2018081 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a protection visa. The applicant, who had provided information to Australian authorities regarding a criminal syndicate, claimed he feared prosecution and revenge from that syndicate if returned to Singapore. He also raised concerns about potential harm, including caning and inhuman treatment, due to past criminal convictions and an outstanding warrant in Singapore. The Tribunal was required to consider both the refugee criterion and the complementary protection criterion under the Act.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had established a well-founded fear of persecution or significant harm if returned to Singapore. This involved assessing the credibility of his claims regarding his involvement with a criminal syndicate, the provision of information to authorities, and the potential consequences of his return, including prosecution for past offences and the risk of harm from criminal elements. The Tribunal also had to consider the application of the complementary protection criterion, which requires a determination of whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, the applicant faces a real risk of suffering significant harm.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, concluding that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. This conclusion was based on an assessment of the applicant's evidence, which was found to be inconsistent and changing. The Tribunal noted the applicant's criminal history in Singapore and Australia, including convictions for theft, rioting, drug possession, and drug supply. It also considered the outstanding warrant in Singapore for assault. While acknowledging the applicant's claims of involvement with a criminal syndicate and fear of revenge, the Tribunal found these claims lacked sufficient credibility. The Tribunal also considered the possibility of complementary protection, but ultimately found that the applicant had not demonstrated a real risk of significant harm as contemplated by the legislation. The Tribunal took into account relevant guidelines and country information in reaching its decision.