1610304 (Refugee)

This matter concerns an application for a protection visa by a Japanese citizen of [Country 2] ethnicity. The applicant arrived in Australia in 2007 on a temporary visa and has remained in the country since, undertaking tertiary studies and engaging in various visa applications and appeals. The applicant claims he fears significant discrimination and harm if returned to Japan due to his [Country 2] ethnicity and illiteracy in Japanese, despite never having lived in Japan. The Department refused his protection visa application because he failed to attend a scheduled interview and the delegate was not satisfied there was a real chance of serious or significant harm.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had established a real chance or a real risk of suffering serious or significant harm if returned to Japan, as required by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) for the grant of a protection visa. This involved assessing the credibility of his claims of discrimination and the likelihood of harm based on his ethnicity and lack of familiarity with Japan. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's reasons for not attending the interview and his overall circumstances, including his financial dependence on his parents and his unwillingness to undertake military service in [Country 1].

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant had presented evidence of discrimination faced by people of [Country 2] origin in Japan, he had not demonstrated that he personally had experienced or would likely experience harm. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had never lived in Japan, had only visited briefly, and had never experienced harm there. His claims of illiteracy in Japanese and potential employment difficulties were considered, but the Tribunal found them insufficient to establish a real risk of serious or significant harm, particularly given his Japanese citizenship and the lack of evidence of direct persecution. The Tribunal also questioned his assertion that his parents could not afford permanent residency in [Country 1], given their financial support of him.

The Tribunal ultimately affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa. The applicant failed to establish a real chance or real risk of suffering serious or significant harm if returned to Japan.