2011170 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant, a national of Taiwan, claimed to fear persecution by gangsters who demanded protection money and threatened to damage his property if he did not pay. He also asserted that the police in Taiwan were corrupt and ignored his pleas for help. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine the credibility of the applicant and whether, based on his accepted claims, he met the criteria for a protection visa.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the criteria for a protection visa, specifically section 36(2)(a) (refugee criterion) and section 36(2)(aa) (complementary protection criterion) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Tribunal noted that the applicant had provided inconsistent information in his application forms, including regarding his residential history, education, and employment, which cast doubt on his credibility. Furthermore, the applicant's assertion that he could relocate within Taiwan to avoid harm, coupled with the lack of specific evidence of threats or harm beyond vague claims of gangster activity and police inaction, led the Tribunal to question the well-foundedness of his fear.

The Tribunal applied the principles outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 84, considering relevant guidelines and country information. It found that the applicant's claims of persecution by gangsters and the alleged corruption of the police did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal highlighted inconsistencies in the applicant's statements and the absence of corroborating evidence. Crucially, the applicant's admission that he could relocate within Taiwan to an area where he would not be harmed meant that he did not face a real risk of significant harm under section 36(2B)(a) of the Act.

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