2411742 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse to grant the applicant, a citizen of South Korea, a protection visa. The applicant, who had resided in Australia since 2005, claimed that upon returning to South Korea, he would be unable to find work due to his age and extended absence from the country, leading to significant harm and threatening his capacity to subsist. The delegate had refused the visa on the basis that the applicant was not a refugee under section 5H(1) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and that there were no substantial grounds to believe he would suffer significant harm if removed to South Korea.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Act, or alternatively, whether Australia had protection obligations towards him on complementary protection grounds under section 36(2)(aa). This involved assessing whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or whether there was a real risk of significant harm upon his removal to South Korea.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. While acknowledging the applicant's concerns about age discrimination in employment in South Korea, the Tribunal considered current economic data for South Korea, which indicated a strengthening economy with a low unemployment rate. The Tribunal found that any economic hardship the applicant might experience would not amount to significant harm as defined by the Act, as it was not the result of deliberate action intended to cause such harm. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no evidence of systematic or discriminatory conduct that would constitute persecution. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa).

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.