2008951 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Taiwan, sought a protection visa in Australia. The dispute arose from the applicant's claim that he faced threats of harm from a money lender in Taiwan due to an unpaid debt, and that underworld organisations colluded with the police, creating a risk to his life if he returned. The applicant had borrowed a significant sum in Taiwan and, unable to repay it, travelled to Australia on a working holiday visa. He argued that he needed to remain in Australia to earn sufficient funds to repay the debt and then return to Taiwan to start a business. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the applicant's claims and the relevant legal provisions.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically under section 36(2)(a) (refugee criterion) or section 36(2)(aa) (complementary protection criterion) of the Migration Act 1958. This involved determining if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or if there were substantial grounds to believe that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Taiwan, he would suffer significant harm. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the applicant was provided a meaningful opportunity to present his case, particularly in light of the telephone hearing conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant was a citizen of Taiwan and that Taiwan was his receiving country. While acknowledging the applicant's fear of the money lender and the threats made, the Tribunal concluded that these circumstances did not amount to persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, as required by section 5J of the Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not established a real risk of suffering significant harm as contemplated by section 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had been given a meaningful opportunity to present his evidence and submissions during the telephone hearing.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria under either section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(b) or (c) as a family member of someone who held a protection visa.