2010309 (Refugee)

This decision concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual who claimed to fear persecution in Taiwan due to a family dispute involving physical assault and financial abuse, and as a supporter of the Nationalist Party. The applicant also raised claims related to being a victim of a money lender or loan shark. The case was heard by Jason Pennell, Senior Member, of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion or membership of a particular social group (family), and whether Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant under sections 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958. This involved assessing the availability and effectiveness of state protection in Taiwan, the nature of the alleged harm, and whether such harm constituted "significant harm" as defined by the Act.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the availability of effective protection measures in Taiwan. Drawing on country information, the Tribunal found that Taiwan possesses an appropriate criminal law system, an effective police force, and an impartial judicial system. Consequently, it was satisfied that the Taiwanese state was able and willing to provide effective and durable protection to the applicant, thereby negating a well-founded fear of persecution under section 5J(2) and section 5LA of the Act. The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), applying the "real risk" test and concluding that there were no substantial grounds for believing the applicant would suffer significant harm upon return, particularly as the alleged harm from family was not accepted as serious and state protection was deemed adequate.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958.