1702769 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming a real risk of significant harm if returned to Taiwan due to past threats and abuse from debt collectors associated with her mother's financial misconduct. The applicant arrived in Australia in June 2013 and applied for the visa in December 2015. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered whether the applicant met the criteria for a refugee or for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The primary legal issues before the AAT were whether the applicant qualified as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Act, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds to believe that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her removal to Taiwan, she faced a real risk of suffering significant harm, as contemplated by section 36(2)(aa). The AAT was required to assess the applicant's claims in light of the 'Refugee Law Guidelines', 'Complementary Protection Guidelines', and country information provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as mandated by Ministerial Direction No. 84.

The AAT affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion under section 36(2)(a) relating to a well-founded fear of persecution. Furthermore, the AAT concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion under section 36(2)(aa) for complementary protection. The decision noted that the applicant did not claim to be a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfied the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) and held a protection visa. Consequently, the applicant failed to meet the overall criteria for the grant of a protection visa.