2320678 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an applicant from Timor-Leste. The applicant claimed he left Timor-Leste due to a debt and feared imprisonment upon return, asserting he had not experienced harm in Timor-Leste and believed Timorese authorities would not protect him, nor could he relocate within the country. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) reviewed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant possessed a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), and if so, whether there was a real chance of such persecution upon return to Timor-Leste. Alternatively, the Tribunal considered whether there were substantial grounds to believe that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Timor-Leste, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm as defined in section 36(2A) of the Act.

The Tribunal considered documentary evidence, including the applicant's visa application and departmental records. It noted the applicant's claims related to a debt arising from a voluntary commercial arrangement with his neighbour and a poor economic situation in Timor-Leste, rather than persecution based on the grounds specified in section 5J(1)(a). The Tribunal found no information suggesting the applicant would be denied state protection or could not obtain it from Timorese authorities. The Tribunal also noted that the "real risk" test for significant harm is equivalent to the "real chance" test for well-founded fear.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant's fears were primarily linked to a debt and economic circumstances, not persecution for a Convention reason. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria for being a refugee or that there was a real risk of significant harm upon return to Timor-Leste. The application for review was therefore affirmed.