2010739 (Refugee)

The applicant, who claimed to fear harm from gangsters in Taiwan seeking protection money, sought review of a decision not to grant him a protection visa. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either as a refugee or on complementary protection grounds. The matter was heard by Luke Hardy of the Migration and Refugee Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, thereby qualifying as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), or whether he faced a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Taiwan, thus meeting the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of relevant policy guidelines and country information, and to determine if the applicant had discharged his onus of proving all statutory elements.

The Tribunal reasoned that the mere assertion of fear or risk of harm is insufficient to establish a claim for protection. It is incumbent upon the applicant to provide sufficient particulars and evidence to substantiate their claims. In this instance, the applicant's claims regarding threats from gangsters and the alleged refusal of police assistance in Taiwan were found to be brief and unsupported. The Tribunal noted the lack of detail concerning the timing of events, the applicant's response to the demands, the alleged corruption of Taiwanese authorities, and the absence of a judicial system. Without such elaboration, the Tribunal could not be satisfied that the applicant met the statutory requirements for either refugee status or complementary protection.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for protection under the Act.