1515580 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the protection visa applications of two applicants, one of whom claimed to fear persecution upon return to the Republic of Korea. The primary applicant alleged that due to his age (over 50) and long-term residence in Australia, he would face significant economic hardship, including a lack of employment opportunities, starvation, and homelessness, as well as general harm from South Korean society and employers. These claims were made under both the refugee criterion and the complementary protection criterion.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants were owed protection under the *Refugee Convention* or under the complementary protection criterion, as defined by sections 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) respectively. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the primary applicant met the definition of a refugee, particularly concerning membership in a "particular social group" defined as "returnees to South Korea who are aged 50 years and over," and if he faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to South Korea.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on assessing the credibility of the primary applicant's claims against available country information. It noted that while age discrimination in employment was an issue in South Korea, legislative changes had been implemented to increase the retirement age to 60 and to prohibit age discrimination. The Tribunal found that the applicant's fears of starvation and homelessness were not substantiated, particularly given his tertiary qualifications, work experience, English language skills, and the presence of family members in South Korea. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered that the applicant could access his superannuation entitlements in Australia and potentially receive assistance for voluntary return, mitigating potential hardship. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason and did not face a real risk of significant harm, thus not satisfying either the refugee or complementary protection criteria.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas, finding that neither applicant satisfied the criteria under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).