2404731 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1669

2404731 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 1669 (24 June 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent:Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Tribunal Number: 2404731
Tribunal:General Member T H R Baggiano
Date:24 June 2025

Place:Brisbane
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the application for a protection visa for reconsideration, in accordance with the order that the applicant meets the following criteria:
(i)that the first named applicant meets s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act;
(ii)that the second named applicant meets s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act; and
(iii)the other applicants satisfy s 36(2)(c)(i) of the Migration Act, on the basis of membership of the same family unit as the first and second named applicants.

Statement made on 24 June 2025 at 11:57am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Indonesia – ethnicity – Indonesian Chinese – financial debt – family business went bankrupt during COVID-19 pandemic – could not afford debt repayments – fear loan sharks – harassed with threats of violence at home, at work and via messages – shouting abuse and racist slurs and damaging property – relocated but still tracked down – public humiliation – complementary protection – anti-Chinese societal discrimination – combined with status as debtors would cause higher level of cruel and degrading treatment by loan sharks – may escalate into physical violence – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 5H, 5J–5LA, 36, 56, 65, 369, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379
Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547
Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCA 437
Selvadurai v MIEA (1994) 34 ALD 347
SZATV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 18
SZFDV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 51
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 24 February 2024 to refuse to grant the applicants a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceedings before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.
The first applicant applied for a protection visa on 30 June 2023, with the second applicant (his wife), third applicant (his daughter), fourth applicant (his mother-in-law) and fifth applicant (his brother-in-law) as dependants on the same application. The delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that the applicants are not persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.
The first, second, fourth and fifth applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 3 June 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Indonesian and English languages. While the third applicant appeared before the Tribunal on the same day, she did not give evidence due to her age and is reliant on the first and second applicant as a member of the same family unit.
CRITERIA FOR PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Background and receiving country
The applicants claim to be nationals of Indonesia.
The first applicant is [age] years old. He has claimed his place of birth as Jakarta, his ethnicity as Indonesian Chinese and his religion as Islam, having converted from Christianity.
The second applicant is [age] years old. She has claimed her place of birth as Bogor, her ethnicity as Indonesian Sundanese and Indonesian Chinese, and her religion as Islam.
The third applicant is [age] years old. She has claimed her place of birth as Depok, her ethnicity as Indonesian Chinese and her religion as Islam.
The fourth applicant is [age] years old. She has claimed her place of birth as Bogor, her ethnicity as Indonesian Chinese and her religion as Islam.
The fifth applicant is [age] years old. He has claimed his place of birth as Jakarta, his ethnicity as Indonesian Sundanese and Indonesian Chinese, and his religion as Islam.
All applicants arrived in Australia [in] June 2023 as holders of Visitor (subclass 600) visas.
All applicants provided copies of the biodata pages of their passports as part of their protection visa applications. The Tribunal also sighted original passports for the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants on the day of the scheduled hearing. The delegate accepted that the applicants are citizens of Indonesian and there no information before me to the contrary. I find that the applicants are citizens of Indonesia, and that Indonesia is their receiving country for the purposes of assessing their claims for protection.
Evidence before the Department
In their protection visa application, all applicants provided their own claims. However, the claims were identical in nature. The claims are summarised below:
a.After their family business went bankrupt during the COVID-19 pandemic, loan sharks threatened them with violence to pay back the debt;
b.The family did not have money to repay the debt;
c.The loan sharks sent people to their home to shout threats and racist slurs;
d.The applicants suffered psychological harm, and were threatened with physical harm because they could not afford to pay the loan sharks back;
e.The head of the neighbourhood was consulted to consolidate the loan and mediate between the family and the loan sharks;
f.The family rented an apartment away from their original home and changed phone numbers to avoid the loan sharks;
g.The family could not keep up with the repayments fast enough to live permanently in the apartment;
h.They are afraid that the people might come to abuse and harm them;
i.If returned to Indonesia, the applicants believe that they will be targeted by loan sharks who will send people to harm or torture them for money;
j.The applicants have not reported these issues to the authorities because, according to their experience, they are unreliable and have done nothing to help them;
k.The applicants do not believe that they could relocate to another part of Indonesia as the loan sharks are still looing for them. They are not sure that anywhere in Indonesia would be safe for them.
The applicants provided copies of their passports, birth certificates and national identification cards.
The first and second applicants provided a copy of their marriage certificate.
The fourth applicant provided a copy of her schooling education certificate.
The applicants were not invited to attend interviews with the delegate.
Evidence before the Tribunal
Review application
Along with the applicants’ review application to the Tribunal, the applicants provided medical records for the third and fourth applicants confirming that they had [Medical condition 1].
Pre-hearing information form
On 30 January 2025, the first applicant was invited by the Tribunal to complete a pre-hearing information form. The first applicant subsequently completed and returned the pre-hearing information form to the Tribunal. When asked if he had any more information about his claims for protection, the first applicant provided a written response which is summarised as follows:
a.He is afraid to return to his country;
b.After his family business went bankrupt during the COVID-19 pandemic, loan sharks threatened his family with violence to pay back the debt but they did not have the money;
c.The loan sharks sent people to their home to shout threats and racist slurs;
d.The family suffered psychological harm and were threatened with physical harm because they could not afford to pay the loan sharks back;
e.The first applicant has reported the issue to the head of the neighbourhood to consolidate the loans and mediate between the family and the loan sharks;
f.The family have not reported the issues to authorities because they are unreliable and won’t do anything to help even though they will be targeted by loan sharks, harmed by people sent by loan sharks or tortured for money;
g.The family rented an apartment away from their original home to avoid the loan sharks;
h.They tried to earn income by working in Indonesia but could not as the people sent by loan sharks kept terrorising them no matter where they went, so they were unable to work in peace;
i.The family was afraid that they might come and abuse and harm them;
j.Now that they are in Australia, they feel safe and can work to pay off their debts slowly;
k.The follow all the rules in Australia, do not commit crimes and pay taxes;
l.The first applicant works as [an Occupation 1] with about three years of experience;
m.He is happy with his life in Australia as he [provides a service that makes his customers] happy with the results of his work;
n.The family is undergoing treatment to eliminate [Medical condition 1] at a hospital in Brisbane, and so far, everything is fine;
o.The doctor has advised the that they can do their normal activities because it is not too bad, but they will remain under supervision at the clinic.
Other pre-hearing evidence
The applicants provided the following evidence before the scheduled hearing:
a.Medical records, pathology and radiology request forms, receipts for payment of pregnancy-related services and scans of the second applicant’s pregnancy;
b.Proof of transfer of money and correspondence with lender in 2025, known as Mrs [A];
c.Screen shots of final demand for payment and threatening text messages in Indonesian, accompanied by an unofficial English translation;
d.Evidence of sale of personal cars to repay part of the debts to loan sharks.
Applicants’ oral evidence at hearing
Preparation of protection visa application
The first applicant confirmed that while he lodged the protection visa application on behalf of his family, he consulted with the second, fourth and fifth applicants when completing the responses on the application form. The first and second applicants used the Google translate platform to try to understand the questions on the form. They also used the same platform to answer the questions on the form in English.
Personal details and family background
While the first applicant was born in Jakarta, he grew up in Depok. When the first applicant was around 11 years of age, his parents separated and left him and his brother to fend for themselves for around a year. After that time, the first applicant’s mother invited him and his brother to live with her again. His parents currently reside in Depok.
The second applicant was born in Bogor but has lived in Jakarta and Depok. While the second applicant lived in East Jakarta for work, she moved to Depok after her father was ill and subsequently passed away in around March 2015 as she needed to sell her home in Jakarta.
The second applicant explained that before she married the first applicant, she lived with him from around 2018, along with the fourth and fifth applicants in Depok. She has lived in the same household as these family members ever since.
Asked whether the fourth and fifth applicants are financially, psychologically or physically dependent on her and the first applicant, the second applicant responded in the affirmative. She stated that she and the first applicant financially supported the fourth and fifth applicants in Indonesia. The second applicant has another younger sibling who resides in North Jakarta.
As the eldest child, the second applicant is responsible for caring for the fourth and fifth applicants.
The first and second applicant were married [in] June 2022 under Islamic customs. Although the first applicant was formerly a Christian, he decided to follow the second applicant’s religion, being Islam.
The first and second applicants have a child together, being the third applicant, who was born in [date]. The second applicant is currently pregnant, with her due date being in around [date].
In relation to ethnicity, all applicants confirmed that they are Indonesian Chinese. When asked why the second and fifth applicants had declared their ethnicity as ‘Sudanese’ on the protection visa application form, it was determined that this was an error and that the applicants had incorrect selected this option from the dropdown list on the protection visa form. The second applicant confirmed that her late father was from Banta and that his ethnicity was Sundanese.
In relation to education, the first applicant completed a university degree in [Area of study 1] that would have equipped him to become [an Occupation 2]. The second applicant completed a university degree in [Area of study 2]. The fourth applicant completed high school. The fifth applicant had commenced [an Area of study 3] degree, but was unable to complete this course prior to departing for Australia.
The first applicant was self-employed from 2017 to 2020, working for the family business called [Business 1]. This business was owned by the fourth applicant, whereas the first applicant managed all financial and organisational matters for the business. The business bought and sold [goods]. From 2020 to 2023, the first applicant was employed by a company as [an Occupation 3], earning around [amount] rupiah, with commissions in addition. The first applicant currently works in Australia as [an Occupation 1] and earns approximately AUD $[amount] per month.
The second applicant has worked since 2011 up until 2023 in [a variety of] roles. Her last role from 2021 to 2023 was in [Occupation 4] in West Jakarta. The second applicant is not currently employed in Australia.
The fourth applicant was the owner of the family business. It was decided that she would be the owner of the business as she was not otherwise employed and could oversee the family business. The fourth applicant is not currently employed in Australia.
The fifth applicant confirmed that he also assisted the family business with [a job task], which was in line with his studies at the time. The fifth applicant is employed in Australia as [an Occupation 1].
Reasons for departing Indonesia
The first applicant claimed that he left Indonesia to seek safety. The conditions in Indonesia meant that he and his family could not live normal or peaceful lives without loan sharks. Even before he woke up in the morning, they would be waiting outside his home. He wishes to be accountable for that debt by earning money to pay it off. He stated he wishes for his family members to be able to live in peace. In Indonesia, they felt restless and disturbed in their minds due to the conditions they were living under.
The second applicant’s oral evidence was also consistent with the first applicant’s claims. She stated that she and her family departed Indonesia as they were terrorised by debt collectors. They had incurred debt due to their family business. As their business declined from around 2019 during the COVID-19 pandemic, they had to close down the business. As a result, they struggled to repay the debt.
The fourth and fifth applicants’ claims were also consistent with the first applicant’s claims in terms of the family being impacted by a debt owed to loan sharks.
The first applicant explained that he borrowed money from three separate local loan sharks when the family started the family business of buying and selling [goods] in around 2017. He borrowed [amount] rupiah in total.
The second applicant stated that the three loans were taken out in close proximity as they could not borrow one lump sum from a single loan shark. This is why they borrowed from three different loan sharks.
The business was a small-scale business that was not registered. They rented a small building for the business and had [an amount of goods] for sale.
There was no written agreement for the loans. The loan sharks would transfer part of the loan to the first applicant’s bank account, and provide the other part of the loan in cash. The loans were taken out under the first applicant’s name.
Repayments were required on a monthly basis, in cash. The repayments were collected in person by the loan sharks. However, if repayments could not be made, a daily interest rate was imposed, which is what resulted in the debt becoming so significant when the first applicant and his family were unable to service the debts.

Both the first and second applicants separately confirmed that no collateral was given in order to secure the loan. However, the loan sharks attended the family home to conduct a ‘survey’ of the home and the family and were aware that the loans were for the family business. The second applicant recalls them calling her place of employment to verify her employment details.
The second applicant recalls that the family defaulted on the loans in around 2021, as both her and the first applicant needed to start selling off their assets. They sold their [cars] and gold in order to be able to hand over repayments when the debt collectors came.
In relation to harm experienced whilst in Indonesia, the first applicant stated the loan sharks and debt collectors firstly threatened him. The threats came through messages on [Social media 1] from around the middle of 2021 and continued up until he departed for Australia. They caused him to feel restless. The threats were coming through daily and impacted the second, fourth and fifth applicants as well.
The debt collectors frequently visited the applicants’ family home. They would knock on the door loudly, start screaming the first applicant’s name and his family members’ names, ruin the plants outside the family home and damage the terrace. They were causing a disturbance to surrounding neighbours too. The first applicant stated that if he went outside while they were there he knew that they would physically assault him and that he would be met with violence. He stated that there were usually three to four people that came to his home. The first applicant would always need to wait for the debt collectors to leave before he could safely leave the home.
In around February 2023, the second applicant stated that the family home in Depok was seized by the bank that they held a mortgage with. After that, the family moved to a temporary apartment in Jakarta and remained there until they departed for Australia.
Asked why the applicants’ address history in the protection visa form indicates that they lived at the family home until June 2023, the second applicant clarified that the family did in fact move from the family home in February 2023 but that they did not indicate that on the form as the address on their national identity cards still reflected their previous family home.
Both the first and second applicants thought that the constant surveillance, harassment and threats might have ceased after moving to the temporary apartment. However, this was not the case. By means unknown to the applicants, the loan sharks and debt collectors were still able to track the family down at their temporary residence in Jakarta. The family avoided the debt collectors by remaining inside but security would phone them to let them know that the debt collectors were in the lobby.
The first applicant stated that away from the family home or temporary apartment, the debt collectors came to his workplace in 2023 to look for him. According to his workplace’s receptionist, they were initially amicable and asked to speak with the first applicant. They had advised the receptionist for their reason for visiting, which was to collect a debt owed to them. On that particular day, the first applicant was attending a client meeting and was not available, and the receptionist told the debt collectors this. It was at that point that they started to shout and scream at the receptionist as they did not believe her that the first applicant was unavailable. There were around four or five people that came to the reception area that day.
Due to the commotion in the reception area, the first applicant’s boss went to speak to the receptionist who then told the boss why these debt collectors had presented themselves to reception. The first applicant stated that he felt so ashamed about the incident that he resigned from the company not long after.
The second applicant also claimed that two debt collectors tried to locate her at her workplace in 2023. While they came to her workplace, she did not dare to go out to meet them. Her company’s receptionist and security did not allow the debt collectors to proceed further into the building. They had announced to the second applicant’s receptionist that they wanted to meet the second applicant to collect a debt. They also stated that they had brought other friends with them who were on the lower levels. They were aggressive and shouting and everyone around could hear it. Due to this incident, the second applicant did not want to go into the office and remained at home for around three days. She resigned from her job in around May 2023.
The fourth applicant stated that due to the issues her family faced with the loan sharks in Indonesia, she felt that the damage and assault done was mental in nature. She explained that the debt collectors kept coming to the family home and shouting at the first and second applicants. People in the neighbourhood heard the commotion and asked why these people were pursuing their family. The fourth applicant stated that she is reliant on the first and second applicants to provide for her. She is also scared to return to Indonesia due to all the threats.
The fifth applicant stated that as all the applicants were living together in the same home, they were being screamed and shouted at by these loan sharks and debt collectors.
I acknowledged the additional evidence that the applicants submitted to the Tribunal prior to the hearing. During the hearing, I provided the applicants with copies of those documents, labelled by number so that she could describe what each document was.
In relation to documents one to five, the second applicant confirmed that these were evidence of transfers to a person known to her as Mrs [A]. The second applicant was acquainted with Mrs [A] through a friend. Mrs [A] had loaned money to the family in around February or March 2023 so that they could fund their relocation to Australia. The amount loaned was [amount] rupiah, but the agreement was for the second applicant to pay back a total of [amount] rupiah. She confirmed that this debt was unrelated to the three debts owed to loan sharks. The second applicant estimates that there is around [amount] rupiah owing to Mrs [A] and that she is prioritising payment of this debt so that she does not face issues like she and her family did with the loan sharks.
The second applicant confirmed that documents six to nine were screen shots of her conversations with Mrs [A] confirming repayments.
The first and second applicants separately confirmed that document 10 contained screenshots of threatening text messages sent to the first applicant by loan sharks or debt collectors. Through the assistance of an Indonesian interpreter, the first applicant explained that the text messages were a final warning to him to repay the debt. The text messages stated that if six days passed and he had not made payment, they would let all of his [Social media 1] contacts and family know that he is an escapee, a liar and someone who cannot repay debts. They would treat him like someone of no value, someone who can only borrow but cannot repay. They warned him not to play around with his responsibilities as a debtor. They said to him that he cannot hide and they will hunt him down. They would send people to his house, office, and even his place of worship.
While the first applicant did not respond to these text messages, he always felt anxious whenever he read them. They disrupted his psychological state.
The second applicant explained that document 12 was evidence of sale of her and the first applicant’s [cars] in an attempt to repay some of the debt to the loan sharks.
She went on to explain that document 13 shows proof of the buyer’s transfer to purchase her car.
Document 14 is the second applicant’s certificate of vehicle registration.
I raised separately with the applicants’ written claims in their protection visa that the debt collectors used racist slurs when threatening them and asked the applicants to further explain why this was happening.
The first applicant stated that in Indonesia, it is well known that native non-Chinese people distinguish between themselves and those of Indonesian Chinese heritage. This is the cause for racism in Indonesia. Asked whether the first applicant believes that the levels of threats, aggression or violence from the loan sharks or debt collectors could be higher due to his Indonesian Chinese ethnicity, his response was that it was certain so. He explained that in Indonesia in 1998, there was a big riot which caused Indonesian Chinese to be cast away from their places, killed or murdered.
The second applicant stated that the racist slurs from the loan sharks and debt collectors were because she and her family are of Indonesian Chinese ethnicity. She explained that in Indonesia, the native Indonesian population are notorious for their anti-Chinese sentiment. She stated that even when she was at school, she was bullied. They would mock her for being Chinese in a jeering way, even though she studied in an Islamic school. She said that because she has a Chinese face, she was bullied regardless of her choice in schooling and religion.
The fifth applicant also stated that aggression and racism towards Indonesian Chinese is a normal and everyday occurrence. When asked if he thinks that the level of threats and aggression from the loan sharks or debt collectors were higher due to the family’s ethnicity, he answered in the affirmative.
Asked whether the applicants sought any help from within Indonesia, the first applicant explained that he had asked the head of his neighbourhood for assistance when the debt collectors visited his family due to non-payment around two to three times in around July or August 2021. The visits disturbed and shocked him and his family. When the first applicant approached the head of the neighbourhood for help, he stated that he could not get involved in a personal matter and that he did not want his reputation to be sullied. The first applicant did not seek help from the authorities as he believes that they would not do so since this debt matter is a private and personal one. He stated that the authorities might also have channels and links to strengthen the loan sharks.
Asked whether the applicants moved to any other part of Indonesia to avoid harm, the first applicant stated that when he and his family moved from Depok to Jakarta, the debt collectors were still able to track him down. He felt that there was no guarantee that he could escape and live in safety and peace, which is unlike the safety he experiences in Australia.
Similarly, the second applicant stated that despite relocating her family into an apartment in Jakarta as they thought that there would be better security and that residing on a higher floor would make it safer for her family, it turns out that the debt collectors were able to find them anyway. She recalls the apartment being around 50 to 60 kilometres away from their previous home in Depok.
Asked what the applicants think would happen to them if they were to return to Indonesia, the first applicant stated that he and his family will not be guaranteed safety. The loan sharks and debt collectors will continue to look for him as they have a strong network. The first applicant believes that he and his family would be subjected to violence and constant harassment if he is unable to repay the debt in full.
Asked whether the first applicant believes that the third applicant and his soon-to-be-born child would be harmed in Indonesia, the first applicant stated that he did not think that the loan sharks or debt collectors would harm children but he knows that the threats would leave a mark on their hearts. Even before the family relocated to Australia, the third applicant was only [age]. He said that moving with a young child was necessary as he did not want [the child] exposed to bad experiences and having to constantly move around.
The second applicant stated that if she and her family were to return to Indonesia, the loan sharks and debt collectors would continue to chase them down. As the family had tried to escape, their anger will be multiplied. The second applicant stated that she has a young [child] and is currently pregnant and that she is very scared.
Asked whether the applicants believe that authorities in Indonesia could protect them, the first applicant stated he cannot guarantee that it would help with the family’s circumstances. He is of the view that police do not want to get involved. As a result, he needs to prioritise the protection of his family.
The second applicant stated that she cannot recall the authorities dealing with these types of issues. They would think that it is a personal matter for the family to resolve. They would only get involved if there was a murder happening.
The fifth applicant stated that he does not trust the authorities in Indonesia. He stated that they would see this matter as a private matter to be dealt with by the family.
Asked whether the applicants believe they could relocate to another part of Indonesia to avoid harm, both the first and second applicants stated that they could not. Although they moved from Depok to Jakarta, the loan sharks and debt collectors were still able to track them down. It would also be had to live in a different city as newcomers and hard to find a job, which would mean an inability to repay debts again. The second applicant added that relocation would not be possible as the loan sharks and debt collectors have an extensive network and that they have been able to find her and her family although the family never shared their locations.
To conclude, the first applicant stated that he wanted to ask for help from the Australian government and especially the Tribunal to reconsider his application and to consider his family’s experience. He stated that if his case was rejected, he and his family would fall into great difficulty. The second applicant asked the Tribunal to reconsider her family’s case. She stated that she does not wish to go back to Indonesia as she is afraid. She wants to be able to live in peace and safety with her child and soon-to-be-born child.
Issues put to the applicants for comment
I discussed with the applicants that they provided little information about their claims of fear or returning to Indonesia when they initially lodged their protection visa application. The claims did not mention specific dates, locations or even details about the loans. I outlined to the applicants that they had the opportunity to provide further details, information and supporting evidence about their claims when the Department sent them two separate acknowledgement letters (30 June 2023 and 20 July 2023), when they lodged their review application with the Tribunal (12 March 2024) and when the Tribunal acknowledged receipt of their review application (18 March 2024). Each of these forms or letters invited the applicants to provide any further information or evidence relevant to their claims. It was only when the Tribunal invited the applicants to complete a pre-hearing information form that the first applicant provided a written summary of the claims but this still lacked key details. Further, it was only in June 2025 that some documentary evidence was provided. I explained that this lack of detail and information might go to the credibility of their claims in part or as a whole because it might not show a genuine fear of returning to Indonesia. In response, the first applicant stated that the reason they did not give more information or data was because when they moved to Australia, his Indonesian phone number had expired and he did not pay to extend that account, which resulted in much of the information disappearing. He was afraid and did not dare to put in information that could not be corroborated by evidence. In terms of the protection visa process, the first applicant and his family needed to conduct their own research of the requirements through Google in order to find out what the requirements were and how to lodge such an application. The other applicants did not have any other comments to make on this point.
I explained to the applicants that I need to assess whether they can access protection from the authorities in Indonesia. According to country information, Indonesian authorities have introduced some measures to crack down on loan sharks, such as compulsory government registration for online lenders and the formation of a task force to speed up the processing of complaints received from people suffering abuse and threats. Based on these efforts, I invited the applicants to comment on whether they think these efforts would afford them adequate protection. The first applicant responded by saying that in his family’s context, they obtained loans from local loan sharks, not online loan sharks. He cannot trust the facilities provided for by the government, as they would not extend to their local loan shark issues. The first applicant also stated that he does not wish to put down his country, but assistance from police or security in Indonesia is average. In order to get assistance, compensation or ‘grease money’ needs to be paid. The second applicant stated that such efforts by authorities are only for legal cases. In her family’s context, they do not have any evidence of letters. If they were to report this issue to police or hire a lawyer, they would not have money to do so. They would need to spend a significant amount of money to ask for help from the police.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
Credibility and findings of fact
In determining whether the applicants engage protection obligations, it is necessary to make findings of fact on relevant matters which may involve an assessment of the credibility of the applicants’ claims. I have had regard to the UNHCR’s Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status and accept that the benefit of the doubt should be given to asylum seekers who are generally credible but unable to substantiate all of their claims.[1] However, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any or all of the allegations made by an applicant, and nor does the Tribunal require rebutting evidence before it can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been made out.[2]
[1] United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, Geneva, 2019, pages 43-44.
[2] Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCA 437 at [451] per Beaumont J; Selvadurai v MIEA (1994) 34 ALD 347 at [348] per Heerey J; Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547.
In relation to the minor inconsistencies raised with the applicants when comparing their protection visa applications to their oral evidence at hearing, I have accepted all of their explanations and deem them to be reasonable. In relation to the incorrect ‘Sudanese’ ethnicity declared for the second and fifth applicants, I acknowledge that this was an error and that the intended response was ‘Sundanese’ give their late father’s ethnicity. In relation to the protection visa application stating that the applicants resided in the same family home up until they departed for Australia, with no mention of the temporary apartment address they claimed to have moved to from February 2023, I accept that the applicants thought that they could only declare official addresses that appeared on their national identity cards. As explained by the applicants, it would not have been possible for them to update their national identity cards to reflect a temporary residential address. I have not drawn any adverse credibility findings in relation to these discrepancies.
While the applicants’ written claims were very brief and lacking in detail, I found that they collectively gave independent and consistent evidence at hearing. The oral evidence provided still aligned with their broader claims in their original protection visa form.

In relation to the applicants’ late introduction of key details and documentary evidence, I have taken into account the applicants’ limited English language abilities, their reliance on the Google translate platform to help them understand the questions on the forms and formulate their responses in English and the applicants’ limited understanding of the protection visa process which meant that the first and second applicants needed to do their own online research on the protection visa process. As mentioned above, I have also considered that while their written claims were brief, their oral evidence at hearing remained consistent with these written claims. As such, I have not drawn any adverse credibility findings for the delay in providing key details and evidence.
Considering the above, I accept the following claims as credible:
a.The first, third and fourth applicants are of Indonesian Chinese ethnicity;
b.The second and fifth applicants are of Indonesian Chinese and Indonesian Sundanese ethnicity as a result of the heritage of their parents;
c.In around 2017, the fourth applicant became the owner of the applicants’ family business where they purchased and sold [goods];
d.The first applicant managed financial and organisational matters for the family business;
e.The first applicant borrowed funds totalling around [amount] rupiah from three separate local loan sharks in order to establish the business and purchase [goods];
f.The first applicant did not provide collateral but the loan sharks surveyed the family home, were aware of the reasons for the loan, and took copies of the first applicant’s identity documents;
g.Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the applicants’ family business was negatively impacted and resulted in the first applicant being unable to repay his debts, including interest, to the loan sharks;
h.The loan sharks and debt collectors would frequently threaten the applicants by attending their family home, shouting abuse and racist slurs and damaging the outside of the property;
i.The loan sharks and debt collectors would threaten the first applicant by sending text messages to his phone;
j.In November 2022, the loan sharks made a final demand, by text message, to the first applicant. They threatened to tell the first applicant’s [Social media 1] contacts about his debt and share his identification details if payment was not made. They also threatened to come to his house, workplace and place of worship;
k.The loan sharks and debt collectors came to the first applicant’s workplace in 2023 to look for him, but when they were told that he was not available, they started getting angry and aggressive. This incident came to the first applicant’s manager’s attention, and shortly after, the first applicant resigned as he felt shame and embarrassed;
l.The loan sharks and debt collectors came to the second applicant’s workplace in 2023 to look for her but when her workplace’s security and reception staff would not allow them to access the building further, they became aggressive and started shouting. The second applicant resigned from her workplace in around May 2023;
m.As a result of the constant threats and demands, the first and second applicants sold some of their belongings, including gold and their two [cars], to try to service the debt but this was still insufficient to cover the total debt amounts, including interest;
n.In around February 2023, the first applicant’s family home was seized by the bank. It was still under a mortgage but the applicants had insufficient funds to service the mortgage;
o.In around February 2023, the applicants relocated from their family home in Depok, to a temporary apartment in Jakarta. Despite this, the loan sharks were still able to track them down and tried to confront them outside their apartment;
p.In order to fund their travels to Australia, the second applicant borrowed around [amount] rupiah from Mrs [A], including interest;
q.The applicants departed Indonesia and arrived in Australia [in] June 2023;
r.The applicants are trying to pay off their debts but are prioritising the payment of their debt to Mrs [A].
Refugee criterion assessment
To be eligible for grant of a protection visa on the basis of satisfying the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act, the applicants must have a well-founded fear of persecution in Indonesia, and owing to that fear, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of Indonesia. This requires me to be satisfied that there is a real chance the applicants would suffer serious harm for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. An applicant may have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 percent.[3]
[3] Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379.
I must also assess whether the harm the applicants fear is for any of the reasons set out in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act, namely race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
While the loan sharks were using racist slurs when threatening and tracking down the applicants, I do not accept that the applicants were being targeted due to their race or ethnicity, but rather their inability to repay their debts to loan sharks. I also do not find that being debtors to loan sharks aligns with any membership of a particular social group for the purposes of s 5J of the Act.
Therefore, I am not satisfied that the applicants’ circumstances meet the refugee criterion as defined under s 5H of the Act as their circumstances do not fall within any of the categories of s5J(1)(a) of the Act. I am not satisfied that the applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Complementary protection criterion assessment
Having concluded that the applicants do not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), I have considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa).
Under the complementary protection criterion, I will need to consider whether the applicants have a real risk of suffering significant harm upon return to Indonesia. As per s 36(2A) of the Act, significant harm encompasses the arbitrary deprivation of life, death penalty, torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment and degrading treatment or punishment.
According to country information, loan shark services are widely available and utilised in Indonesia. In recent years, the use of loan shark services have been partly driven by a rise in online lenders offering small loans at high interest rates.[4] Loan sharks have a much lower lending standard than banks but charge far higher interest rates.[5]
[4] ‘Fighting Loan Sharks in Indonesia’, Bamboo Microcredit, 17 August 2018; ‘Online loan sharks, see you in the afterlife’: Indonesian taxi driver leaves note before hanging himself over debt’, PwC, 29 September 2019; ‘Can Indonesia strike a balance between debt recovery and financial inclusion?’, Gabriel Budi Sutrisno, Tech in Asia, 3 March 2024.
[5] ‘Indonesia’s Microfinance Industry Faces Overwhelming Demand’, Jakarta Globe, 17 August 2018; ‘Indonesia’s online P2P loan sharks are driving people to suicide’, South China Morning Post, 4 March 2019.
Consequences for defaulting on loans can include threats or acts of physical violence, the confiscation of property or the harassment of family, colleagues and friends of the debtor, although credible sources state that violence is generally unlikely.[6]
[6] ‘Can Indonesia strike a balance between debt recovery and financial inclusion?’, Gabriel Budi Sutrisno, Tech in Asia, 3 March 2024; ‘Indonesia’s online P2P loan sharks are driving people to suicide’, South China Morning Post, 4 March 2019; ‘Online loan sharks, see you in the afterlife’: Indonesian taxi driver leaves not before hanging himself over debt’, Coconuts Jakarta, 12 February 2019.
Relevant to the applicants, the lived experiences of Indonesian Chinese in Indonesia have been marred and shaped by past anti-Chinese sentiment and ongoing societal discrimination.

100. Country information outlines that Indonesian Chinese experience societal discrimination in the form of negative stereotypes that portray them as greedy, as criminals or as being associated with China and its policies. Discrimination of this type increased around the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic due to the extensive media coverage of China and various claims about the origins of the virus at the time.[7] Memories of the 1998 violence and 2016 protests are still French in the memories of many ethnically Indonesian Chinese. Some jealousy of perceived wealth can lead to threats and some Indonesian Chinese keep a low profile as a result.[8] Anti-minority sentiment is also heightened during election campaigns. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade assesses that Chinese Indonesians currently face a low risk of societal violence and a moderate risk of low-level societal discrimination.[9]
[7] DFAT Country Information Report – Indonesia, 24 July 2023, paragraph 3.9.
[8] DFAT Country Information Report – Indonesia, 24 July 2023, paragraph 3.11.
[9] DFAT Country Information Report – Indonesia, 24 July 2023, paragraph 3.12.
101. In relation to the first and second applicants, I have accepted that the persistent threats, confrontations by the loan sharks at their places of residence and workplaces and the disclosure of the first applicant’s debt and identification details to his [Social media 1] contact list constitute cruel or inhuman treatment or punish and degrading treatment or punishment under s 36(2A) of the Act, and that such harm is significant, not just because of the debt owed and the extreme and public humiliating treatment that they were subjected to but, additionally, due to the applicants’ ethnicity. While the above country information has indicated that violence by loan sharks and debt collectors is generally unlikely and that Indonesian Chinese face a low risk of societal violence, I find that the first and second applicants’ ethnicity is relevant and is an additional risk factor, which combined with their status as debtors, would cause a higher level of cruel and degrading treatment by the loan sharks, with a likelihood of the threats escalating into physical violence, should they return to Indonesia.
102. Having regard to s 36(2B)(b) of the Act, I have considered whether the first and second applicants could obtain protection from the authorities in Indonesia, such that there would not be a real risk that they would suffer significant harm. In this respect, I give weight to country information which states that while Indonesian authorities have introduced some measures to crack down on loan sharks, such as compulsory government registration for online lenders and the formation of a task force to speed up processing of complaints received from individuals suffering abuse and threats, loan sharks nevertheless remain prevalent.[10] Further, according to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, police periodically target loan shark activities but their effectiveness can be limited by corruption and resourcing constraints.[11] I have also taken into consideration the first applicant’s attempts to seek help from the head of the neighbourhood, and being turned down. Based on the growth of the presence of loan sharks in Indonesia and the authorities’ assistance which is limited by corruption and resourcing issues, I find that the applicants would be unable to access effective state protection if they were to return to Indonesia.
[10] ‘East Java Regional Police Forms Task Force for Complaints and Enforcement of Illegal Pinjol’, Amir Baihaqi, Detikom, 15 October 2021; ‘PT Indo Tekno Nusantara Raided, These are the Facts about the Pinjol Collector’, Detikom, 15 October 2021; ‘Pinjol Office Raids Everywhere, Here’s the List’, Arinta Putri Anggraini, Detikom, 15 October 2021; ‘Under presidential order, Indonesia is at war with online loan sharks’, Khamila Mulia, KrAsia, 25 October 2021.
[11] DFAT Country Information Report – Indonesia, 24 July 2023, paragraph 3.118.
103. I also need to consider under s 36(2B)(a) of the Act whether it would be reasonable for the first and second applicants to relocate to an area of Indonesia where there would not be a real risk of significant harm. Reasonable, in the sense of ‘practicable’, must depend upon the particular circumstances of the applicants and the impact upon them.[12] I give weight to the applicants’ consistent and oral evidence that despite moving from Depok to Jakarta with their family, the loan sharks and debt collectors were still able to track the applicants and their family members down at their place of temporary accommodation. I also give weight to the first and second applicants’ family composition which includes a young child, a soon-to-be-born child, a young adult who has yet to complete his tertiary studies and an elderly parent. It would be unreasonable to expect the family to continually relocate with young and elderly family members to avoid harm and threats from loan sharks, and relocation would also impact their ability to maintain ongoing and stable employment to service their debts. Further, as demonstrated by the applicants, their relocation to Jakarta was ineffective as they were ultimately located by the loan sharks and debt collectors despite not disclosing their movements. I find that the applicants could not relocate to another part of Indonesia to avoid harm.
[12] SZATV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 18; SZFDV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 51.
104. For the reasons given above, I am satisfied that the first and second applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and satisfies the criterion set out in s 36(2)(aa).
105. I am not satisfied that the third, fourth and fifth applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations for the purposes of s 36(2)(aa). This is because the third, fourth and fifth applicants have not been directly threatened or harmed by the loan sharks and debt collectors, although I note that their lives have been implicated by way of living in the same household as the first and second applicants. However, I am satisfied that the third, fourth and fifth applicants are members of the same family unit as the first and second applicants for the purposes of s 36(2)(c)(i). As such, the fate of their applications depends on the outcome of the first and second applicants’ applications. It follows that the third, fourth and fifth applicants will be entitled to a protection visa provided the criterion in s 36(2)(c)(ii) and the remaining criteria for the visa are met.
DECISION
106. The Tribunal sets aside the decisions under review and remits the applications for a protection visa for reconsideration, in accordance with the orders that:
(i)the first applicant meets s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act;

(ii) the second applicant meets s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act; and
(iii)the third, fourth and fifth applicants satisfy s 36(2)(c)(i) of the Migration Act, on the basis of membership of the same family unit as the first and second applicants.

T H R Baggiano
General Member
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…

cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b) that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a) a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b) if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…

5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…

5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:

(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

(d) the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…

36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

(c) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…