1715544 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Taiwanese citizen, sought a protection visa in Australia after arriving in June 2015. The dispute concerned her fear of harm from loan sharks in Taiwan due to significant debts incurred from a failed investment. The applicant claimed that these loan sharks had threatened her life and stolen her valuables, leading her to leave Taiwan to avoid persecution. She applied for the protection visa in March 2017. The case was heard by the Refugee Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, which requires a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or whether she came within Australia's complementary protection obligations under section 36(2)(aa). The latter requires substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Taiwan, there is a real risk of suffering significant harm.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of Ministerial Direction No. 56 and relevant country information regarding Taiwan. It noted that the applicant's fear stemmed from private financial matters and debt collection, rather than persecution by the Taiwanese state or on prohibited grounds. The Tribunal found that while the applicant had incurred substantial debts and faced threats from loan sharks, there was no indication that the Taiwanese authorities were unable or unwilling to provide protection. The country information indicated that Taiwan has a low crime rate, an effective police force, and a judicial system that generally upholds the law, including measures against loan sharking. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered that the applicant had not demonstrated that she had exhausted all reasonable steps to seek protection within Taiwan or that she could not relocate to a safer area. The applicant's delay in applying for the protection visa was also a factor in the assessment of her claims.

Ultimately, the Refugee Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa, as her fear of harm from loan sharks did not amount to persecution for a Convention reason, nor did it establish a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Taiwan, given the available protection mechanisms in that country.