1827224 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a national of Taiwan. The applicant claimed to have incurred a substantial debt to a money lender in Taiwan, which led to violent encounters at his workplace and on his way home. He reported these incidents to the police, but claimed no action was taken. The applicant subsequently travelled to Australia in 2016 to earn money to repay the debt. Upon returning to Taiwan in 2017, he found the debt had significantly increased, and after making a partial payment, he returned to Australia to continue earning. The decision under review was made by the Refugee Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of a protection visa under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved determining if the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of section 5H of the Act, or if he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm as a consequence of being removed from Australia, pursuant to section 36(2)(aa) (complementary protection). The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims against the legal principles governing well-founded fear of persecution and significant harm, including the availability of effective protection measures in Taiwan.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence regarding the debt, the threats, and the police response. It noted that the applicant had not provided evidence of a police report. The Tribunal applied the principles that the onus is on the applicant to provide sufficient evidence to establish their claim, and while acknowledging the difficulties asylum seekers face, it is not required to accept all allegations uncritically. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion for being a refugee or for complementary protection.

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