2319182 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning an applicant from Timor-Leste who sought a protection visa. The applicant had arrived in Australia on successive temporary work visas, the latter being a three-year visa granted in May 2023. Approximately five months later, in October 2023, she lodged her protection visa application. Her claims centred on significant debt incurred in Timor-Leste, an inability to repay these debts, and alleged beatings and threats from creditors. She also asserted a family responsibility to financially support her relatives and stated she could not relocate within Timor-Leste.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, as defined by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), and whether Australia owed her protection obligations. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if there were substantial grounds to believe that, upon removal to Timor-Leste, she faced a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims against the available country information and the statutory requirements for establishing a refugee claim, noting that the onus rested entirely on the applicant to provide sufficient evidence.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on a balanced assessment of the applicant's claims against the provided country information. While acknowledging the applicant's stated debts and family responsibilities, the Tribunal found that the Timor-Leste police and government authorities were capable of providing state protection against harm from creditors. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's fear of persecution was not well-founded, particularly as her claims were primarily economic in nature and did not meet the threshold for persecution based on Convention grounds. The Tribunal emphasised that it was not obligated to construct the applicant's case or accept her allegations uncritically.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the statutory elements required for a protection visa. The applicant's claims regarding economic hardship and family support, while significant personal challenges, did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, nor did they demonstrate a real risk of significant harm that Australia was obligated to prevent.