1717432 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a non-citizen from Taiwan. The applicant claimed to fear persecution due to his family's substantial debts to an underground bank, alleging that the bank colluded with corrupt government officials and police, making relocation within Taiwan impossible and return to Taiwan a risk of kidnapping, arrest, abuse, and illegal imprisonment. The decision was made by Member Lilly Mojsin.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) as a refugee, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) as a person facing a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia. This involved determining the applicant's well-founded fear of persecution and the availability of effective protection measures in Taiwan, as well as assessing the risk of significant harm and the reasonableness of relocation or state protection.

The court considered the applicant's claims in light of independent evidence regarding Taiwan. This evidence indicated that corruption in Taiwan is low by international standards, with an effective anti-corruption body and protected whistle-blowers. Furthermore, Taiwanese police were assessed as effective, with low crime rates and rare instances of excessive force, and the Constitution prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention. The court found that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion in section 36(2)(a) because the independent evidence did not support a well-founded fear of persecution, nor did it establish that effective protection measures were unavailable in Taiwan. Similarly, the applicant did not meet the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), as there was no substantial ground to believe there was a real risk of significant harm, particularly given the evidence of effective state protection and the possibility of reasonable relocation within Taiwan.

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