1724993 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the applications of two applicants for a protection visa. The first applicant's relationship had ceased, and they had departed Australia, leading to a lack of jurisdiction over their application. The second applicant sought to rely on the first applicant's claims, alleging a fear of harm from a moneylender and a gang in Hong Kong, including being tracked and threatened. However, the Tribunal noted a lack of explanation for any fear of harm in Taiwan should the second applicant be returned there.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the second applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, and whether Australia had protection obligations towards the second applicant. This involved assessing the credibility of the second applicant's claims, the nature and likelihood of any feared harm, and the availability of effective protection from the authorities in Taiwan.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found the second applicant's evidence to be vague and lacking in documentary support. The Tribunal noted that the second applicant's loan from a finance company was only half repaid, and that a significant passage of time had elapsed since the alleged threats. Applying country information, the Tribunal concluded that effective state protection measures were available in Taiwan. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the second applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution. The decision under review was affirmed.