his wife after that. Further, in his evidence at the second hearing, the applicant claimed that the incident in which he was beaten occurred after he got married. He confirmed that he had not been beaten before he got married. This is at odds with his evidence at the initial hearing to the effect that he had been beaten by his older brother and the others before the marriage. I have considered the applicant’s submissions at the second hearing about what he remembered saying at the first hearing, including submissions to the effect that he had said at the first hearing that the incident where they beat him was after the marriage, and that it was immediately after the wedding that the pressure turned physical and they beat him up. However, when he raised at the initial hearing that he had been beaten by his older brother, he gave evidence that it was before the marriage that his older brother and the others beat him. This is at odds with his evidence at the second hearing to the effect that it was after he got married that he got beaten and that he was not beaten by them before he was married. I have considered the applicant’s submissions but find that he has not provided a consistent account in this regard and that there is no satisfactory explanation for this.
As noted above, when I raised concerns with the applicant at the first hearing, he referred to having already said that they put pressure on him, that they had sharp weapons and what they did to him. He said this was in relation to the beating. The applicant’s submissions appeared to suggest that, when he initially referred to an incident involving people coming towards him with bladed weapons, this in fact related to the beating.
I have considered these submissions but note, firstly, that the applicant gave evidence at the first hearing that the beating occurred before the marriage and that he went to his wife’s parents before he was married, while he had earlier referred to an occurrence directly after he was married and going to live with his wife immediately after that. Further, in his initial description of the incident in which people put pressure on him with weapons and came towards him with a bladed weapon, the applicant did not refer to having been beaten. I consider this an obvious thing to have mentioned if it had occurred and I do not accept that there is a satisfactory explanation as to why this was omitted if the claimed incident involving people coming towards him with bladed weapons and making death threats also resulted in the applicant being beaten. I do not find convincing the suggestion that he was going to talk about it but he forgot. I have had regard to the applicant’s submission to the effect that he stopped because he had been told ‘we’ll talk about that later’. I note that, when the applicant initially flagged new claims early in the initial hearing, I indicated to him that I would ask him about those things later. However, I subsequently discussed his claims with him in some detail and the applicant gave a description of the incident in which he claimed that people came towards him with a bladed weapon and made threats to kill him. He described, for instance, being verbally abused but did not mention being beaten in the incident. While the applicant did ultimately claim at the first hearing that he was beaten and that they had sharp weapons, he indicated that this occurred before the marriage, as discussed above. His evidence at the second hearing was at odds with this, indicating that the incident in which he was beaten occurred after he got married.

I find that the applicant has failed to provide a consistent and credible account in relation to the harm that he experienced at the hands of his family in Timor-Leste. At the first hearing, he initially referred to an incident in which people came towards him with a bladed weapon and threatened to kill him. He went on to refer to being threatened by members of the family directly after he was married and to indicate that he immediately went and lived with his wife and her family. Later in the same hearing he referred to an incident in which he was beaten and people had sharp weapons and indicated that he was beaten before he got married and that he went to his wife’s parents before he was married. This evidence does not sit comfortably with his earlier evidence at the first hearing about going to live with his wife and her family after he was married. At the second hearing, the applicant claimed that the incident in which he was beaten occurred after he was married. This is at odds with his evidence at the first hearing which was to the effect that he was beaten before the marriage. The applicant has failed to provide a consistent account of these matters. I do not accept that there is a satisfactory explanation for these significant inconsistencies and find that the applicant’s evidence in this regard is lacking in credibility.
I note also that, on his own evidence, the applicant lived at his wife’s family’s house until his departure for Australia in March 2023. This is a period of over 4 years after his marriage in December 2018 and after the claimed beating which he has now said occurred in January 2019. He has claimed that there was pressure before he was married and that he was beaten after he married, in January 2019. He has also suggested that there is ongoing interest in him, making claims to the effect that his brother (or family) went to his wife’s house on 3 January 2024, asked when the applicant was coming back, and said the applicant must die and he was ready to go to jail.
When asked at the initial hearing about whether he had had any problems in the period of 4 years after he claimed he went to live with his wife’s family, the applicant referred in quite general terms to there being pressure and a serious threat from his family. He did not describe any further physical harm from his family during this period. As set out above, when I raised with him that it appeared that he had lived with his wife for more than 4 years after he got married, the applicant referred to his family having bad intentions towards him and to this making him upset in relation to what they wanted to do to him. He referred to receiving the information from his wife on 3 January 2024 and to his older brother being ready to go to jail.
I also put to the applicant at the hearing that I might have some doubt that members of his family went to his wife and threatened her in 2024 given that he had lived with his wife in her village for 4 years and I was not sure from the evidence he had given that he had suffered serious or significant harm in that time. The applicant stated that, as he said before, he and his wife were married and he dealt with this problem himself. He had this problem with his family. They didn’t want him. They said bad things like he wasn’t their son, he wasn’t their younger brother. That made him afraid all of this time. The applicant said he had his wife and his 2 children. For many years he had been with his wife. The custom in Timor-Leste was that if someone had hatred they would maintain that hatred for a very long time.
At the second hearing, I raised with the applicant that I might wonder how he had been able to keep living with his wife’s family for another 4 years or so until early 2023, and about why his brother would come to threaten him on 3 January 2024 and say then that he wanted to kill the applicant. In response, the applicant stated that his visa here was only for 9 months and he thought about that threat. That was why he started to leave the system, to leave the agency. He said when he remembered the problems he had with his family he was really sad. He thought they might possibly approach him with weapons, possibly they were planning to kill him. That was why he left the system. The applicant referred to feeling that he could not go back. He stated that then on 3 January the family came and asked his wife when he was coming back. His wife said she did not know and then they threatened. His wife passed that information on to him. The applicant went on to say that, according to Timorese culture, when people were really anger and they harboured resentment, it lasted for an extremely long time. So gradually they planned on killing someone but the whole thing was over a long period of time.
The applicant has referred to pressure and a threat from his family in the period of around 4 years between when he claims to have fled to his wife’s house and when he left for Australia. On his evidence at the hearing, his wife’s family’s house is in the same larger suburb as his family’s house ([Suburb 1]) but in a different smaller suburb. Even if I were to accept the applicant’s evidence at the initial hearing that the houses were about 15 kilometres apart, the houses would still be in reasonably close proximity to each other and on the applicant’s evidence they were both in the same suburb of Dili. I do not accept on the available evidence that the applicant suffered any serious or significant harm during the period when he claims to have been living with his wife’s family in Dili. I have had regard to the applicant’s submissions about this, including his submissions about people having bad intentions, about his concerns about people possibly approaching him with weapons or planning to kill him, about people harbouring resentment in Timorese culture, about people maintaining hatred for a very long time, and about it lasting for a long period of time and the whole thing being over a long period. While I have had regard to the applicant’s submissions about resentment and the whole thing being over a long period of time, his claims suggested that people were sufficiently interested in him prior to the time that he went to live with his wife that they pressured him with weapons, threatened and beat him. His claims suggested that people maintained sufficient interest in him in January 2024 that his brother came to the house and threatened to kill the applicant, saying that he was ready to go to jail. I consider the applicant’s ability to live with his wife’s family for a period of over 4 years after the claimed beating, apparently without suffering any serious or significant harm in that time, to be at odds with his claims about the nature of the adverse interest from his family and the nature of the claimed harm from his family. In my view the applicant has not provided a satisfactory explanation as to how he was able to do so if his family had an adverse interest in him of the nature he has claimed. This further undermines the applicant’s claims about the nature of the difficulties and harm he experienced at the hands of his family while in Timor-Leste. Further, I did not find convincing the applicant’s explanation as to why his brother would come to the house in January 2024 threatening to kill him and saying that he was prepared to go to jail, noting that the applicant claimed to have been living with his wife’s family for 4 years after the marriage and did not suffer physical harm from his brother or family during that time. While the applicant suggested that he had been in hiding while he was in Timor-Leste, I consider that his wife’s family’s home would have been an obvious place for people to come if they wished to do him harm.
In all the circumstances, I have concluded that the applicant has failed to provide a credible and convincing account of the nature of the difficulties and harm he claims to have experienced from his family in connection with his relationship and marriage with a Protestant woman. The applicant did not provide a consistent account of the harm and difficulties he claimed to have suffered at the hands of his family while in Timor-Leste. At the first hearing, he initially referred to an incident in which people came towards him with a bladed weapon and threatened to kill him. He went on to refer to being threatened by members of the family directly after he was married and to indicate that he immediately went and lived with his wife and her family. Later in the same hearing he referred to an incident in which he was beaten and people had sharp weapons and indicated that he was beaten before he got married and that he went to his wife’s parents before he was married. This evidence does not sit comfortably with his earlier evidence at the first hearing about going to live with his wife and her family after he was married. At the second hearing, the applicant claimed that the incident in which he was beaten occurred after he was married. This is at odds with his evidence at the first hearing which was to the effect that he was beaten before the marriage. The applicant has failed to provide a consistent account of these matters. I do not accept that there is a satisfactory explanation for these significant inconsistencies. Further, I consider the applicant’s ability to live with his wife’s family for a period of over 4 years after the claimed beating, apparently without suffering any serious or significant harm in that time, to be at odds with his claims about the adverse interest from his family and the claimed harm from his family.
In all the circumstances, I find that the applicant has failed to provide a consistent and credible account of the difficulties and harm suffered at the hands of his family while in Timor-Leste. I do not consider that there is a satisfactory explanation for the numerous difficulties with the applicant’s evidence and find to be lacking in credibility the applicant’s claims and evidence about the harm he experienced at the hands of his family in Timor-Leste and their adverse interest in him. I do not accept that he was in any way threatened, subjected to death threats, subjected to pressure with weapons, approached with bladed or sharp weapons, verbally abused (for instance, being told that he was a piece of trash to be thrown in the river), told that he was not their son/brother, told by family that they did not want anything to do with him or denied as their son/brother, physically harmed, beaten or in any way subjected to serious or significant harm while in Timor-Leste. I do not accept his claims about his family having bad or dangerous intentions towards him. As discussed above, I did not find convincing the applicant’s explanation as to why his brother would come to the wife’s family’s house in January 2024 threatening to kill him and saying that he was prepared to go to jail. Particularly in circumstances where the applicant failed to provide a consistent and credible account of the claimed harm prior to his departure, I do not accept that the applicant’s brother or any family members came to his wife’s family’s house on 3 January 2024, that they were looking for him or that they asked where he was, threatened to kill him, or otherwise made threats towards him. I find his evidence about this to be lacking in credibility. I do not accept that his brother or any member of the family has made threats against him, either prior to his departure from Timor-Leste or since he has been in Australia. I do not accept that the applicant’s family have been planning to kill him or otherwise do him serious or significant harm. I do not accept his claims about his family having bad or dangerous intentions towards him, and about their adverse interest in him.
In making these findings, I note that the applicant offered to show me his side during the hearing, something that I declined. I am willing to accept that the applicant may have a mark or scar on his body, but I do not accept in all the circumstances that this is in any way related to having been beaten or harmed by his family in connection with being a Protestant or marrying a Protestant woman. I do not accept that the beating occurred as claimed.
I note also that, in providing evidence about the claimed beating at the first hearing, the applicant appeared to describe that he was holding one of his children and his wife was holding his daughter. At the second hearing the applicant gave evidence to the effect that he was holding his daughter when they hit him. When I raised with him his evidence at the first hearing, the applicant stated that what he remembered from the first hearing was that his wife was there but he was holding the baby. He said that at first they were reluctant to beat him as he was holding the child but they still beat him. Then he said to his wife that it was better to get out of there. Although the applicant appeared to indicate at the first hearing that his wife was holding their daughter at the time of this incident, I consider this to be a very minor point and have attached no weight to it in making findings as to credibility. Nevertheless, for other reasons set out above, I do not accept that this incident occurred as claimed.
It may be that the applicant lived with his wife’s family in [Suburb 2] after he was married. However, I do not accept that this was because he had been threatened, beaten, pressured with weapons or otherwise subjected to serious or significant harm by his family, or because they had dangerous or bad intentions towards him. I do not accept that he had to flee there or that he was hiding there. I note that the applicant has claimed that he has not had contact with his family because of his problem. I have found that the applicant has failed to provide a consistent and credible account of the nature of the difficulties suffered at the hands of his family. I do not accept, for instance, that he was threatened by his family or told by them that he was not their son/brother. I do not accept that the applicant has provided a credible account of the nature of his problems with his family and do not accept that he is unable to have contact with his family because of such problems or because they denied that he was their son / brother. I do not accept the applicant’s claims in this regard.
At the hearing, I put to the applicant information from the US Department of State’s report on international religious freedom on Timor-Leste for 2022. I put to him that the State Department said that the constitution provided for freedom of conscience and worship and freedom of religious instruction. I put to him that they did refer to instances of civil servants rejecting marriage and birth certificates issued by religious organisations other than the Catholic church. They said that members of minority religious groups, including from Protestant communities, generally reported religious tolerance in Timor-Leste. I put to the applicant that the State Department said that the law criminalised religious and racial discrimination. I noted that they did report that there was continuing strong societal pressure for people to remain in the Catholic church, particularly from family or community members. Some minority religious group leaders stated that some family and community members criticised their members because of their religious beliefs.[2] I put to the applicant that the information seemed to suggest that there was religious tolerance and that groups such as Protestants could practise their religion in a tolerant environment. I put to him that might seem to be at odds with what he was saying about his family wanting to harm him or trying to harm him and not recognising him as a son or a brother. When this was put to him, the applicant said that he went back to the Tribunal’s explanation of the law but each individual had his or her own conscience and thoughts and they were not the same and this was a concern.
[2] US Department of State, 2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: Timor-Leste (15 May 2023)
I also discussed aspects of the independent country information with the applicant at the second hearing. In relation to the reported instances of notaries public rejecting marriage and birth certificates from religious organisations other than the Catholic church, the US Department of State stated that the leaders said that this occurred on an ad hoc rather than a systematic basis and that authorities resolved the incidents by addressing them with the notarial office director.[3] I put to the applicant that the information seemed to suggest that those incidents would be resolved and also that there was generally religious tolerance. The applicant said that in Timor there were laws that pave the way for minorities but the implementation of law by society was very different. He said that there was always discrimination by society.
[3] Ibid.
For reasons outlined above, I do not accept that the applicant has provided a credible and consistent account in relation to the nature of the harm he claims to have suffered in Timor-Leste at the hands of his family and I find that he has not provided a credible account of how he was treated by his family and their adverse interest in him. Notwithstanding the difficulties with his own evidence, it is plausible, having regard to the independent information, that there might have been some pressure, including from family, to remain in the Catholic church. I do not find credible the applicant’s evidence about the nature of the harm and pressure he claims to have experienced, which he claimed included pressure with weapons, threats, physical harm, verbal abuse and being told that he was not their son/brother. I do not accept that his family had, or have, bad or dangerous intentions towards him as he has claimed. I do not accept that he ever experienced harm amounting to serious harm or significant harm from members of his family, or that he was ever in any way threatened with such harm. I note also that, while the US Department of State has indicated that there might be some pressure to remain in the Catholic church and that some family and community members criticise members of minority religious groups, it also indicates that members of minority religious groups, including from Protestant communities, generally reported religious tolerance. While I note the applicant’s submission to the effect that each individual has his or her own conscience, I do not accept that the applicant has provided a credible account of the nature of his treatment by his own family and of their adverse interest in him.
I have been willing to accept that the applicant comes from a Catholic family. I accept that he married a Protestant as shown in the marriage certificate and that he now goes to a Protestant church. However, having carefully considered the available evidence, I do not accept that these matters have in any way caused the applicant to suffer serious or significant harm in the past. I have had regard to the independent country information and accept that there may be some pressure on the applicant to remain in the Catholic church and some criticism for marrying a Protestant and going to a Protestant church. Nevertheless, I am not satisfied, looking to the reasonably foreseeable future, that there is a real chance that the applicant would suffer serious harm from members of his family or others for reason of his religion or for reason of membership of his wife’s family.
I have had regard also to the applicant’s suggestion that there is always discrimination by society. However, notwithstanding that it refers to pressure to remain in the church, the information from the US Department of State indicates that minority religious groups such as Protestants generally experience religious tolerance in Timor-Leste. While it points to ad hoc instances of notaries public rejecting certificates from organisations other than the Catholic church, the information indicates also that authorities resolved the incidents by addressing them with the notarial office director. I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that there is a real chance that the applicant would suffer serious harm from other members of society for reason of his religion or membership of his wife’s family group. I am not satisfied, looking to the reasonably foreseeable future, that there is a real chance that the applicant would be persecuted in Timor-Leste by members of his family or others for reason of his religion or membership of his wife’s family group.

I note that I discussed with the applicant at the first hearing the question of real chance of persecution relating to all areas of the receiving country and relocation (for the purposes of the complementary protection criterion), including relocation to Dili. However, I consider that his evidence indicates that he has in fact lived in a suburb on the outskirts of Dili for many years. I am not satisfied that there is a real chance that he would be persecuted for reason of religion or membership of his wife’s family group if he were to return.
Claims in relation to loan
As noted above, the applicant has indicated that the claims made in his initial application were made up by the person that filled out the form. I accept this and find that those claims do not represent the applicant’s true circumstances.
I note, however, that the applicant did indicate at the hearing that one of the reasons he did not want to go back was that he had borrowed $4,500 and that, together with interest, the amount would be $10,000.
After discussing with him at the first hearing his claims in relation to his religion and his family, I asked the applicant at the hearing whether there were any other reasons apart from the issue with his family that he feared going back to Timor-Leste. I note that the applicant did not refer to the matter involving the $4,500 until he was prompted about this. When prompted, he said that he had forgotten because we were focusing on the problem between religions. He said he had been talking with a focus on religion and he was giving explanations about that and forgot. He said the Tribunal mentioned and then he remembered there were 2 reasons – the first one was the conflict between religions and the second one was the money which he forgot. He went on to reiterate that there were 2 problems.
In relation to this matter, the applicant gave evidence at the hearing to the effect that, before he came to Australia, he owed money to his neighbours totalling $4,500. He indicated that he borrowed the money and gave it to his wife and others. He borrowed the money to give to his wife so they could use it to buy food and drinks because there were many members of her family. He indicated that, before he borrowed the money, he confirmed with the owner of the money that he would be going to work. The applicant indicated that the person agreed to give him $4,500, and it was agreed that he would give back $10,000. The applicant referred to having an illness shortly after he came to Australia. He referred to being with the agency and being ill for about a month. He referred to having to pay back the agency and to the money he owed the agency going up. The applicant stated that he wanted to pay back the agency for the money that he owed. He did not get many hours; he would only get $200 a week. The applicant asked how he could manage his money and send money back to Timor-Leste.
The applicant went on to give evidence that he wanted to pay back the money to the agency but the number of hours he was getting was not very good and he had a lot of expenditure here. He expressed concern that he would not get any work if he went back to Timor-Leste and that he would not be able to pay back the $10,000. I questioned whether having a loan to pay back to people would be persecution or significant harm. I asked how this was relevant to his protection claims. The applicant stated that he wanted to organise this protection visa. He said that he borrowed money and when he was with the agency he got ill for nearly one month. He had 4 stones in his bladder. He referred to having photographs from the hospital and to the stones coming out. I asked the applicant how this would give rise to serious harm or significant harm if he were to go back. The applicant stated that if he went back he had not paid back the money he had borrowed. He said he had not paid it back in full. Since he had left the agency he had been working for several months. He had paid back $2,500 which meant he still owed $7,500. He said he felt that if he went back to Timor-Leste it would not be that good because he had not paid back the money. He borrowed $4,500; they knew he was going to work in Australia so he would have money so he had to give back $10,000. That was what he agreed.
I put to the applicant that, even if I were to accept that he had taken out a loan, it did not seem clear how this would give rise to a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm. When asked whether there was anything else he wanted to say about that, he said he had already said everything. He later reiterated that he did not work for nearly a month and that he went to hospital. He said that when he went back to work he had to have deductions for his ticket, transport and the place where he was living and he paid all of that back. He said it was not all that good for him because he did not get many hours of work and many of his friends already went back but if he went back he would not have enough money to pay off the debt in full. He referred to working for the agency and having to pay for the ticket, etc. At the second hearing, he gave similar evidence about having kidney stones when he arrived in Australia, being unable to send any money to Timor-Leste for about a month because he was unable to work, and working limited hours even when he could work. He referred to incurring debt and having to pay the rent, for example, and said he had not been able to send any money to Timor at that time. He confirmed that the stones had been removed, that he had been treated in hospital and that he had worked after this. He indicated that it was currently not fruit season so one week he had work and the next he did not. He indicated that whether he sent money to his family depended on the rate and their needs. When they needed money, they would ask for it and he would send money if he could.
I also discussed with the applicant at the hearing the issue of whether the general economic conditions would constitute serious harm or significant harm.
I am willing to accept that the applicant borrowed $4,500 from a neighbour in Timor-Leste before he came to Australia, that he gave this to his family and that he agreed to repay $10,000. I accept that he has repaid some, but not all, of this amount. I accept that he may have had a health issue when he first arrived and that this affected his ability to work and earn income. I accept that he may have had expenses in Australia, including paying back money to the agency. The evidence indicates that his health condition was treated and he has subsequently been able to work. I am willing to accept that the applicant may not have had as much work in Australia as he had anticipated, that he has also had other expenses and that this has affected his ability to send money back to Timor-Leste.
In these circumstances, I accept that the applicant has not been able to fully repay the debt he took out in Timor-Leste and that he would have a debt on return. However, I do not accept that the fact of having a debt in itself constitutes persecution of the applicant for any of the reasons enumerated in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act. At the hearing, I asked the applicant about how this matter would give rise to serious or significant harm if he were to go back. I have had regard to all of his evidence about this, including his evidence to the effect that it would not be good because he had not paid the money back. However, while I understand that the applicant is concerned that he would still have a debt, I am not satisfied based on his evidence at the hearing that this matter gives rise to a real chance that he would be persecuted by anyone in Timor-Leste. I note that the applicant made claims in his initial protection visa application that he had borrowed $540 and had to pay $250 a week in interest, and that he had been threatened and targeted as a result. However, as discussed above, he indicated at the hearing that these claims were made up by the person who filled out the form. I have concluded based on the applicant’s oral evidence about this that those claims do not represent his true circumstances. They do not provide a basis to conclude that the applicant would face a real chance of persecution in Timor-Leste or give rise to substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.
I note that the applicant has expressed concern, for instance, about finding employment and about his family not having enough in Timor-Leste due to the economic circumstances (I note that he indicated also that his wife has many brothers and sisters). I accept that the economic conditions in Timor-Leste are challenging. As discussed with the applicant at the hearing, independent information indicates that there is a large informal sector in Timor-Leste, that a significant majority of the population rely on small-scale subsistence farming, and that over 25 per cent of the population is below the poverty line.[4] I note that the applicant’s evidence at the hearing indicated that both his and his wife’s family were engaged in farming in Timor-Leste and he did farming there as well. This is consistent with information about the general economic conditions. I do not accept that these economic conditions in themselves constitute persecution of the applicant for reason of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
[4] United Nations in Timor-Leste, ‘Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of COVID-19 in Timor-Leste’ (2021); Bertelsmann Stiftung, '[Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Transformation Index.] BTI 2022 Country Report. Timor-Leste' (23 February 2022) at p.21
I have had regard to the applicant’s claim about societal discrimination. However, notwithstanding that the country information indicates that there is strong pressure to remain in the Catholic church and that some people criticise members of minority religious groups for their religious beliefs, it indicates that there is generally religious tolerance in Timor-Leste. I am not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant would, for reason of his Protestant religion or membership of his wife’s family, be subjected to discrimination amounting to serious harm in relation to employment, economic or any other matters.
I note that, when I raised with the applicant the question of relocation, he referred to having to build a house for his wife and children. However, as discussed above, I have found that the applicant has lived with his wife’s family in Dili in the past. I do not accept that he would have a need to build a house for his wife and family.
Refugee Criterion – Cumulative Consideration
I have carefully considered all of the applicant’s claims and circumstances, both individually and cumulatively. I accept that the applicant comes from a Catholic family, that he has married a Protestant woman and that he attends a Protestant church. While it is plausible based on the country information that he might face some pressure to remain in the Catholic church, I have not accepted as credible his claims about the nature of the harm and difficulties experienced at the hands of his family and about their adverse interest in him. I do not accept that his marriage to a Protestant or Protestant faith have led him to suffer serious harm at the hands of his family or anyone else in the past. I do not accept that the applicant’s brother or any other family member went to his wife’s family’s house on 3 January 2024 and made threats towards the applicant as claimed. I do not accept that his family had, or have, bad or dangerous intentions towards him as he has claimed. I do not accept that he ever experienced harm amounting to serious harm from members of his family, or that he was ever in any way threatened with such harm. Looking to the reasonably foreseeable future, I am not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant would be persecuted by members of his family for reason of his religion or membership of his wife’s family if he were to return.
I have accepted that the applicant has a loan from a neighbour that has not been fully repaid but do not accept on the evidence before me that this gives rise to a real chance that the applicant would be persecuted by anyone in Timor-Leste. I accept that the general economic circumstances in Timor-Leste are difficult but am not satisfied that these in themselves constitute persecution of the applicant for any of the reasons in s 5J(1)(a). I have carefully considered the applicant’s particular circumstances in relation to his religion and his marriage to a Protestant. I have considered his claims about discrimination but find, based on the independent information, that there is generally religious tolerance in Timor-Leste. I am not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant would suffer serious harm at the hands of anyone in Timor-Leste for reason of his religion or membership of his wife’s family.
Even considering all of the applicant’s circumstances in combination, I am not satisfied, looking to the reasonably foreseeable future, that there is a real chance he would be persecuted in Timor-Leste for reason of his religion or any of the other reasons enumerated in s 5J(1)(a).
For the reasons given above, I am not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Complementary Protection Criterion
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), I have considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa).
As noted above, I accept that the applicant comes from a Catholic family, that he has married a Protestant woman and that he attends a Protestant church. While it is plausible based on the country information that he might face some pressure to remain in the Catholic church, I have not accepted as credible his claims about the nature of the harm and difficulties experienced at the hands of his family and about their adverse interest in him. I do not accept that his marriage to a Protestant or Protestant faith have led him to suffer significant harm at the hands of his family or anyone else in the past. I do not accept that the applicant’s brother or any other family member went to his wife’s family’s house on 3 January 2024 and made threats towards the applicant as claimed. I do not accept that his family had, or have, bad or dangerous intentions towards him as he has claimed. I do not accept that he ever experienced harm amounting to significant harm from members of his family, or that he was ever in any way threatened with such harm. I am not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed to Timor-Leste, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm at the hands of members of his family.
I have accepted that the applicant has a loan from a neighbour that has not been fully repaid. However, I do not accept that the fact of having a loan that has not been fully repaid in itself constitutes significant harm. I have had regard to the applicant’s evidence about this at the hearing but do not accept on the evidence before me that this matter gives rise to substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm from anyone in Timor-Leste.
I accept that the general economic circumstances in Timor-Leste are challenging, as discussed above. I note that the applicant has claimed to fear economic hardship if returned to Timor-Leste and has referred, for instance, to difficulty finding employment and to concern about his family not having enough due to the economic circumstances. In this regard, I note that ‘significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s 36(2A): s 5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s 5(1) of the Act.
I do not accept that the impact of the general economic conditions in Timor-Leste, for instance by way of reduced employment prospects or financial hardship, would involve the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering such as to constitute cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or torture. Nor do I accept that it would involve an act or omission that is intended to cause extreme humiliation such as to constitute degrading treatment or punishment. The evidence does not support a conclusion that there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant will be subjected to the death penalty or be arbitrarily deprived of life. I do not accept that the impact of the general economic conditions constitutes significant harm as defined in s 36(2A).
I have carefully considered the applicant’s particular circumstances in relation to his religion and his marriage to a Protestant. I have considered his claims about discrimination but find, based on the independent information, that there is generally religious tolerance in Timor-Leste. In all the circumstances, I do not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer discrimination or harm such as to constitute significant harm as defined in s 36(2A).
I have carefully considered all of the applicant’s circumstances. However, even considering them cumulatively, I am not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Timor-Leste, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm.
I am not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
I note that the applicant has made submissions about his ability to work and contribute in Australia if he could get a protection visa. I accept that he wishes to work in Australia and believes that he can make a contribution. However, for reasons outlined above, I am not satisfied that he is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Don Smyth
Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2024] AATA 2670

7 March 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction