2010735 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming fear of harm from criminal gangs in Taiwan to whom he was unwilling to pay "protection money." The dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either as a refugee or on complementary protection grounds. The matter was heard by the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant, on the accepted evidence, was entitled to protection in Australia as a refugee, or alternatively, on complementary protection grounds. This required determining if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia, he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm.

The Tribunal reasoned that the mere assertion of fear does not establish its genuineness, well-foundedness, or the claimed reason. It is incumbent upon the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal of all statutory elements, providing sufficient particulars and evidence. The Tribunal is not obliged to construct the applicant's case. In this instance, the applicant's claims regarding threats from gangsters, police inaction, and the absence of a judicial system in Taiwan were brief, undetailed, and unsupported. The Tribunal noted a lack of specific details concerning the alleged events, the applicant's failure to pay protection money, the circumstances of family members, and an apparent discrepancy regarding his English language proficiency versus his claimed Mandarin-only ability. The Tribunal also considered the provisions for complementary protection, which require substantial grounds for believing a real risk of significant harm exists as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the necessary criteria.