1924397 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection visa by an individual who claimed to have left Taiwan due to a substantial debt owed to a money lender, alleging that his family had been harmed by gangsters as a consequence of his delayed repayments. The applicant asserted that he could not seek assistance from Taiwanese authorities due to the illegal nature of the money lender and feared continued violence and lack of protection if returned to Taiwan. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, thereby satisfying the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a) of the Act, and alternatively, whether he met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This latter criterion requires the Minister to be satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Taiwan, there is a real risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm. The Tribunal was also required to consider the applicant's claims in light of relevant guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims. While acknowledging the applicant's assertion of fear, the Tribunal emphasised that the onus remained on the applicant to provide detailed facts necessary for the decision-maker to establish the relevant facts, citing established case law. The Tribunal found that Taiwan was the applicant's receiving country but noted the absence of any evidence suggesting he could access protection in a third country. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not satisfied the refugee criterion and, by extension, had not demonstrated a real risk of significant harm upon return to Taiwan, particularly given the lack of evidence supporting his claims of inability to access Taiwanese authorities or the extent of the threat posed by the money lender.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the Act.