2402220 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Department of Home Affairs to refuse a protection visa. The applicant, who arrived in Australia under the Seasonal Worker Programme from Timor-Leste, claimed he had borrowed a significant sum of money in Timor-Leste to support his family and that he would face torture, imprisonment, and the loss of his family home if he could not repay the loan upon return. The applicant elected not to attend a hearing and consented to the Tribunal making a decision based on the documentary evidence.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under s 5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), or whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Timor-Leste, there was a real risk of significant harm as defined in s 36(2A) of the Act. The Tribunal considered documentary evidence, including the applicant's visa application and the Department's records, as well as country information regarding the socio-economic situation in Timor-Leste.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not experienced harm in Timor-Leste and did not claim he would be harmed if he returned, other than in relation to the consequences of his unpaid loan. The Tribunal found that Timor-Leste had laws protecting citizens from intimidation and physical assault, and that the applicant could obtain protection from the Timorese authorities. Applying the "real risk" test, which is equivalent to the "real chance" test for well-founded fear, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there was a real chance of the applicant suffering persecution or significant harm. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's claims regarding the potential loss of his family home and his brothers' studies were not grounds for protection under the Act.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant had not established that he met the criteria for a protection visa.