1612430 (Refugee)

This case concerned an application for protection visas by two applicants from South Korea. The primary applicant claimed she feared persecution due to an imputed political opinion stemming from her father's past as a political prisoner, arguing this connection would affect her human rights and employment prospects in South Korea. The second applicant made no specific protection claims. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicants faced a well-founded fear of persecution, were entitled to complementary protection, or were members of the same family unit.

The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of the applicant's claims regarding her father's political history and the alleged impact on her own life and future. This involved examining inconsistencies in the evidence provided about the duration and nature of her father's imprisonment and subsequent legal actions. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's own conduct, including the delay in applying for a protection visa after arriving in Australia, her visa history, and the vagueness of her evidence regarding her activities and employment in Australia. Furthermore, the Tribunal needed to determine if there was a real risk of significant harm to the applicants upon their return to South Korea, as defined by the Migration Act 1958.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found significant credibility concerns regarding the applicant's claims. It noted inconsistencies in her evidence about her father's imprisonment, the lack of clear documentary evidence supporting her claims of harm, and her delayed application for protection. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's return to South Korea during her stay in Australia as an indicator that she did not genuinely fear harm. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution, nor had she demonstrated a real risk of suffering significant harm upon return to South Korea. The second applicant also did not present any claims for protection.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visas. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicants met the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958, and therefore, they could not be granted the visa.