1714923 (Refugee)

The applicant, a transgender male from Taiwan, sought a protection visa in Australia. The dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either under the refugee convention or Australia's complementary protection obligations, due to a claimed fear of harm from criminal gangsters in Taiwan. The matter was heard by the Refugee Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of membership of a particular social group, and whether Australia had complementary protection obligations towards the applicant. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider if the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Taiwan, and whether effective protection measures were available in Taiwan. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's status as a transgender male and his claims of being targeted by criminal elements due to his mother's involvement with the underworld.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant identified as a transgender male and had commenced therapy, he had not yet legally changed his gender. The Tribunal considered the country information regarding Taiwan, which indicated a low crime rate, effective police force, and an independent judiciary, despite some corruption. The Tribunal noted that while loan sharking operations occurred, major operations against such gangs were carried out by the police, and victims were referred to support numbers. The Tribunal also found that Taiwanese law prohibited employment discrimination based on gender identity and that violence against LGBTI individuals was adequately addressed by the police, with reported instances being rare and police responses adequate. Crucially, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm, and that effective protection measures were available in Taiwan. The Tribunal also found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion of being a member of the same family unit as a person who holds a protection visa.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.