1502514 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for Protection visas by a de facto couple. The principal applicant claimed he was seeking protection due to threats and pressure from creditors of his parents, who had incurred significant debts from a failed business. The second applicant claimed to be a member of the same family unit as the principal applicant but made no independent claims for protection. The decision was made by Tania Flood, a Member of the Tribunal.

The core legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was a real chance the applicants would suffer serious harm upon return to Korea, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds to believe they faced a real risk of significant harm if removed from Australia. This required the Tribunal to consider the definition of "member of the same family unit" under section 5(1) of the Act and regulation 1.12, and to assess the credibility and substance of the principal applicant's claims regarding threats from creditors.

The Tribunal considered the principal applicant's account of being pursued by creditors due to his parents' debts, including threats of violence, humiliation, and organ harvesting. However, the Tribunal was not satisfied that these claims established a real chance of suffering serious harm or a real risk of significant harm if returned to Korea. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Australia did not have protection obligations towards the applicants.

As the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, including those under subsections 36(2)(b) and (c) of the Act, it affirmed the decision not to grant the Protection visas.