1712252 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by two applicants, citizens of the Republic of Korea, who sought to avoid return to their home country. The applicants claimed they would face significant harm if returned, citing socio-economic hardship, advanced age, personal debts, lack of assets, limited family support, and societal discrimination against mature-aged workers in South Korea. Their application followed previous unsuccessful attempts to obtain business and skilled work visas. The case was heard by Brendan Darcy.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under either the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion. Specifically, the Tribunal was required to determine if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia to South Korea, the applicants would suffer significant harm, as defined by the relevant provisions of the Act. This involved considering country information regarding societal discrimination and the applicants' personal circumstances, including their age, financial situation, and health.

The Tribunal considered the applicants' claims in light of Ministerial Direction No. 84 and relevant guidelines and country information. It concluded that the applicants did not meet the criteria for protection. While acknowledging the applicants' personal circumstances, including their age, financial difficulties, and claims of societal discrimination against older workers in South Korea, the Tribunal found that these factors did not establish a real risk of significant harm necessary to engage Australia's protection obligations under either the refugee or complementary protection criteria. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.