1701034 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision regarding a protection visa. The applicant, a national of Taiwan, claimed to fear harm from moneylenders and hired debt collectors due to an inability to repay a business debt. The applicant alleged that upon returning to Taiwan, he experienced harassment, intimidation, beatings, and false imprisonment, and believed that Taiwanese authorities would be unable to protect him due to the extensive underworld connections of the moneylenders. The decision under review was made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the definition of a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), and if not, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his return to Taiwan, he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm, thereby meeting the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of relevant guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence regarding his fear of harm from moneylenders and debt collectors, noting his claims of physical violence and intimidation. However, the Tribunal found the applicant's evidence to be inconsistent and confused, leading to credibility concerns. The Tribunal applied the principles of refugee and complementary protection, assessing whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. Despite acknowledging the applicant's stated fear, the Tribunal ultimately found that the evidence did not support a conclusion that he would face a real risk of significant harm upon return to Taiwan, nor that he met the criteria for refugee status.

The decision under review was affirmed.