1807943 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a woman from Taiwan. The applicant claimed she was a homosexual woman who had been discriminated against and persecuted due to her sexual orientation, including by her family and neighbours. She alleged that if returned to Taiwan, her family would falsely imprison her, deny her food and contact with others, and force her to change her sexual orientation, and that she would be beaten if she disobeyed. She also claimed that the police viewed her situation as a private family matter and that the Taiwanese authorities would not provide her with protection due to their belief that homosexuals were unlawful.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Australia had protection obligations in respect of the applicant, pursuant to section 36(2)(a) (refugee criterion) and section 36(2)(aa) (complementary protection criterion) of the Act. This required the Tribunal to consider whether the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Taiwan, and whether she met the definition of a refugee. A further issue was whether section 36(3) of the Act applied, which would be the case if the applicant had a right to enter or reside in another country.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, concluding that Australia did not have protection obligations towards the applicant. The Tribunal accepted the applicant's identity as a national of Taiwan based on the provided passport copy and the absence of contrary evidence. It found that section 36(3) did not apply as the applicant had no right to enter or reside in any country other than Taiwan. Crucially, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had provided no supporting evidence to substantiate her claims of persecution or discrimination, either to the Department or to the Tribunal. The Tribunal also had regard to country information regarding LGBTI laws and community attitudes in Taiwan, but this did not overcome the lack of evidence from the applicant.

The Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.