1715533 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse to grant the applicant, a citizen of Taiwan, a protection visa. The applicant had arrived in Australia in 2012, imported illegal goods, and was subsequently convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in 2017. While in prison, he applied for a protection visa, claiming he feared persecution in Taiwan due to debts owed to loan sharks, which had led to false imprisonment, injury, and threats to his family. The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant's fear was not for a prescribed reason and that he would receive protection from Taiwanese authorities.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution under section 5J of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) or whether he qualified for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This involved assessing the applicant's credibility and the veracity of his claims regarding persecution by criminal entities in Taiwan, as well as considering the availability of effective protection measures in Taiwan.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not a credible witness, noting significant inconsistencies between his evidence and information contained in agreed facts and sentencing remarks concerning his living arrangements and family circumstances in China. These inconsistencies raised serious concerns about his truthfulness. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion, as it was not satisfied there were substantial grounds for believing he would suffer significant harm upon removal to Taiwan.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.