2400829 (Refugee)

This case concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of Timor-Leste. The applicant claimed to fear harm from martial arts groups (MRAGs) and also raised concerns about economic hardship and limited employment opportunities in Timor-Leste. The decision under review affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the visa.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the refugee criterion) or section 36(2)(aa) (the complementary protection criterion). This required the Tribunal to assess whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia, the applicant would face a real risk of significant harm.

The Tribunal considered extensive country information regarding the prevalence of MRAGs in Timor-Leste, noting that while many groups were outlawed, they remained active and often infiltrated state institutions. It was also noted that poverty and unemployment were significant issues, driving crime and contributing to the activities of MRAGs, which sometimes filled a security vacuum left by the state. However, the Tribunal found the applicant's evidence of threats from MRAGs to be lacking in detail and plausibility. Crucially, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had returned to Timor-Leste on two occasions after ceasing his membership of a MRAG, which undermined his claim of a well-founded fear of harm. The Tribunal concluded that any risk of violence or crime the applicant might face upon return would be at a level commensurate with the general population and not targeted at him personally due to his former membership. Similarly, while acknowledging the economic hardship in Timor-Leste, the Tribunal found that the applicant's potential economic difficulties would not reach the threshold for significant harm or persecution.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under either the refugee or complementary protection provisions. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.