1830257 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming he feared harm from creditors in South Korea due to significant debts incurred from private lenders. He asserted that the Korean government would not protect him and that his family would also be endangered if he returned. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant qualified for a protection visa as a refugee or on complementary protection grounds.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or if he would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to South Korea. This involved assessing the availability of effective protection measures within South Korea and whether the applicant's claims related to persecution or significant harm that the State was unable or unwilling to prevent.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of relevant policy guidelines and country information. It found that the applicant's fear stemmed from private debt and not from persecution based on the prescribed grounds for refugee status. Regarding complementary protection, the Tribunal relied on country information indicating that South Korean authorities are effective in combating illegal money lending and associated criminal activities. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant would likely receive protection from the South Korean police and judiciary against threats from moneylenders, thereby reducing any risk to a less than real one.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not meet the criteria for refugee status or complementary protection.