2107920 (Refugee)
[2025] ARTA 2221
•22 August 2025
2107920 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 2221 (22 AUGUST 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2107920
Tribunal:General Member L Hill
Date:22 August 2025
Place:Brisbane
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Statement made on 22 August 2025 at 4:00pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Taiwan – particular social group – victim of loan shark – criminal gang – fear of killing – employment – return visits to Taiwan – state protection – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 5AAA, 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2CASES
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437
SZBQJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 143
SZIGC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1725Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 1 June 2021 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a national of Taiwan, applied for the visa on 13 April 2020. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant was not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as provided for in s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 25 July 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.
On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is [an age]-year-old single female. She has provided to the Department a copy of the biodata/biographical page of her current Republic of China (Taiwan) passport.
The applicant has previously travelled to and remained in Australia on several different visas in the past. She first arrived in Australia [in] April 2013 on a Working Holiday (subclass 417) visa (working holiday visa). She departed the first time [in] March 2014. She again travelled to Australia on a working holiday visa [in] May 2014 and departed [in] May 2015.
The applicant then applied for and was granted a Vocational Education and Training Sector (subclass 572) visa (Vocational education visa). She returned to Australia on a vocational education visa [in] August 2015 and departed [in] December 2016. [in] December 2016, she returned to Australia on a vocational education visa.
In Australia, the applicant applied for and was a granted a Student (subclass 500) visa. She departed Australia [in] March 2018. She returned to Australia on a student visa [in] April 2018 and departed [in] May 2019. [In] June 2019, she returned to Australia on a student visa.
In Australia, on 13 April 2020, the applicant applied for a protection visa.
In 2021, while waiting for her protection visa application to be processed, the applicant applied for and was granted a Bridging B (BVB) (subclass 020) visa. The applicant departed Australia [in] November 2021 and returned to Australia [in] October 2022.
Evidence before the Department
The applicant lodged her application for a protection visa with the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) on 13 April 2020. In summary, the applicant claimed that:
·She is seeking protection and cannot return to Taiwan.
·She left Taiwan because of an issue with a debt. In 2017, she helped her mother by putting herself down as a guarantor for a loan. The money was needed to pay for her sick grandmother’s surgery bill. In April 2018, they ran away as they didn’t have the money to pay back the “money lender”. The “illegal money lender” is chasing her and wants to force her to pay back the money she owes.
·She experienced harm in Taiwan. She stated that there are many “gangsters” in Taiwan. Police ignore and won’t do anything about the gangsters. If she is harmed by the gangsters, the police will not help her. The gangsters also called her, and this caused her to move. The judiciary and police in Taiwan are corrupt.
·She did not seek help or move or try to move to another part of Taiwan because the gangsters will threaten her and ask her to pay a protection fee. If she doesn’t pay the fee they will burn her property.
·She thinks is she returns to Taiwan they will find and kill her. She hopes the Australian government can help her.
·She thinks she will be harmed or mistreated on return to Taiwan. She also does not think the authorities of Taiwan can and will protect her if she goes back. She is scared that they will threaten to kill her and find her family. She left Taiwan and came to Australia with the aim of helping her family by sending them money. Her parents are old, and they don’t have anyone to help them. She has now decided to seek refuge and safety and is asking the Australia government for help.
·She thinks Australia is an area where she could relocate to and not be harmed.
Attached to the applicant’s application for a protection visa, were several identity documents including the applicant’s and her mother’s national identity cards.
On 17 March 2021, the applicant provided several documents showing screen shots which appear to be from a phone messaging service and social media accounts. These documents are not in English.
The applicant was not interviewed by the delegate of the Minister (the delegate).
On 1 June 2021, the delegate decided to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s65 of the Act. The delegate considered the applicant’s claims regarding the harm she fears on return and was satisfied that based on the country information the Taiwanese authorities including the police and judiciary are effective in combating illegal money lending and corruption and are willing and able to provide effective protection. The delegate was satisfied that the applicant as a citizen of Taiwan had access to effect protection measures and as a result, she did not have a well-founded fear of persecution. The delegate was also satisfied that the applicant could obtain protection such that there would not be a real risk that she would suffer significant harm. Consequently, the delegate found that the applicant was not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as provided under s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa).
Evidence before the Tribunal
The applicant lodged an application for review, in relation to the decision to refuse to grant the protection visa, with the Tribunal on 19 June 2021. In summary, in the application, she provided the following statement about why the decision is wrong:
Hi mate , i though this decision need to change, because i am sure when i go back Taiwan , i will be in dangerous. something is not shown in the sky , and under the table.my family run away , police can't protect them , that's why they run away ,even i can't contact them, their life are in dangerous , before they run away , they told me don't go back , if Taiwan is really safe , it will not happened many cases, even low-crime environment, still happened ,i can't image how life in Taiwan, money leaders always is gangsters , they have power to affect everything , like violence or threaten , they will let you can't live, and it is personal lend money , police will not handle ,so they can't protect us, Taiwanese authorities, including the police and judiciary some of them are gangsters too, they go into be a legal and powerful , but we don't know how is under the table if i don't have risk i will not apply this visa ,everything have reason , could you please consider this decision again ? Thanks
On 22 January 2025, the Tribunal emailed the applicant a ‘Pre-hearing information form’ (pre-hearing form), advising that the matter was being prepared to be given to a Tribunal Member. She was asked to complete the form and return it to the Tribunal within 7 days. The applicant did not complete and return this form.
On 19 June 2025, the Tribunal emailed the applicant and invited her to a video hearing scheduled for 25 July 2025. The applicant was asked to read and complete the enclosed ‘Response to hearing notice’ (notice) and return it to the Tribunal.
On 20 June 2025, the applicant emailed the Tribunal and attached a completed notice. In the notice, the applicant notified that she would not be participating in the hearing and requested the Tribunal to make a decision. She further added “I HERE REQUEST THE ART TRIBUNAL TO MAKE A DECISION WITHOUT HEARING INTERVIEW, BUT ART TRIBUNAL PLEASE MAKE A DECISION ON PAPERS. THANKS”.
On 24 June 2025, the Tribunal responded to the applicant and advised that as per her request the hearing scheduled for the 20 June 2025 had been cancelled and the Tribunal would proceed to making a decision on the papers without holding a hearing.
On 25 June 2025, the applicant emailed the Tribunal and requested the following:
how are you ?
i am writing to respectfully request the opportunity to reschedule or reopen my hearing regarding my visa application.
case number is 2107920 - [Name].
Unfortunately, due to being unwell at the time.
i taking epilepsy medication for the past two year .it made me confused .so it caused this problem.Ii mistakenly submitted the wrong document to the Tribunal .
i deeply apologize for this error and any inconvenience it may java caused .
i and fully understand the importance of this process and i am committed to cooperating with the Tribunal in an honest and respectful
Thank you very much for your understanding and consideration.
Sincerely,
[Name]On 27 June 2025, the Tribunal responded to the applicant and advised that the Presiding Member had considered her request and scheduled a hearing by video for her matter. She was asked to complete the ‘Response to hearing notice’ (notice) and a ‘MR6 Change of contact details’ form.
On 28 June 2025, the applicant emailed the Tribunal and attached a completed ‘Pre-hearing information’ form. Under the section titled ‘Claims for protection’ the applicant provided the following:
·She owes money to illegal money lenders.
·She was threatened and harmed by gangsters and moved house to evade the gangsters
·Police in Taiwan are corrupt and the judicial system ineffective.
·She came to Australia because she cannot repay the money she owes and because the gang members threatened to kill her and her family.
·If she returns to Taiwan, she will be killed by gangsters.
·Her family needs to move frequently, fearing they will be found.
On 2 July 2025, the applicant emailed the Tribunal a completed notice. In the notice, she confirmed that she would be attending the scheduled hearing and required the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter. She also indicated that she would not be relying on any further documents at the hearing.
On 25 July 2025, the applicant appeared before the Tribunal by video to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.
At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant indicated that she would like further time to provide documents in support of her claims for protection and application for review. The Tribunal granted the applicant a further two weeks until 8 August 2025 to provide any further information and/or documents.
On 4 August 2025, the applicant emailed the Tribunal and advised that the translation of her documents could not be completed by 8 August 2025. She requested a further week. That same day, the Tribunal responded to the applicant’s request and advised her that the Presiding Member had considered her request but had declined to grant further time. She was advised that as discussed with her at the Tribunal hearing, if she needed further time, she was to provide an explanation as to why she was requesting the further time and provide details of any efforts she had made to obtain the documents. In this instance she had not provided any evidence of her efforts to obtain the translation such as any correspondence with a NAATI accredited translator.
On 4 August 2025, the applicant emailed the Tribunal and requested further time to provide documents. In summary, she stated she had “collected a lot of evidence” but the “legal translation agency was overwhelmed and can not complete [her documents] by the 8 August 2025”. She requested a further week to provide documents and translations. On 5 August 2025, the Tribunal emailed the applicant and advised her that the Presiding Member had considered her second request but had declined to grant further time based on the information she had provided. She was further advised, that in this instance, her request was declined as she had not provided any evidence of her efforts to obtain the translation such as the correspondence with a NAATI accredited translator/agency which states that they are “overwhelmed”. Nor had she provided any correspondence from the NAATI accredited translator/agency as to when the translations will be completed/and or provided to the Tribunal.
On 5 August 2025, the applicant emailed the Tribunal and requested further time to provide documents. In summary, she stated that she had sent the information to NAATI, and he had said he would do his best to process it but that it would be safer if a further week could be granted. She asked for a further week to provide the documents. That same day, the Tribunal emailed the applicant and advised her that the Presiding Member had considered her (third) request but had declined to grant further time based on the information she had provided. She was advised that if she wished the Presiding Member to consider an extension on the basis of a delay due to a request by a NAATI accredited translator/agency, she was to provide the correspondence from the translator to the Tribunal as soon as possible. She was advised that this correspondence must include a date when the translations will be completed by.
On 7 August 2025, the applicant emailed the Tribunal and attached the following documents:
·Copy of original and English translation of National Health Insurance card for [name] (applicant’s mother).
·Copy of original and English translation of National Identity Card for the [name] (applicant’s mother).
·English translation of ‘Transactions Details’.
·English translation of ‘Missing Persons Case Registration Form’.
·English translation of ‘Household Register’.
·Copy of original and English translation of Applicant’s National Identity Card.
·English translation of ‘Debt Assignment Declaration’.
·English translation of ‘Promissory Note Ruling’.
·‘Supplementary statement’.
On 8 August 2025, the Tribunal emailed the applicant and advised that she had not provided copies of the original documents for all the translated documents she had emailed to the Tribunal on 7 August 2025. She was requested to provide copies of the original untranslated documents to the Tribunal by Monday, 11 August 2025. On 8 August, 9 August and 11 August 2025, the applicant emailed the Tribunal and attached the photo/images and screenshots of the documents.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Criteria for protection visa
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the criteria for a grant of a protection visa. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Country of reference (and receiving country)
The applicant provided the Department a copy of the biodata/biographical page of her current Republic of China (Taiwan) passport. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a national of Taiwan. The Tribunal finds that the receiving country is Taiwan; and on this basis the applicant’s claims have been assessed against Taiwan.
Claims and evidence
At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant confirmed that she was born in New Taipei City in Taiwan. She was asked her religion. She stated that she has no religion.
The applicant was asked about her family in Taiwan and where they were currently residing. She stated that she wasn’t sure, she had “lost contact with them”. She was asked when she last spoke to them. She responded 12 years ago.
The applicant was asked whether her mother and father were still alive. She stated that her mother was, but she wasn’t sure about her father. She was asked where her mother was currently residing. She responded that she wasn’t sure because they are pursuing her, and they don’t have a fixed address. She was asked whether her mother was currently working. She stated she does. Her mother works in [a named industry] with her current partner. She indicated that on several occasions, she has sent money to her mother. The last time was in June 2023. The amounts varied between 10,000 to 20,000 TWD. She provided this money for her mother’s hospital bills because she had been unwell. She stated that she last spoke to her mother last year in about May or June. They spoke about her mother’s medical conditions.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if she had any siblings. She stated that she has [specified siblings]. She stated that one brother lives in Taoyuan in Taiwan and works in administration. She last spoke to this brother in September last year. She was asked what they spoke about. She stated that she asked him to pay her health insurance. She transferred him 20,000 TWD (approx. $1,026 AUD). She does not know where her other brother is and indicated she last spoke to him 12 years ago.
The applicant was asked to detail her education and employment history. She confirmed that she has completed a degree in [subject 1] in Taiwan and undertaken [subject 1] related courses in Australia. She indicated that prior to coming to Australia in 2013, she worked in the areas of [job areas]. In Australia, she has been working in the areas of agriculture and [occupation 1].
The applicant confirmed that she had applied to renew her Republic of China (Taiwan) passport in Australia in 2020. She stated that she went to an office, completed the application form and the passport was sent to her in the post. She was asked if she encountered any difficulties obtaining the passport. She stated no.
The Tribunal confirmed with the applicant her various movements in and out of Australia since her first arrival in Australia in April 2013. She confirmed that she first entered Australia on a working holiday visa in 2013. She then departed approximately one year later and returned to Taiwan when her visa finished in March 2014. On return, to Taiwan she stayed alone in a hotel. She then returned to Australia on a working holiday visa in May 2014 and stayed for a further year before returning to Taiwan again, when her visa finished in May 2015. On return she lived with her mother in Tainan. While residing in Taiwan, she applied for a student visa. She returned to Australia on a student visa in August 2015, before returning to Taiwan in December 2016. She stated that she returned to Taiwan because her mother was sick.
The applicant confirmed that [in] December 2016, she returned to Australia on a student visa. This visa expired in October 2017. She remained in Australia and applied for and was granted a further student visa in December 2017. In March 2018, she departed Australia and returned to Taiwan to seek treatment for [medical condition 1]. During her return she stayed at a hotel on her own. In April 2018, the applicant returned to Australia on a student visa and a year later in May 2019, the applicant returned to Taiwan. She returned to see doctors in Taiwan. Her preference was to see doctors in Taiwan because of the language barriers. In June 2019, she returned to Australia and in April 2020 she applied for a protection visa.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about her return to Taiwan in November 2021, after she had applied for a protection visa and her statements in her application that should she return to Taiwan she would be harmed or mistreated. She stated that she discovered that she had a [medical condition 2] when she was in Australia, and she returned to Taiwan for an operation. She stated that the medical care in Taiwan is more advanced and there are no language barriers. She was admitted to a private clinic/hospital for approximately eight months. Her health insurance covered some of her costs, but she also had to pay approximately $50,000 for her medical treatment. She returned to Australia in October 2022.
Claims for protection
At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant has made the following claims for protection:
·She cannot return to Taiwan because she borrowed money from an “underground lender”. It is illegal to borrow money from such individuals. She is unable to repay this money back and this has led to them threatening her family. If she returns to Taiwan these people will harm her.
·She borrowed the money in 2012. She does not have any documents to provide as evidence that she had borrowed the money. The documents where all lost when she escaped in 2013 to Australia.
·She borrowed 2 million Taiwanese dollars (approx. $100,000 AUD).
·She borrowed this money to assist her mother who had lottery gambling debts and [medical condition 3]. Her mother was unable to pay the money she owed. Her mother asked to borrow money using her ID.
·She believes the outstanding amount is about 1.8 million.
·She last made a repayment approximately two years ago but cannot remember exactly when. She transfers the money to her mother who makes the repayments.
·She does not know the name of the underground lender that she borrowed the money from, nor does she know the name of the individuals who have been harassing her family members.
·In approximately 2015, her [Brother A] was studying at a research institute, this study was very important to him, but “they” were after him and he was unable to continue his studies. Her brother was followed, and they made trouble for him. They told him that he owed money, and he must repay it. They did this to her [Brother A] in order to “force” her out. Her mother told her about these events.
·Her mother has also been harassed.
·Her family had made reports to the police, but it was useless.
·She has not had any contact with the money lender because she didn’t pay the money back, so she didn’t want to contact them.
·While she has been working in Australia, over the past ten years, she has not repaid her debt because she has had to send money to her mother to help her pay for her expenses and bills. She also did not earn an income every week and had her own expenses to pay for in Australia. Rent in Australia is not cheap, and she needed to pay tax.
·If she returns to Taiwan, she will not be able to repay the debt she has as the income amounts are too low.
·It has been a long time and if she goes back there will be a risk to her life. She does not want to live in that situation.
·She stated she wants to stay in Australia to work and repay the debt.
After the Tribunal hearing, the applicant provided a ‘supplementary statement’. She stated the reason for submitting the statement was to provide “further clarification and explanation regarding [her] personal circumstance which she was unable to fully articulate during the video interview due to nervousness, language difficulties and the complexity of her situation. In summary, she stated that:
·After her mother was declared bankruptcy, her mother’s mental condition deteriorated, and this meant she had to return to Taiwan regularly to assist her mother with her basic needs. Due to her mother’s pride, she is unwilling to receive treatment.
·Her mother’s mental health issues meant that her mother did not know how many “IOU’s” she had signed. The signed IOU’s only show that the creditors were willing to negotiate. Some loans were made verbally without any written agreements. No one knows how much had been already paid.
·Her mother disappeared for a more than a year because of her mental problems and because she could not face the harassment from creditors and underground money lenders. Her brother asked the police to find her mother and opened a missing person case. A copy of original and translated ‘Missing Persons Case Registration Form’ was provided in support of these claims.
·Faced with an urgent crisis and without other options she borrowed a substantial amount of money to help her mother manage the situation. This only intensified the pressure on her personally and financially.
·Due to the urgent nature of her departure, many of her personal records were lost and she cannot verify the exact identity of the underground lender or even confirm whether the business is still operating.
·Informal and underground case-based lending is prevalent and often controlled by criminal groups in Taiwan. They typically charge high interest rates. At the time, the exchange rate was approximately 1:32, an entire month’s salary in Taiwan and equivalent to roughly one week’s pay in Australia.
·Due to her mother’s insolvency, her mother’s property was seized through proceedings and old via foreclosure.
·Her mother’s debts stem from her mother’s gambling additions, which lead to her mother having significant debts. The family home was then sold, and her mother was subjected to a formal bankruptcy.
·She has genuine and ongoing concerns for her safety in Taiwan. She was not able to remain any location for long due to the fear of being found. Her need to relocate frequently meant that she could not maintain employment or housing and could not save money or rebuild her life. Each relocation required new deposits and incurred significant living costs.
·She was diagnosed with a [medical condition 2] in Australia but due to the seriousness of the diagnosis and communication barriers in Australia, she decided to return to Taiwan to access high-quality medical care. She returned to Taiwan for eight months to solely undergo [surgery] and post-operative surgery. She stayed temporarily in housing arranged by her mother’s employer. She could not move or function independently for several months due to the severity of her surgery and relied on her mother for basic care.
·She applied for a working holiday visa before knowing the full extent of her mother’s financial crisis. Her mother only informed her of her bankruptcy and debts after she had received the visa. Despite this, she tried to help by borrowing money on her mother’s behalf.
·At that time, the situation was unmanageable, and the amount was too large, so she chose to escape to Australia as a way of avoiding the problem. It was an irresponsible decision to flee Taiwan in 2013, but she felt this burden should not have fallen on her.
·She proceeded to travel to Australia, as originally planned, but continued to receive pressure from her mother regarding further repayments. Fearing for her safety, she remained in Australia.
·She later came to know that her mother had hidden the full extent of her debts and in 2015, her mother asked for her for more financial help.
·The total amount of debt involved was far beyond her capacity to repay. In Australia, she had to support herself. She made contributions but could not meet the full amount. While holding a student visa, her work hours were limited, and this affected her ability to earn. Most of her income from her working holiday visa she gave to her mother.
·Her [Brother A] has informed her that the police were unable to assist with the threats they received because the situation involved verbal threats and informal loans. These underground dealings fall outside the scope of enforceable legal protection. There was no physical pressure, but the psychological pressure was severe and they lived in constant fear and uncertainty resulting in sleepless nights and anxiety.
·Her mother misled lead creditors and even disappeared temporarily to avoid making payments. This explains the inconsistencies in the timeline.
·She had a difficult relationship with her family. Her father was physically abusive and has had no contact with him for 12 years. Her mother’s gambling and financial behaviour has caused deep emotional harm, but she continues to support her.
·After coming to Australia, she finally experienced personal dignity and human rights.
·At the time of the interview, she didn’t know that she needed to provide documents, nor did she know what to say.
·Due to the depreciation of the exchange rate - originally 1:32 but now 1:19 - the amount she must repay has increased.
·She would like to be free from these debts.
·She has come to Australia to seek personal safety and freedom.
Assessment of claims and evidence
The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is ‘well-founded’ or that it is for the reason claimed. Similarly, that an applicant claims to face a real risk of significant harm does not establish that such a risk exists, or that the harm feared amounts to ‘significant harm’. It remains for the applicant to persuade the Tribunal that all the statutory elements are made out.[1] It is the responsibility of the applicant to specify all particulars of the claim to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and provide sufficient evidence to establish the claim. The Tribunal does not have any responsibility or obligation to specify, or assist in specifying, any particulars of the applicant’s claims, or to establish or assist in establishing the claims: s 5AAA. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all claims made by an applicant.[2]
[1] Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559.
[2] Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451.
In this case, the Tribunal has had the opportunity to speak to the applicant via video link at a Tribunal hearing and has before it the material in the Department and Tribunal files including a lengthy ‘supplementary statement’ provided by the applicant after the Tribunal hearing and country information set out in the Department’s decision relating to loan sharks, organised crime/gang activity and state protection in Taiwan.
The Tribunal has considered the country information before it, particularly country information that loan-sharking activity is common in Taiwan. Major operations against criminal gangs involved in loan sharking and associated criminal activities are carried out by the Taiwanese authorities regularly.[3] The Tribunal accepts that there is nothing implausible about the applicant’s claims that she may have an outstanding debt with a loan shark in Taiwan. However, in this case, the Tribunal has the following concerns with the evidence presented which leads the Tribunal to find that the applicant’s claims for protection are not credible.
[3] Taipai Times, Police tout results of raids on gun, loan operations (Article, 24 June 2019) < Taipai Times, Police detain 350 in crackdown on organized crime (Article, 4 May 2019) < The China Post, Taiwan police rescue kidnapped teen, arrest suspects at ransom drop (Article 30 May 2017) <>
Firstly, the applicant’s evidence regarding the core details of the debt she claims to owe to an underground lender has evolved over time. For example, in the application for a protection visa, the applicant indicated that in 2017, she helped her mother to lend money by putting herself as a guarantor. She stated that she did this so they could pay the medical bills of her sick grandmother. At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant stated that she had borrowed the money in 2012. She borrowed the money to pay for her mother’s lottery gambling debts and because her mother had [medical condition 3]. It was discussed with the applicant that these inconsistencies may cause the Tribunal to have concerns about the genuineness and reliability of her claims for protection. She responded that she feels there might be a mistake in the claims written by her agent.
In the ‘supplementary statement’, the applicant has contended that due to her nervousness, language difficulties and the complexity of her situation she was unable to fully articulate her circumstances at the hearing. She continued to claim that her reason for traveling to Australia was “to escape… as a way of avoiding the problem” and that two years later, in 2015, her mother asked her for financial help again. She provided a copy of an original and translated “Debt assignment declaration” dated in 2015 and ‘Promissory Note Rulings’ dated 2012 and 2014, which she contends shows her mother’s debt and communication with creditors. She further contended that her mother misled creditors and even disappeared temporarily to avoid making repayments. These events explain the inconsistencies in the timeline.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s various explanations; however, the Tribunal finds core aspects of her evidence regarding the debt and/or debts to be vague and unconvincing. As set out above, there are significant inconsistencies in her account, particularly regarding the timing and purpose of the financial assistance she has provided to her family. She initially claimed that in 2017, she acted as guarantor to help her mother to pay for her grandmother’s medical bills, but later stated that she borrowed money, that being one amount of 2 million to cover her mother’s gambling debts and [medical condition 3] treatment. The Tribunal finds the conflicting dates and reasons undermines the reliability of the applicant’s narrative. Furthermore, the applicant’s attempt to attribute discrepancies in her timeline to her mother’s behaviour in misleading creditors and disappearing, is unconvincing as there remains no clear or substantial connection between the two. Finally, while the Tribunal notes the applicant has also attributed her inconsistencies to nervousness, language difficulties, complexity of her situation and possible errors by her former agent, the Tribunal finds these explanations do not adequately account for the significant contradictions in her statements. Overall, the Tribunal finds the lack of a coherent and credible timelines further raises serious doubts about the genuineness of her protection claims.
Secondly, another concern for the Tribunal has been the applicant’s evidence regarding who she owes a debt to. At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant was also asked to provide the name of the “underground lender”. She responded that she wasn’t sure. She then stated that she would check. The Tribunal asked the applicant where she was looking to check and/or obtain this individual’s name. She responded that she was checking Google. She was asked what Google was showing her. She indicated “not much”.
The applicant was asked how much of the debt remained outstanding. The applicant responded that she still owed about 1.8 million. She stated that she had been making repayments. She transfers the money to pay her mother, and her mother makes the repayments on her behalf. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant that it may have difficulties accepting that she has a debt and is making repayments in circumstances where she was unable to provide to the Tribunal the name of the underground lender. She responded that it was a long time ago and she had lost all the documents.
Later in the Tribunal hearing, the applicant was again asked who her mother made the repayments to. She responded that her mother would repay the person she had borrowed the money from and pay her own creditors. She was asked if she had any evidence of this. She responded no. She then stated that she suspects her mother used the money to gamble but she has no way to control her mother and only can trust what she says. The applicant was asked why she did not seek to repay the underground lender directly if she thought her mother was using the money she was sending her to gamble. She stated that if she did this it would “expose her location”.
The applicant’s evidence raises serious concerns about the credibility of her claims. Despite claiming to owe 1.8 million to an underground lender, she has been unable to provide the lender’s name, initially stating that she was unsure and later indicating that she would “check” using Google – a method that she stated did not yield any results. The Tribunal finds this method of searching to lack credibility given the magnitude of the debt. Furthermore, while she has asserted, she has been making repayments, no documentation or proof of these transactions has been provided. When questioned further, she stated that the debt had been incurred a long time ago and she had lost the relevant documents. Later in the hearing, when asked again who her mother had made repayments to and whether she had any evidence of such repayments, she admitted she had none and speculated that her mother may have used the money to gamble. The Tribunal finds that the absence of any records, the shifting explanations, combined with the vague and unsupported nature of her responses, undermines the reliability of her evidence and casts doubt on whether the debt exists or is being repaid as claimed.
Thirdly, the absence of any documents substantiating core aspects of the applicant’s evidence that she owes a debt, raises serious concerns about the credibility of her claims for protection. At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant was asked if she had independent documents substantiating her claims relating to a debt that she owes to an “underground lender” in Taiwan. She responded that she does not have any documents as she moved several times. She didn’t keep these documents. She had lost the original document relating to the money she had borrowed. She is also unable to contact them because if she did it would “expose [her] location”. The applicant was also asked if she had any independent documents to support her claims that her family had made reports regarding the events in which they were harassed to the police. She responded that before today she didn’t know she needed this evidence and hadn’t asked her family to provide it. In the supplementary statement, the applicant reinstated that due to the urgent nature of her departure, many of her personal records were lost and she cannot verify the exact identity of the underground lender or even confirm whether the business is still operating.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s various explanations for the absence of any documentation relating to the alleged debt that she claims is preventing her return to Taiwan. However, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s inability to substantiate key aspects of her claims, particularly those concerning the alleged loan and debt – significantly undermines her credibility and her claims for protection.
Finally, the applicant’s travel history between Australia and Taiwan since her first arrival in Australia in 2013 raises serious concerns about her claims that she has a fear of harm on return on account of a debt to an underground lender. These concerns were discussed with the applicant at the Tribunal hearing. The applicant explained that no one knew she had returned, so they weren’t able to find her. Each time she only stayed for a very short period. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant that her own evidence had been that on her last return to Taiwan in 2022 she had spent eight months in hospital and three months recovering outside of hospital; and given this period, it may have difficulties accepting that people would not have become aware of her return. She responded that her mother was always escaping and staying in “mysterious places” and that is why they couldn’t find her. The Tribunal asked the applicant how her mother’s whereabouts were relevant to her. She responded that it was her mother who had the gambling debts and had asked her to borrow the money and that is why her mother needed to hide. She further explained that each time she returned she “took a chance”. She returned on one occasion because her mother was sick and, on another occasion, she was sick and had to return. The applicant was asked about the other occasions she had voluntarily returned to Taiwan, that being when her working holiday visa had expired and why had she not applied for protection then. She responded that she did not know there was such a thing.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s responses; however, it finds that there are several inconsistencies which undermines the credibility of her evidence. Firstly, the applicant claims to have returned to Taiwan multiple times without being detected due to short stays but also admits to spending an extended period that would have likely made her presence know, especially if as claimed people had been harassing her family on account of the debt she owed. Secondly, her explanation that her mother was in hiding in “mysterious places” fails to clarify how this protected her own whereabouts. Thirdly, her claims that she returned because she was unaware of such options (protection visa), while this may be plausible, the Tribunal considers that it contributes to the overall impression that it has that her narrative lacks coherence. Finally, her justification for returning – citing illness and family emergencies – conflicts with her claims of genuine fear and ongoing concerns for her safety in Taiwan. Overall, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s responses lacks coherence and casts doubts on her ability to remain undetected for such extended periods, especially given the duration of her last stay.
Having regard for the assessment of the claims and evidence above, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has borrowed a substantial amount of money and/or has an outstanding debt to an underground lender and/or anyone else Taiwan. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant borrowed the money to assist her mother and/or grandmother and/or any other family members. It follows, that the Tribunal does not accept, that because of her debt, the applicant and/or her family were harassed and/or threatened by an underground lender and/or any individuals and/or groups or gangs associated with an underground lender on account of a debt the applicant owes. Nor does the Tribunal accept that arising from such issues, the applicant’s brother’s and/or her mother’s whereabouts have been sought and this has led to her family members moving and/or hiding and/or that prior to leaving Taiwan and/or on her multiple returns to Taiwan, the applicant had to relocate frequently and was not able to maintain employment or housing or save money or rebuild her life. The Tribunal does not accept that these are the reasons the applicant came to Australia or why she has applied for protection. It follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied and does not accept the applicant would face any threats and/or harm and/or her personal safety impacted by anyone including an underground lender and/or any other associated individuals and/or groups or gangs, on these bases, should she return to Taiwan.
The applicant has claimed at the Tribunal hearing and in her supplementary statement that her mother has debts arising from loans that her mother has entered. Some loans were made verbally without any written agreements. Her mother has also signed “IOUs” with creditors. Some of these were discovered after her mother failed to repay and attempted to renegotiate. Her mother misled creditors. No one knows how much has been already paid. Copies of documents showing her mother’s debts and related communications with creditors were provided.
The applicant claimed that her mother has also been declared bankrupt by the court and due to her mother’s insolvency, her mother’s property was seized through proceedings and sold via foreclosure. A copy of the real estate agency advertising page showing the sale of the family home and copies of their National IDs confirming their former residential address were provided.
The applicant further explained that her mother disappeared for more than a year because of her mental problems and because she could not face the harassment from creditors and underground money lenders. Her brother asked the police to find her mother and opened a missing person case. A copy of original and translated ‘Missing Persons Case Registration Form’ was provided.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s evidence and supporting documents and accepts that in the past the applicant’s mother has entered loans/promissory notes. The Tribunal accepts that when the applicant’s mother did not repay the loans/promissory notes as required the creditors took civil action against the applicant’s mother in the Taiwanese local courts in 2012 and 2014. The ‘Promissory Note Ruling’ in November 2012 and July 2014 supports this aspect of the applicant’s evidence.
The Tribunal also accepts that a missing persons case in relation to the applicant’s mother was registered with the police department by the applicant’s brother [in] June 2015. The reason for the report is listed as “ran away from home, whereabouts unknown”. The police report supports this aspect of the applicant’s evidence. In the supplementary statement, the applicant stated that her mother “disappeared for more than a year” because she had mental problems and couldn’t face the harassment from creditors and underground money lenders. The Tribunal is prepared to accept the applicant’s evidence and that her mother disappeared for more than a year because of the issues her mother was facing at that time.
The Tribunal has also considered the details of the ‘Debt Assignment Declaration’ dated [in] July 2015, which the applicant claims to be a communication with a creditor. However, the Tribunal notes that the details of the creditor are blank. There is no handwritten name and/or fingerprint of the creditor present on the document. Nor are the creditor details provided anywhere in the body of the document. Furthermore, the Tribunal notes that one of the parties listed as agreeing to be jointly and severely liable for the debt, is the applicant’s mother. The Tribunal finds the inclusion of the applicant’s mother in this agreement, in circumstances where only one month before, in June 2015, the applicant’s mother was reported as missing to the police and the applicant’s evidence that her mother “disappeared for more than a year”, to be odd. Given these concerns, the Tribunal attributes little weight to this document in its consideration of the applicant’s evidence regarding her mother’s debts.
The Tribunal has also considered the applicant’s claims that her mother’s “property was seized through proceedings and sold via foreclosure”. She has provided a copy of the “real estate agency advertising page showing the sale of our home”. The Tribunal notes that the document titled “Transactions Details’ is dated 2017 and relates to an address which the Tribunal accepts matches the address listed as the household address for the applicant’s family in the “household register”. To date no documents have been provided to support that the family property was seized and sold in the manner claimed, notwithstanding this the Tribunal is prepared to accept the applicant’s evidence that her mother was subject to formal bankruptcy proceedings and her mother’s property was sold and the money used to pay her mother’s debts.
Notwithstanding the above findings, no contemporary documents have been provided to support the applicant’s claims that her mother continues to owe money and/or has any outstanding loans and/or debts and/or promissory notes. Rather, the documents which the applicant has provided, evidence agreements by her mother to borrow money from creditor/s ten years ago. Based on the information before it, while the Tribunal has accepted that in the past, the applicant’s mother has entered loans/promissory notes, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s mother continues to owe money and/or has an outstanding debt to creditors and/or underground lender and/or anyone else in Taiwan. It follows, that the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant will face any harassment and/or harm including emotional harm on account of her mother past actions including her mother’s actions in entering loans/promissory and/or bankruptcy and/or court or insolvency proceedings and/or sale of the family home and/or her mother’s past debts should she return to Taiwan.
The Tribunal notes that in the applicant’s supplementary statement she has stated that she had a difficult relationship with her family and her father was physically abusive. Th applicant further stated that she has not had any contact with her father for over 12 years. The applicant has not claimed and nor does the evidence before the Tribunal suggest that arising from her relationship with her family and/or father she will face any issues and/or harm should she return to Taiwan, and the Tribunal does not accept that she will.
At the Tribunal hearing, the Tribunal asked the applicant about the untranslated documents that were part of the Department file. These documents appeared to be predominately [social media] conversations with a “[name]”. She was asked who this individual was and how these documents were relevant to her application and claims for protection. She responded that this was her first agent. She was introduced to him through a friend. She later came to know that it was all a scam. She was asked again how these documents were related to her claims for protection. She stated that this person helped her apply for the visa and that she later came to know this individual was a “scammer agent”. The applicant has not claimed and nor does the evidence before the Tribunal suggest that arising from engagement of her first agent the applicant will face any issues and/or harm should she return to Taiwan, and the Tribunal does not accept that she will.
Does the applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?
As set out above, the Tribunal has not accepted the applicant’s claims that she has borrowed a substantial amount of money and/or has an outstanding debt to an underground lender and/or anyone else Taiwan. Nor has the Tribunal accepted that arising from her mother’s past actions in entering loans/promissory and/or bankruptcy and/or court or insolvency proceedings and/or sale of the family home and/or her mother’s past debts the applicant will be harmed should she return to Taiwan. The Tribunal has also not accepted that arising from the engagement of the applicant’s first agent and/or her relationship with her family and/or her father she will face any issues and/or harm should she return to Taiwan.
At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant claimed that should she return to Taiwan she would not be able to obtain employment. The applicant was asked about her current employment in Australia. She indicated that she was working has [an occupation 1] at two different [employers]. She was asked why she could not return to Taiwan and work as [an occupation 1]. She stated that the pay in Taiwan is too low only about $1,000 AUD per month. She also believes she cannot survive in Taiwan because her education is not very high. It’s hard to find good jobs in Taiwan so she would like to stay in Australia to make some quick money.
The Tribunal accepts that should the applicant return to Taiwan the applicant may find it difficult to secure employment with the same level of pay as the positions she has held in Australia. Notwithstanding this, the applicant has not claimed that any employment difficulties and/or financial challenges she may face would be directed at her for one of more of the 5J(1)(a) reasons or as a result of discriminatory conduct, and the Tribunal does not accept that they would be. Nor does the Tribunal accept that any such difficulties and/or challenges that may arise, either individually and/or cumulatively, would amount to, or otherwise lead to a real chance of the applicant suffering harm that would amount to serious harm. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant as [an age]-year-old female with her profile including her education and employment history, she would not be able to find and obtain employment of some kind should she return to Taiwan. Nor does the Tribunal accept that such difficulties and/or challenges amounts to significant economic hardship that would threaten the applicant’s capacity to subsist,[4] or a denial of access to basic services or capacity to earn a livelihood such that it would threaten the applicant’s capacity to subsist.
[4] SZBQJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 143 and SZIGC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1725.
The applicant has claimed, and the Tribunal accepts that in the past the applicant has been diagnosed with several different medical conditions including a [medical condition 2] and has sought treatment for her medical conditions in Taiwan.
Under Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Act, access to national health insurance ceases after being away from Taiwan for over 2 years and no longer having a registered household.[5] A Taiwanese national can re-enrol in national health insurance six months after their household registration has been restored.[6] Losing household registration may also affect an individual’s access to social welfare such as the National Pension.[7] Under the Taiwanese Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Act, eligible voters need to be recorded as registered in household registration data and to have resided in Taiwan for not less than six consecutive months.[8]
[5] [National Health Insurance Act, as amended to 28 June 2023] (Law and Regulations Database of the Republic of China) 28 June 2023, Art 8 < Health Insurance Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare (Taiwan), Handbook of Taiwan’s National Health Insurance (Webpage) < Overseas Community Affairs Council R.O.C. (Taiwan), How to protect your rights when absent from ROC for more than 2 years and subject to Moving-out Registration? The OCAC tells you how!' (Online, 9 February 2021) <
[8] [Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Act] (Law and Regulations Database of the Republic of China) 9 June 2023, Art 12 & 23 <>
Country information indicates that under Taiwan’s Household Registration Act, a person who has a household registration will be subject to a moving-out registration if they have been absent from Taiwan for over 2 years.[9] Such a person can apply for ‘moving-in’ registration three months after returning to Taiwan provided, they have a valid passport or entrance documents. [10] Under Taiwan’s Immigration Act, nationals who reside overseas and who have no household registration in Taiwan are able to enter the country with a valid passport or may apply to the National Immigration Agency for permission to enter.[11] Nationals with a valid biometric passport may apply for a temporary entry permit from the National Immigration Agency before or upon arrival,[12] and then apply for move-in registration at the jurisdiction household registration office of where they reside with an entry certificate and the household register of the household they wish to register, certificate of individual household, and citizen identity card (if available).[13] Information published by the Taiwanese Ministry of the Interior indicates the entry of Taiwanese nationals without household residence is a regular occurrence, with generally over 1,000 nationals without registration entering Taiwan each month.[14]
[9] [Household Registration Act] (Law and Regulations Database of the Republic of China) 21 January 2015, Art 16 < Ibid Art 17.
[11] [Immigration Act - Taiwan] (Laws and Regulations Database of the Republic of China) 28 June 2023, Art 5, <
[12] [Regulations for Newly Revised Immigration Act], National Immigration Agency – Taiwan < Bureau of Civil Affairs - Tainan City Government, After having left Taiwan for two years and the household registration office has completed the compulsory move-out registration, how do I recover household registration? (Article, 22 June 2015) <
[14] Ministry of the Interior (Republic of China—Taiwan), Monthly Bulletin of Interior Statistics Republic of China (Report) < (See ‘Entry Persons - By Sex, Age, Identity’).
The applicant has provided to the Department a copy of the biodata/biographical page of her Republic of China (Taiwan) passport. This passport expires [in] 2030. The Tribunal accepts that while the applicant has a valid passport, she has been absent from Taiwan for more than two years, and should she return, she may face some challenges in applying for a temporary entry permit, ‘moving-in’ registration and access to social welfare and services including the need to re-enrol in the national health insurance scheme. However, the Tribunal does not accept that any such re-establishment challenges, either individually and/or cumulatively, would amount to, or otherwise lead to a real chance of the applicant suffering harm that would amount to serious harm.
Having regard to all the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance of the applicant being seriously harmed on account of any of the reasons claimed and or her profile, either individually or cumulatively, should she return to Taiwan, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Does the applicant satisfy the complementary protection criterion for protection?
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa).
As set out above, the Tribunal has not accepted the applicant’s claims that she has borrowed a substantial amount of money and/or has an outstanding debt to an underground lender and/or anyone else Taiwan. Nor has the Tribunal accepted that arising from her mother’s past actions in entering loans/promissory and/or bankruptcy and/or court or insolvency proceedings and/or sale of the family home and/or her mother’s past debts the applicant will be harmed should she return to Taiwan. The Tribunal has also not accepted that arising from the engagement of the applicant’s first agent and/or her relationship with her family and/or her father she will face any issues and/or harm should she return to Taiwan.
The Tribunal has accepted that the applicant’s return to Taiwan after a period in Australia may be difficult and/or challenging, however, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant as [an age]-year-old female would not be able to find and obtain employment of some kind should she return to Taiwan. On the information before the Tribunal, the applicant has in the past completed a degree in [subject 1] in Taiwan and undertaken [subject 1] related courses in Australia. Prior to arriving in Australia for the first time in 2013, the applicant worked in the areas of [job areas] in Taiwan. In Australia, she has been working in the areas of agriculture and [occupation 1]. Her evidence indicates that she has remains in contact with her mother and [Brother A] and on her last return to Taiwan, for a period she stayed in accommodation arranged by her mother’s employer. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept that any employment difficulties and/or financial challenges the applicant may face on return constitute significant harm as defined by s 36(2A). It follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm on these bases should she return to Taiwan.
The Tribunal has also accepted that while the applicant has a valid passport, she has been absent from Taiwan for more than two years, and should she return, she may face some challenges in applying for a temporary entry permit, ‘moving-in’ registration and access to social welfare and services including the need to re-enrol in the national health insurance scheme. However, the Tribunal does not accept that such re-establishment challenges applicant may face on return constitute significant harm as defined by s36(2A). It follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm on these bases should she return to Taiwan.
Having regard to all the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will face a real risk of significant harm on account of any of the reasons claimed and/or her profile – nor for any combination of these matters or cumulative reasons. Even when considered cumulatively, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her being removed to Taiwan, that there is a real risk she will suffer significant harm.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
Member of the same family unit
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Date of hearing: 25 July 2025
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a) severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b) pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d) arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b) that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a) for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b) for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c) for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d) for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e) for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a) a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b) if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a) in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b) in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note: For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a) the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b) there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c) the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note: For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note: For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a) conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b) conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c) without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a) that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b) the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c) the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a) a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b) significant physical harassment of the person;
(c) significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d) significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e) denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f) denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a) a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b) the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c) any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d) the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b) the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a) the person can access the protection; and
(b) the protection is durable; and
(c) in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36 Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a) a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a) the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b) the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c) the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d) the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e) the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a) it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b) the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c) the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…
0
4
0