2010890 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an applicant from Taiwan. The applicant claimed to fear persecution from gangsters demanding "protection money," alleging police and government inaction due to corruption. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant qualified for a protection visa as a refugee or on complementary protection grounds.

The court was required to determine if the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or alternatively, if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Taiwan, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. The court also considered the applicant's obligation to specify and provide evidence for their claims.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa. The court reasoned that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient detail and evidence to substantiate their claims of persecution. It was emphasised that the onus rests on the applicant to specify the particulars of their claim and provide sufficient evidence, and the Tribunal is not obliged to make or assist in making the applicant's case. The applicant's claims were described as brief, undetailed, and unsupported, lacking specifics regarding the alleged events, the nature of the threats, and the claimed corruption and lack of a judiciary in Taiwan. The applicant also failed to explain inconsistencies in their application regarding language proficiency.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the statutory elements for either refugee status or complementary protection. Consequently, the decision under review, which refused the protection visa, was affirmed.