2011474 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Taiwanese national. The applicant claimed he feared return to Taiwan due to his membership in the China Unification Promotion Party, which supports unification with China and opposes Taiwan's independence. He alleged that as a result of his political stance, he had been interrogated and monitored by police, suspected of being a spy, and faced harassment at school and work. The applicant arrived in Australia in February 2017 and had since travelled to Taiwan on three occasions without incident. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee or faced a real risk of significant harm upon return to Taiwan.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), including the definitions of "refugee" and "significant harm," and relevant country information. The Tribunal accepted that Taiwan qualified as a "country" for the purposes of the Act. It found that while the applicant had participated in one protest under the banner of the China Unification Promotion Party in 2014, his involvement was limited, and his oral evidence to the Tribunal contradicted his written claims of frequent police interrogation and surveillance. The Tribunal preferred the applicant's oral evidence, concluding he had no ongoing affiliation with the party that would attract adverse attention. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that any harassment or insults the applicant might face due to his political views would not amount to "serious harm" as defined by the Act, particularly given his lack of significant past harm and his ability to travel to Taiwan multiple times without issue.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under either the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.