2011924 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant a protection visa to the applicant, a female citizen of Taiwan. The applicant arrived in Australia in June 2019 and subsequently lodged an application for a protection visa, claiming she feared persecution by organised crime figures in Taiwan due to her boyfriend's actions in reporting their loan-sharking activities to the police, which she alleged were bribed. The applicant did not submit any supporting documents with her application and did not provide further information despite being advised of the opportunity to do so. The delegate refused the visa on 21 July 2020. The applicant sought review of this decision by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of a protection visa, specifically whether she satisfied the refugee criterion under s 36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion under s 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This involved assessing whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Taiwan, the applicant would suffer significant harm. The Tribunal was also required to consider the applicant's claims in light of relevant guidelines and country information, and to determine the weight to be given to the applicant's claims, particularly in the absence of supporting evidence and her non-appearance at a scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had been provided with multiple opportunities to submit further information and evidence to support her claims, including an invitation to attend a hearing, but failed to do so. In the absence of any supporting documentation or evidence presented by the applicant, and given her non-appearance at the scheduled hearing, the Tribunal concluded that it could not be satisfied that the applicant had established a real risk of suffering significant harm upon return to Taiwan. The Tribunal applied the principles of s 36(2)(aa) and considered the relevant guidelines and country information, but found the applicant's unsubstantiated claims insufficient to meet the threshold for protection obligations.