2319204 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an applicant from East Timor. The applicant sought to leave his home country due to a lack of employment opportunities and political conflict, stating that his future would be worse if he returned. He claimed he did not fear harm or mistreatment and believed authorities could protect him. The applicant arrived in Australia in February 2023 and applied for a protection visa, citing the potential to change his life and future in Australia.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically under section 36(2) of the Act, and whether Australia had complementary protection obligations towards him. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims of economic hardship and political conflict in East Timor, as well as the possibility of internal relocation or protection from authorities within East Timor. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's delay in applying for protection and whether this indicated a lack of fear of harm.

The Tribunal reasoned that Australia does not have complementary protection obligations where it would be reasonable for an applicant to relocate to an area of their country where there is no real risk of significant harm, or where the applicant could obtain protection from an authority of that country. Furthermore, a risk faced by the general population, rather than the applicant personally, does not engage these obligations. The applicant's stated reasons for seeking protection were primarily economic, relating to his inability to find work in East Timor, which he attributed to a lack of education and connections to political parties. He acknowledged that he did not fear harm and that authorities could protect him. The Tribunal also noted the applicant's admission that his delay in applying for protection suggested he did not fear harm in East Timor.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.