1715542 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming he fled Taiwan due to threats from loan sharks to whom he owed a substantial debt. The primary dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either as a refugee or by satisfying the complementary protection criterion. The matter was before the Tribunal for review of a decision not to grant the visa.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant qualified as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Taiwan, he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm, thereby meeting the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims of harassment and threats from loan sharks, and the availability of effective state protection in Taiwan.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence regarding his debt, the threats he received, and his interactions with the police in Taiwan. It noted inconsistencies in his account, particularly concerning the reporting of events to the police. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's repayment efforts and the lender's willingness to reduce interest rates, suggesting a potential disincentive for the lender to inflict harm. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion for being a refugee. Furthermore, it concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the complementary protection criterion, as there was no indication that he met the definition of suffering significant harm as defined in the Act, nor was there evidence of a real risk of such harm that was not faced by the general population or could be mitigated by relocation or state protection.

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