Tjhia v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant is a citizen of Indonesia, born in 1970, who arrived in Australia on 27 November 1994. On 30 January 1998 he lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). On 13 February 1998 a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs refused to grant a protection visa. On 19 March 1998, the applicant applied for a review of that decision. The matter was heard before the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT"). On 19 January 1999, the RRT affirmed the decision of the Minister's delegate. The applicant applied to this Court on 17 February 1999 for a review of the RRT decision, and it is this application which is the subject of the current proceeding. 2 The applicant claims that he is a refugee within the meaning of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees ("the Convention"). Article 1A(2) of the Convention defines a refugee as any person who: "… owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of … race … is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country …" 3 The applicant's family had lived in Kalimantan, but before the applicant was born they were forced by the hostility of the Dayaks towards the ethnic Chinese to move to the town of Sui Pinyuh. In 1984 when the applicant was 14 years old, the homes of about a hundred ethnic Chinese families including his were burned. He was at school nearby but was prevented by road blocks from returning home to rescue any belongings. His belief was that the fire was lit by native Indonesians and he felt it showed the depth of their hatred for the ethnic Chinese. The family experienced difficulties in having the police accept their report of the fires. They were required to produce evidence that they had lived in the area, a requirement which the applicant said would not have applied to native Indonesians. 4 Following these events, the family relocated to Bogor, which is about forty to fifty kilometres from Jakarta, where they still live. They were said to have encountered obstruction from, and had to bribe, officials with whom they were required to register their intention to move. The applicant again felt that these were difficulties experienced by ethnic Chinese but not by native Indonesians. The applicant completed the final six years of his schooling in Bogor. He says that while at school he was often threatened by other children who would demand money. This happened, he said, more than once a month over the six years of his schooling. 5 When he finished school the applicant went to university. Most of the students were non-Chinese, whose education was subsidised. The applicant's non-Chinese friends used to tell him that he did not belong there, that he should go to a more expensive university. He completed only one year, and then commenced to work as an accounts assistant with a company, which involved his travelling to various towns to complete audits. After two years he changed jobs and became a salesman. He was away from home on business trips for long periods of time and he eventually left this job voluntarily. He did not enjoy the long absences from home, but he also found the job too risky. He said the risks he most feared were traffic accidents. 6 It was the opinion of the applicant that native Indonesians hate the ethnic Chinese. He thought the reason for that was they were perceived as having lots of money. They were exploited in many ways, for example by being required to pay more to obtain the issue of an identity card. He said that he was almost certain that he would be targeted by criminals if he returned to Indonesia because of his Chinese ethnicity and that some serious harm would befall him.