2007451 (Refugee) - [2024] AATA 4345

2007451 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 4345 (26 August 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Chang Hong Liu
CASE NUMBER:  2007451
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Singapore
MEMBER:Donald Gordon
DATE:26 August 2024
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 26 August 2024 at 3:37pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Singapore – fear of harm from loan sharks – borrowed to pay gambling debts – harassed, threatened, assaulted and falsely imprisoned – passage of time, settled life in Australia and employment and living conditions in home country – no attempt by loan sharks to contact applicant’s family – country information – police and judicial protection and government’s employment and social security programs – risk faced by population generally – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), (2B)(c), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
Applicant A v MIEA (1997) 190 CLR 225
BBK15 v MIBP [2016] FCA 680
Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379
CSV15 v MIBP [2018] FCA 699
MIMA v Haji Ibrahim (2000) 204 CLR 1
MIMIA v VFAY [2003] FCAFC 191
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 16 April 2020 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Singapore, applied for the visa on 24 December 2015.
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that:
a.With respect to the refugee criterion set out in s 36(2)(a) of the Act, the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution, in that there is not a real chance that, if the applicant returned to their country of nationality, the applicant would be persecuted on account of their race, religion, nationality, particular social group or political opinion.
b.With respect to the complementary protection criterion set out in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act, the applicant is not a person in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to their country of nationality, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 21 August 2024 to give evidence and present arguments.
The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
ISSUE
The issue before the Tribunal is whether the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations pursuant to:
a.The refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act; or
b.The complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act; or
c.By virtue of ss 36(2)(b)–(c), being a member of the same family unit as a non‑citizen who is mentioned in s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) and holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review ought to be affirmed.
COUNTRY OF NATIONALITY
The Tribunal finds the applicant’s identity and nationality are confirmed by their passport and recorded personal particulars.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant is a citizen of Singapore, which is also their receiving country for the purpose of their protection claims and assessments.
In the absence of any contrary evidence before it, the Tribunal finds the applicant does not have a right to reside in a country other than Singapore, and therefore s 36(3) of the Act is not applicable.
THE PROTECTION VISA APPLICATION
The Tribunal has before it the protection visa application form lodged by the applicant on 24 December 2015.
The applicant, in their protection visa application form, sets out their reasons for claiming protection, which are summarised as follows:
a.The applicant is seeking protection in Australia, so they do not have to return to Singapore.
b.Due to gambling debts, they borrowed money from loan sharks and their interest rates were too high to be able to make repayments. He stated “I left Singapore because I could not afford to pay back shark loans. In Singapore I was addicted to gambling and I borrowed shark loans.”
c.They were subjected to false imprisonment and violently assaulted.
d.They fear if they return that the loan sharks will harm them.
e.The authorities will not get involved in moneylending.
f.They cannot relocate within Singapore to avoid the loan sharks.
HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal to give evidence and make submissions in support of their claims for protection.
The applicant gave sworn evidence as follows.
The applicant stated he was born in Singapore and is presently in his late [Decade].
Both his mother and father have passed away. He has [siblings]. Notably a sister lives in Australia.
He went up to year [grade] schooling.
He is not married and does not have any children.
Prior to coming to Australia, he was [an occupation 1] for 6 years in Singapore.
In Singapore, he had a bad habit of gambling on horse betting.
To pay off his gambling debts, over 2003 and 2004 he borrowed approximately 10,000 SGD from a Chinese loan shark gang.
The applicant was not given any paperwork from the loan shark but the interest rate was 20% per month. The loan shark photocopied his ID documents and wrote down his address.
After a year of unsuccessfully attempting to pay the loan, the applicant escaped to Australia in 2005.
He stated he had to escape Singapore as the loan shark would come to his house and harass him for repayment including physically assaulting him by punching and kicking him to the ground.
He had called his [sister] in Australia, and she told him to come over to Australia.
The applicant stated he had also gone to the police, the police made a report, but the loan shark kept harassing him.
The applicant stated he had not made any attempt to settle the loan from Australia.
The applicant stated he had a settled life in Australia, he lived in the countryside and enjoyed living and working in Australia. Such opportunities were not available in Singapore. He works in Australia as [an occupation 2] [in a workplace].
The Tribunal raised with the applicant its concerns that it had been almost 20 years since the loan shark event and that the Tribunal did not think that after 20 years the applicant would be harmed by the loan shark if he were to return to Singapore. The applicant replied that he agreed with the Tribunal and that after 20 years the chance of being harmed by the loan shark would be quite low. However, the applicant stated that the main issue now was that he had a settled life and work in Australia and if he were to return to Singapore, he would not be able to find a job or place to live.
The Tribunal raised with the applicant the country information that Singapore has very capable courts and police that would be able to provide him with protection if he were to return to Singapore. The applicant replied that he had suffered harm before but now he is settled in Australia and would not be able to survive in Singapore due to the advanced technology skills needed to obtain employment.
The Tribunal raised with the applicant country information that loan sharks harass and threaten but country information does not suggest that loan sharks seriously physical harm or kill in Singapore. The applicant replied by agreeing but stated he was assaulted so he escaped to Australia as he was unable to repay the loan.
The Tribunal raised with the applicant that his claims on economic grounds and the loan shark without more may not qualify for protection. The applicant responded that he did not want to go back to Singapore.
The hearing concluded and the Tribunal reserved its decision.
IDENTIFYING THE PROTECTION CLAIMS
The applicant seeks protection in Australia from loan sharks in Singapore.
The applicant also fears economic harm due to his fears concerning Singapore’s employment and living conditions for him.
COUNTRY INFORMATION
The Tribunal has considered country information on loan sharks, economic, welfare and employment conditions in Singapore.
The USDOS report on human rights practices in Singapore for 2018 indicates that Singapore’s ‘constitution provides for equality in employment. No specific antidiscrimination legislation exists, although some statutes prohibit certain forms of discrimination’.[1]
[1] ‘Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018 - Singapore’, US Department of State, 13 March 2019, Section 7(d), p.30, 20190314101425.
In relation to support services available to Singaporean citizens, Singapore was reported to be providing ‘initiatives to upskill the local workforce’.[2]
[2] ‘Singapore's foreign workers left in limbo amidst tighter manpower rules’, Singapore Business Review, 25 March 2019, 20200117174910.
The website of Singapore’s Ministry of Manpower has information on ‘schemes that provide funding and support for employers and employees’.[3]
[3] ‘Schemes for employers and employees’, Ministry of Manpower, Singapore, 11 September 2019, 20200121164335.
The government also funds a means-tested Workfare Income Supplement Scheme for needy employed and self-employed citizens of Singapore. There is also a Workfare Training Support Scheme which provides subsidised employment training.[4]
[4] ‘Social Security Programs Throughout the World: Asia and the Pacific, 2018’, US Social Security Administration, 21 March 2019, pp.229 & 232-233, 20190403103626.
The BTI 2018 country report on Singapore notes that ‘[s]ocial safety nets are well developed, but do not cover all risks for all strata of the population. Some parts of the population are at risk of poverty in Singapore. Social security schemes are very much centered on individual contributions. All schemes targeting the poor are thoroughly means-tested. A growing number of people have received aid from the government’.[5]
[5] ‘BTI 2018 Country Report Singapore’, Bertelsmann Stiftung, 22 March 2018, p.23, CIS7B83941593.
In a June 2018 Channel News Asia article indicates that police had said loan sharks were ‘shifting their harassment tactics’, changing from damaging property to ‘harassing the public via SMS and WhatsApp messages’. Through this method, loan sharks were ‘able to target larger groups of people’, and ‘harass debtors at a quicker pace’. According to the police, the number of harassment cases not involving property damage had ‘gone up 17.5 per cent to 942 cases’ in the first four months of 2018 compared to the same period in the previous year. In 2017, ‘cases without damage to property increased by 33.8 per cent to 2,783 cases as compared to the year before’. Overall, unlicensed moneylending-related harassment cases had ‘increased by 12.3 per cent to 3,806 cases’ in 2017. This was ‘“largely driven by the cases without damage to property”, police said’.[6]
[6] ‘Loan sharks shifting from splashing paint to harassing on WhatsApp, police say’, Mahmud, A H, Channel News Asia, 7 June 2018, 20200121181412.
Singapore’s police are reported to have also arrested 129 people ‘for their suspected involvement in loan-sharking activities’ in July 2019.[7]
[7] ‘129 arrested for suspected involvement in loan-sharking activities’, Channel News Asia, 15 July 2019, 20200122125140.
The US Department of State (USDOS) report on human rights practices in Singapore for 2018 notes that the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, which has ‘provisions for arrest and detention without a warrant or full judicial due process’, was used by the government ‘almost exclusively against serious criminal activities involving narcotics, loan sharks, or criminal organizations and not for political purposes’.[8]
[8] ‘Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018 - Singapore’, US Department of State, 13 March 2019, Section 1(d), pp.4 & 6, 20190314101425.
A July 2018 article on the website of Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs indicates that ‘[e]nforcement by the Singapore Police Force (SPF) has helped to curb physical harassment of victims by unlicensed moneylenders; in 2017, there was a 5.8% increase in the number of unlicensed moneylending arrests compared to 2016’.[9]
[9] ‘Swimming with Loansharks: A Victim’s Ordeal’, Ang, D, Ministry of Home Affairs (Singapore), 13 July 2018, 20200121131916.
The Tribunal accepts country information as showing that loan sharks do exist and operate within Singapore. That victims of loan sharks face harassment and a low risk of physical violence. The Singapore Police Force do actively prosecute loan sharks.
The Tribunal notes that country information did not suggest there was a high level or high risk of serious harm or killings from loan sharks.
The Tribunal accepts country information that employment opportunities, official support, welfare assistance and re-training assistance is available in Singapore for the elderly and unemployed.
ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE AND CLAIMS
The applicant claims to fear harm from loan sharks in Singapore. He is also concerned about the economic conditions he will face in Singapore with his inability to obtain suitable employment and living conditions.
In assessing the applicant’s subjective fear of the loan shark, the evidence does not suggest a subjective fear of serious harm. The applicant gave evidence that he agreed with the Tribunal’s assertion that after almost 20 years, the risk of being harmed by the loan shark was quite low. His main worry was about his settled life and work in Australia and if he had to return to Singapore, his ability to find employment and a place to live.
The Tribunal also notes that although he made a written claim in his protection visa application that he had suffered false imprisonment by the loan shark, the applicant gave no evidence at the hearing with respect to any false imprisonment.
There was no evidence from the applicant that in the past 20 years, the loan shark had attempted to contact his family in Singapore to inquire as to his whereabouts or make threats for repayment. The evidence was that the loan shark had his ID documents and address but this was not acted upon. There was no evidence that in the past 20 years the loan shark has engaged with the applicant’s family back in Singapore to seek repayment of the loan.
When it was raised with the applicant that the authorities in Singapore were capable of protecting him, the applicant’s response was to discuss his worries about his ability to find employment in Singapore.
From a subjective analysis of the applicant’s fears, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has a well-founded fear that he will be harmed by the loan shark on his return to Singapore.
From an objective analysis of the applicant’s fears, the Tribunal prefers the country information which states that state protection is available and that loan sharks in Singapore do not resort to serious physical violence or killing.
With respect to the applicant’s concerns about employment and living conditions, he did not suggest or give information or evidence that he would be denied a basic existence or livelihood if he were to return to Singapore. He was worried he would not have the advanced technology skills requires for the Singapore job market. However, his evidence was that he was [an occupation 1] in the 6 years prior to coming to Australia. Technology jobs are not the only jobs in Singapore. The country information suggests that Singapore has in place official assistance for employment, retraining, employment and welfare services for the elderly.
The applicant stated he would not have a place to stay if he went back to Singapore. However, he did not give any further evidence or information on his access to living conditions. Notably he has been away from Singapore for almost 20 years. However, he has no partner or children, and his siblings are still in Singapore.
It became apparent over the course of his evidence that the applicant was very worried and concerned about giving up his settled life in Australia and his concerns about employment and a place to live if he were to return to Singapore. He has been here in Australia for almost 20 years.
FINDINGS ON THE EVIDENCE

The Tribunal, after hearing the applicant and considering the material before it, makes the following findings.
The applicant is from Singapore.
Prior to coming to Australia, he was [an occupation 1] for 6 years.
Due to gambling on horses, he had to take a $10,000 SGD loan from a loan shark between 2003 and 2004.
In 2005 the applicant escaped Singapore as he could not repay the loan shark and was facing threats and he had been assaulted on a few occasions.
The applicant is concerned that if he now returns to Singapore, he would have to give up his settled life and work in Australia over the past 20 years and in Singapore he would find it difficult to obtain suitable employment and a place to live.
The applicant is concerned about the loan shark but agrees that after 20 years, the chance of being harmed is very low.
REFUGEE CRITERION ASSESSMENT
To satisfy the refugee criterion in the Act, the applicant must satisfy the Tribunal that they are a refugee pursuant to s 36(2)(a) of the Act. Relevantly, this requires the applicant to come within the definition of s 5H(1)(a) of the Act, which defines a refugee as a person who has a nationality and is outside their country of nationality and is unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country owing to a well-founded fear of persecution. Section 5J(1) of the Act further provides that a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion and there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country, along with the requirements set out in ss 5J(2)–(6) and ss 5K–LA of the Act.
In Chan Yee Kin v MIEA the High Court held that a ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility, and a person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50%.[10]
[10] (1989) 169 CLR 379.
The reasons in s 5J(1)(a) must be the essential and significant reasons for the persecution per s 5J(4)(a), and per ss 5J(4)(b)–(c) the persecution must involve serious harm and systemic and discriminatory conduct.
Section 5J(5) of the Act defines instances of serious harm as including but not limited to a threat to a person’s life or liberty, significant physical harassment of the person, significant physical ill-treatment of the person, significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist, denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist, and denial of capacity to earn a living of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
Fear of harm from loan sharks analysis
The applicant claims he would suffer serious harm from loan sharks if he returns to Singapore.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant owes money to a loan shark.
The country information also states that persons who owe money to loan sharks face harassment and a low risk of violence.
However, the evidence before the Tribunal does not suggest that there is a real chance the applicant would suffer serious harm from the loan shark.
Whilst the Tribunal does accept that the applicant took out a loan, and he has been harassed by the loan shark with threats and demands for payment including being assaulted, the Tribunal does not accept that the loan shark would cause him serious harm on his return to Singapore.
The Tribunal accepts that on his return to Singapore, if the loan shark and the applicant do meet or make contact, there would be some further harassment with threats and demands for repayment. There would be a risk of being assaulted.
However, the Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance of serious harm. It has been almost 20 years since the loan shark events. The loan sharks in the past 20 years have not made an effort to contact the applicant’s family in Singapore despite having his contact details.
The country information states that the police would be able to provide protection. The country information did not suggest serious physical violence or killings by loan sharks in Singapore. Singapore has a well-resourced police force and respected judiciary.
The harm that would be caused to the applicant on his return does not amount to serious harm as provided in s 5J(5) of the Act. The Tribunal does not accept that the harm feared by the applicant is serious harm that engages the refugee criterion.
The Singapore Police Force would be able to provide durable and effective protection to the applicant pursuant to s 5LA of the Act. Country information suggests the police are effective and take action against loan sharks.
The effluxion of time over these past 20 years and no further contact by the loan shark with the applicant through his family in Singapore despite having his ID and contact details, has reduced the chance of facing serious harm to below a real chance.
The applicant also agreed in his evidence that after 20 years the threat of harm from the loan shark would be very low. He gave evidence that his main worry now was about obtaining employment and living in Singapore if he were to return.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of fearing harm from the loan shark.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant meets the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act on the basis of this claim.
Economic harm analysis
The applicant claims he would suffer serious harm if he returns to Singapore due to the country’s employment conditions and living conditions for him.
Serious harm includes matters such as those provided in s 5J(5) of the Act.
However, the Tribunal does not accept that the country’s employment and living conditions would cause serious harm to the applicant.
The concepts of “persecution” and serious harm indicate that the concern of Parliament is with acts perpetrated by others which cause the applicant to suffer harm. Hence the requirement for systematic and discriminatory conduct in s 5J(4)(c). Although it is a non-exhaustive list of what constitutes “serious harm” in s 5J(5), it includes a list of actions that could be perpetrated against the non-citizen by another person. Section 36(2)(a) is thus concerned with persecution of the non-citizen by others for Refugee Convention reasons as set out in s 5J(1)(a) such as race, religion, nationality, particular social group or political opinion, per paras 30-31 of CSV15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 699.
There was no evidence or information that the applicant would be targeted by entities to deny him employment, or a place to stay or deny him participation in Singapore’s economy or discriminate against him based on his age.
There was no evidence or information to suggest the applicant would suffer serious harm by entities that would amount to a threat to their life or liberty, or significant physical harassment, or significant physical ill-treatment, or significant economic hardship that threatens their capacity to subsist, or a denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens their capacity to subsist, or a denial of a capacity to earn a living of any kind, where the denial threatens their capacity to subsist.
Economic circumstances of general application in a country do not give rise to protection obligations.[11]
[11] Applicant A v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 190 CLR 225 at 248, 257-258; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Haji Ibrahim (2000) 204 CLR 1(Gummow J (with whom Gleeson CJ and Hayne J agreed) at 49); Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v VFAY [2003] FCAFC 191; and BBK15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 680.
The Tribunal also prefers DFAT country information about Singapore and the employment conditions. The applicant was [an occupation 1] for 6 years in Singapore. He was worried about his technology skills but this is not the sole basis for employment in Singapore. Country information also states that Singapore has official employment, retraining and welfare policies in place that would be of assistance to the applicant should he need them.
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant will be denied employment due to not having high level technology skills. High level technology roles are not the sole basis for employment in Singapore. Furthermore, the applicant is skilled as [an occupation 1].

100. Although the applicant has been away from Singapore for almost 20 years, he has no partner or children. He has siblings back in Singapore. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant will be deprived of basic access to living conditions. There is no entity or official process denying him access to living conditions that would amount to serious harm.
101. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of the country’s employment and living conditions.
102. The Tribunal also considered whether there were grounds for age discrimination on the applicant’s concerns about working as he grew older and retirement but finds that age discrimination is not serious harm and would be a law of general application aimed at Singapore’s socio-economic goals.
103. The Tribunal has also turned to consider each claim separately and cumulatively and is not able to find in favour of the applicant with respect to the refugee criterion.
104. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of the country’s employment and living conditions.
105. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant meets the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act on the basis of this claim.
COMPLEMENTARY PROTECTION CRITERION ASSESSMENT

As the applicant has not met the criteria to be considered a refugee under s 36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal has proceeded to consider whether the applicant meets the complementary protection criteria under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

107. Section 36(2)(aa) of the Act requires the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia, there is a real risk she will suffer significant harm.
108. Section 36(2A) of the Act exhaustively defines the types of harm that will amount to significant harm, providing that a person will suffer significant harm if they are arbitrarily deprived of their life, or the death penalty will be carried out on the person, or the person will be subject to torture, or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or to degrading treatment or punishment.
109. In MIAC v SZQRB it was held that the ‘real risk’ test under the complementary protection criterion imposed the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test under the refugee criterion.[12]
[12] [2013] FCAFC 33 at [246].
Fear of harm from loan sharks analysis
110. The Tribunal refers to the analysis of the harm that would be suffered by the applicant on his return to Singapore.
111. The evidence shows that the applicant would face some harassment and threats from the loan sharks if they did meet. He would be exposed to assaults. However, it has been almost 20 years now since the loan shark event and in that time the loan shark has not contacted the applicant through the applicant’s family in Singapore despite having his ID and contact details. The applicant also agreed in evidence that the chance of being harmed by the loan shark now would be very low. It is not a necessary and foreseeable consequence that the applicant will suffer significant harm on being removed to Singapore.
112. The country information stated that loan sharks engaged in threats and harassment but did not suggest that loan sharks engaged in significant physical violence or killings.
113. The applicant also agreed that his main worry now was about his employment and living condition if he were to return to Singapore.
114. The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence that there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm under s 36(2A) of the Act as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Singapore.
115. The country information also stated that Singapore has an effective police force that prosecutes loan sharks. The Tribunal finds that the applicant would be able to obtain such protection from the Singapore Police Force that there would not be a real risk of significant harm pursuant to s 36(2B)(b) of the Act.
116. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant meets the complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act on this claim.
Economic harm analysis
117. The Tribunal does not accept that the country’s employment and living conditions amount to significant harm per s 36(2A) of the Act.
118. The applicant’s fears of the country’s employment and living conditions would be a risk faced by the population generally pursuant to s 36(2B)(c) and would not be faced by the applicant personally.
119. Economic circumstances of general application in a country do not give rise to protection obligations.[13]
[13] Applicant A v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 190 CLR 225 at 248, 257-258; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Haji Ibrahim (2000) 204 CLR 1(Gummow J (with whom Gleeson CJ and Hayne J agreed) at 49); Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v VFAY [2003] FCAFC 191; and BBK15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 680.
120. The protective purpose of the complementary protection provisions in s 36(2)(aa) suggests the involvement of others against whose conduct such protection is necessary and the provisions engage Australia’s protection obligations under various international conventions dealing with matters including civil and political rights, the rights of the child and preventing torture, per paras 65-67 of CHB16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 1089. Furthermore s 36(2A) sets out an exhaustive list of what constitutes “significant harm” that could be perpetrated by others.
121. There was no evidence or information that the applicant was targeted by entities to deny him employment or living conditions or deny him participation in the economy or discriminate against him based on his age.
122. The applicant did not suggest, nor did the evidence before the Tribunal disclose, that this claim by the applicant would amount to arbitrary deprivation of life, or that the death penalty would be carried out on the applicant, or the applicant would be subject to torture, or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or to degrading treatment or punishment.
123. The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence that there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Singapore on the basis of the country’s employment and living conditions.
124. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant will be denied employment due to not having high level technology skills. High level technology roles are not the sole basis for employment in Singapore. Furthermore, the applicant is skilled as [an occupation 1].
125. Although the applicant has been away from Singapore for almost 20 years, he has no partner or children. He has siblings back in Singapore. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant will be deprived of access to basic living conditions as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal that would amount to significant harm.
126. The Tribunal has also considered age discrimination in employment but finds that age discrimination is not significant harm and would be applicable to the working population of Singapore generally.
127. The Tribunal has also turned to consider each claim separately and cumulatively and is not able to find in favour of the applicant with respect to the complementary protection criterion.
128. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant meets the complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act on this claim.
CONCLUSION
129. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).

Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) of the Act on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criteria in s 36(2).
DECISION

132. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Donald Gordon

Member
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…

cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b) that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a) a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b) if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…

5H Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a) in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or

(b) in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note: For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…

5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

(d) the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…

36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

(c) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…