1911639 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of China, sought a protection visa, claiming she could not return to her country due to threats from a loan shark. The dispute concerned whether she met the criteria for a protection visa, with the case heard by a member of the Tribunal.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958, and if not, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her removal to China, she faced a real risk of suffering significant harm.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims that she had borrowed money from an entity that was not a bank, leading to involvement with a loan shark. She alleged that she was threatened with forced prostitution to repay the debt and that she had been physically assaulted when she refused. She also stated that the police had refused to assist her because she had signed documents. The Tribunal noted that Ministerial Direction No. 84 required consideration of relevant guidelines and country information. Applying the law, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa).

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