1622275 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the protection visa application of a Taiwanese national who claimed to fear persecution upon return to Taiwan. The applicant’s claims were based on his past involvement in anti-Myanmar government protest activities, ancestral links to the Chinese Communist Party, and his Myanmar origins. He also raised a new claim at the hearing concerning harassment from a former colleague over money lent.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Australia owed protection obligations to the applicant. This involved assessing whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, or whether he faced a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Taiwan, pursuant to sections 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's credibility, noting inconsistencies and changes in his evidence, as well as his voluntary return to Taiwan and Myanmar and his cessation of protest activities since 2007.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa. While acknowledging the applicant was a national of Taiwan, the Tribunal concluded that his claims of persecution were not substantiated. The Tribunal noted the applicant's inconsistent evidence and the lack of evidence to support his claims of being blacklisted or facing threats from Myanmar intelligence agents. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Taiwan, particularly given his voluntary returns and the passage of time since his alleged protest activities. The Tribunal also considered and dismissed the new claim regarding the money lender.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958, nor was he found to be a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa.