2319036 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an applicant seeking a protection visa, who claimed to fear persecution from a money lender in Timor-Leste due to an inability to repay a business loan. The applicant argued that his life would be in danger if he returned to Timor-Leste without repaying the debt. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason recognised under the Act, and whether he was entitled to complementary protection.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence regarding the loan, which was secured by his mother's ancestral land. The applicant admitted that if he failed to repay the loan, the land would be forfeited to the money lender, thereby discharging the debt. He also acknowledged that this would cause displacement of his mother and uncle, who resided on the property, and that they would be displeased with him. The Tribunal found that this admission effectively abandoned his claim of fearing harm from the money lender, as the forfeiture of the land would remove the lender's motive for harm.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant did not hold a subjectively-held fear of serious harm if returned to Timor-Leste, and even if he did, such harm would not be for a Convention reason (race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group). Furthermore, the evidence did not objectively support a fear of harm from the money lender, as the collateral would satisfy the debt. The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection criterion and found no substantial grounds to believe there was a real risk of significant harm. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, concluding that Australia had no protection obligations towards the applicant under either the refugee or complementary protection criteria.