1610405 (Refugee)

The applicants, who are South Korean citizens, sought protection visas. The primary applicant claimed that her family disapproved of her attendance at church and her de facto relationship with a partner they deemed unsuitable. She asserted that if returned to South Korea, she might be prevented from attending church and forced to live separately from her partner and their children, which would cause her significant harm. The other applicants were included as members of the same family unit.

The court was required to determine whether there was a real chance the applicants would suffer serious harm if returned to South Korea due to their religion or membership of a particular social group, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their removal, they faced a real risk of suffering significant harm.

The Tribunal considered the primary applicant's claims in light of the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), including the criteria for refugee status and complementary protection. It noted that the primary applicant had not attended church in South Korea since childhood and that her family was unaware of her current religious practices. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that while her family objected to her de facto relationship, there was no evidence that this objection would lead to serious harm, particularly as the relationship was not a marriage. The Tribunal concluded that the primary applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visas. As the other applicants had not made independent claims and their applications were dependent on the primary applicant's claims, their applications were also refused.