1803644 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming to be a victim of loan sharks in South Korea and experiencing mental health issues and threats from creditors. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) reviewed the decision to refuse the visa.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant qualified as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to a well-founded fear of persecution, or alternatively, whether she met the criteria for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) by facing a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the visa, finding that the applicant had not discharged her onus to establish the statutory elements of her claim. The Tribunal noted that mere assertions of fear or risk are insufficient; the applicant must provide specific and detailed evidence to substantiate her claims. The applicant's evidence regarding threats from creditors was vague and not distinguished from potential legal action, and her claims of attempting to repay the debt were unsupported. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the prescribed reasons, nor that there were substantial grounds for believing she would suffer significant harm if returned to South Korea.