1704508 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant claimed to be an ordinary member of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in Taiwan and an anti-government and anti-China protester. He asserted that his political activities led to his arrest and detention, and that he departed Taiwan while on bail. The AAT was required to determine the credibility of the applicant's claims, particularly regarding his alleged political opinion and protest activities, and whether these, if established, would entitle him to a protection visa.

The Tribunal found the applicant to be an unconvincing witness, describing his evidence as vague, inconsistent, and lacking in detail. While acknowledging that the applicant claimed to be a member of the DPP, the Tribunal noted his inability to provide documentary evidence of membership or detailed knowledge of the party's principles and code. The Tribunal also considered country information indicating that Taiwan has a vibrant multiparty system with peaceful transfers of power and no reports of political prisoners. Despite the applicant's claims of protest activity, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established that he held a political opinion that would place him at risk of persecution.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. The applicant's failure to establish a credible claim to political opinion meant he did not meet the refugee criterion under s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa) but, based on the lack of credible evidence regarding the applicant's alleged persecution, did not find grounds for granting the visa on this basis. The Tribunal also noted the Minister's delegate had issued a public interest non-disclosure certificate under s.438 of the Act, which it considered valid and relevant to its assessment of the material.