2101447 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa, who claimed to have fled the Philippines due to threats from loan sharks and economic hardship. The applicant asserted that her father had incurred debts with unlicensed financial companies, and she had left Australia to help repay these debts, fearing for her family's safety if repayment failed. She also claimed to have experienced verbal threats and lived in harsh conditions due to the deteriorating economy, and that seeking help within the Philippines was futile as such issues were considered personal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant possessed a well-founded fear of persecution under section 5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), or if there was a real chance she would suffer serious harm upon return to the Philippines. Alternatively, the Tribunal was required to assess whether the applicant met the complementary protection criteria under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, which involves determining if there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, the applicant would suffer significant harm.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not established her claims with convincing evidence. It questioned why the family had resorted to unlicensed lenders rather than registered financial institutions. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated she would face serious harm or persecution upon return to the Philippines, nor that she would be denied a livelihood or face significant economic hardship due to her membership in a particular social group, such as single mothers or victims of loan sharks. The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of threats from loan sharks or associated individuals.

Based on the limited and unanswered questions in the applicant's submissions, and her declining to engage in a hearing, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations under section 36(2)(a). Furthermore, after considering the complementary protection criterion, the Tribunal found no substantial grounds to believe there was a real risk of significant harm to the applicant if she were removed from Australia. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.