1820382 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a protection visa made by a single male applicant from Taiwan. The applicant's claim for protection was based on alleged harm from an underground bank and associated gangsters. However, at the hearing, the applicant stated that his claims were drafted with the assistance of a migration lawyer and that he no longer held any fears of returning to Taiwan, preferring the lifestyle in Australia.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one or more of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), or, alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Taiwan, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's oral evidence regarding his place of birth and family circumstances, and his current employment in Sydney. Crucially, the applicant explicitly stated that he did not fear harm or threats upon return to Taiwan and confirmed that his claims in the application were not true, indicating he would not face persecution if he returned home. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion for being a refugee or the criterion for complementary protection.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, as the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).