1715460 (Refugee)

The applicants sought review of a decision by the Refugee Tribunal to affirm the refusal of their protection visas. The primary applicant claimed to have been blamed for missing goods at his place of employment in Taiwan, leading to demands for money from a business partner and fears of harm from money lenders. The applicants also claimed to be victims of generalised violence should China attack Taiwan.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), specifically whether they had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or whether they faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Taiwan. The Tribunal was required to consider the credibility of the applicants' claims, taking into account Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information.

The Tribunal found significant inconsistencies in the first-named applicant's evidence regarding the nature of the goods that went missing and the identity of his employer. These inconsistencies, particularly concerning the central element of his claim about being blamed for missing items, led the Tribunal to conclude that his evidence lacked credibility. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicants had established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, finding that they did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act, and therefore could not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(b) or (c).