2442247 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1616

2442247 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1616 (26 JUNE 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Representative: Muzhgan KARGAR (MARN: 1689083)
Respondent:Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Tribunal Number: 2442247
Tribunal:General Member J Wilson
Date:26 June 2025

Place:Canberra
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – the Philippines – debt to illegal money lender – beaten and threatened, and found after relocating – claims identical to other applications – application prepared by another person without applicant’s knowledge of contents – new claims made in pre-hearing submissions prepared by current registered migration agent – borrowed money for failed high-risk investment schemes/scams – fear of harm from lenders – harassment and death threats but no physical harm – mental health – limited and inconsistent evidence – responsibility to specify particulars and provide evidence – member of family unit wife – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5AAA, 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), 65, 367A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505
Any 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
BACKGROUND AND APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 31 October 2024 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicants, being a husband and wife, claim to be nationals of the Philippines. According to the movement records, they entered Australia together in November 2023 as holders of visitor visas. On 23 January 2024 they applied for protection visas, with the husband as the primary applicant and the wife being the secondary applicant.
On 31 October 2024 the delegate refused to grant the visas because the applicants did not meet the refugee criterion stipulated in s36(2)(a) of the Act. The delegate considered that the applicants had effective protection measures available to them, such they did not have a well-founded fear of persecution. Additionally, the delegate found the applicants did not meet the complementary protection criterion per s 36(2)(aa) of the Act because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicants would face a real risk of significant harm if they returned to the Philippines.
On 6 November 2024 the applicants lodged an application for review in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Tribunal).
The primary applicant appeared before the Tribunal in Canberra on 28 March 2025. He was not accompanied by the secondary applicant. That hearing was adjourned to allow the secondary applicant to be present.
The applicants appeared before the Tribunal together in Canberra on 3 April 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Tagalog and English languages.
The applicants are represented in relation to the review, however the representative did not attend the Tribunal hearing.
CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Evidence before the Department – the original claims
In his protection visa application, the primary applicant claims he was born in Baguio city, Benguet province and that he lived his entire life at a single address in [Municipality 1], La Union province. He claims to have been in a ‘defacto’ relationship since 2000 with the secondary applicant and to be of the Catholic faith. He claimed to be able to read, speak and write Tagalog. The visa application declares he was never employed, but then proceeds to state that he ran his own [business 1] and had previously worked in a [company].
With respect to his claims for protection, the primary applicant states that he left the Philippines with his ‘wife’ because he had a lot of debt and his business was declining which led him to borrow $1.5 million (of an undisclosed currency) from an illegal money lender. He said the debt turned into $3 million because of the effects of interest, and that by February 2023 they could no longer service the loan and were beaten, stones were thrown at their shop and house, and that they were threatened they would be killed. The claims further stated that ‘they beat us by steel, wood or by hand and they show us they have gun (sic) we afraid to counterattack them’ (the original claims).
The primary applicant’s protection claims further stated that they could not seek protection from the authorities because of corruption, that they had tried to move but were found and that they would be killed on return and could not safely relocate because ‘gangs are everywhere’.
The secondary applicant claimed to have been born in [Municipality 2], Benguet province and her claims for protection mirrored those of the primary applicant.
The protection visa applications were accompanied by colour bio-pages of each of the applicant’s Filipino passports only. There was no further evidence put to the delegate.
There is no evidence of the Department of Home Affairs (Department) conducting an interview with the applicants.
Evidence before the Tribunal - new claims
The applicants tendered new evidence to the Tribunal that was not provided to the delegate.
Pre-hearing submissions
By email dated 17 December 2024, the Tribunal received the applicants’ pre-hearing form which reiterated their earlier protection claims, however omitted detail concerning the way in which they were physically harmed. The primary applicant appeared to have digitally signed the form making a declaration that the contents of the form was complete and correct.
On 20 March 2025 the Tribunal received a 37-page document signed by the primary applicant. The document is a personal statement, written chronologically, relating to the events he claims has given rise to the couple’s protection claims, and which contained a media extracts, extracts of [Social media] dialogues, copies of medical documentation, digital images of workplace records, photographs, a digital image of a permit in the primary applicant’s name (approving him to operate a [business 1] in the Philippines), an image of a [Courier] receipt, and a table that lists names and corresponding numbers (seemingly currency amounts) (the Pre-Hearing Submissions).
The hearing – 3 April 2025
Early in the hearing, the Tribunal raised its concerns about the genuineness of the original claims contained in the protection visa application, noting it had received identical word-for-word claims in other protection visa applications before it. The Tribunal reminded the applicants of the importance of giving truthful evidence. The Tribunal also expressed that the hearing was an opportunity for the applicants to present claims and evidence for its assessment, however explained that if new claims were raised, that s 367A of the Act requires the Tribunal to draw an inference unfavourable to the credibility of the claims if the Tribunal is satisfied the applicants do not have a reasonable explanation for why the claim was not raised before the primary decision maker.
When asked, the primary applicant gave evidence that he did not prepare the visa application and that an ‘agent’ in [City], Victoria prepared it for the applicants. The primary applicant claimed he provided the so-called agent with the information to input, however he said that when he received and read the delegate’s decision record he realised that the agent had not followed his instructions and that the original claims made in the protection visa application were not accurate.
The Tribunal notes the claims summarised in the pre-hearing form sent to the Tribunal appear to maintain the original claims. When asked who had written the applicant’s pre-hearing response the primary applicant told the Tribunal that his current representative, a registered migration agent, had assisted him to prepare that form.
Summary of oral evidence given by the primary applicant
The primary applicant gave oral evidence that he was born in Baguio city and had lived in Manila before spending most of his life commuting between Baguio city (where he lived with his grandmother) and La Union where he completed his studies. He said that after completing school he returned to Baguio city to assist his father with his [business 2]. The primary applicant stated he worked for a [company] for 19 years (where he was resident on site between August 2003-February 2022). He said he accepted a voluntary redundancy then returned to La Union, where his parents still live. He said he met his wife at school, that they married in 2000 and that they built a house together in La Union, where his [children] (aged between [Ages]) currently live and who are cared for by his parents and his in-laws.
In addition to his [company] work, the primary applicant gave evidence that he had his own online networking business between 2009-2020. He gave evidence that it was based on a pyramid selling scheme however did not prosper. He then told the Tribunal that he started a [farm], because his mother had given him [stock] for breeding when he returned to live in La Union. He said that his [business] closed because of [disease].
The primary applicant told the Tribunal he earned approximately 34,000 pesos per month on average when he was working in the Philippines, and that since arriving in Australia has maintained employment using his [trade] skills.
The primary applicant claims to fear returning to the Philippines because he considers his life is in danger because he has received threats, and believes the threats may relate to debts he has accumulated, being for:
I.an investment project that he described as a ‘ponzi scheme’ where he played the role of ‘referrer’ in about 2015;
II.an investment project he referred to as ‘CoinMax’ in which he received incentives from about 2000; and
III.money he borrowed from personal contacts in 2022 to secure importation of gold bars found by [Country 1] soldiers in [Country 2], but which turned out to be a parcel scam facilitated through [Social media] communication (the parcel scam).
The primary applicant claims his debts totalled approximately 965,000 pesos (which the Tribunal has calculated to be equivalent to approximately AUD26,000). He said he owes the debt to thirteen different people, being his friends, former co-workers and his mother’s friends. Additionally, he says he owes his mother about 80,000 pesos. The Pre-Hearing Submission contains a table that list each person he claims to have borrowed money from, and the corresponding amount owed.
The primary applicant said that he thought it would take him about six to twelve months to pay off his debts. No further details as to his current financial status was provided.
He said it was not possible for him to know who was sending him threats, because he owed money to so many different people. The details provided of the threats is considered further below.
The primary applicant said he has never been physically harmed when he was in the Philippines.
Summary of oral evidence given by the secondary applicant
The secondary applicant appeared at the second hearing on 3 April 2025. The Tribunal understood the secondary applicant sought to rely on the primary applicant’s claims and evidence, however the Tribunal elected to hear her evidence separately to assess any separate claims she may have and to allow the Tribunal to attribute more weight to her evidence.
The secondary applicant gave evidence that she was born in the Benguet province. She said she had completed high school and had undertaken vocational training in [subject]. She said that in the Philippines she had worked part-time and did home-made baking. The secondary applicant also gave evidence that she and her husband had tried to make money in a [business].
The secondary applicant stated that she considers she has no debts. She gave evidence she has received threatening text messages while in the Philippines on three occasions ordering her to pay money. She said she feared returning to the Philippines because her husband had received death threats. She said she did not learn of his troubles for a while, however that she noticed changes in his behaviour in about 2015. Other oral evidence she provided relevant to the protections claims is referred to below.
Concerns raised
At the hearing, the Tribunal raised concerns with the applicants about a lack of evidence to support the claims that the primary applicant had received death threats. The Tribunal also raised its concerns that some of the claims lacked details.
Post-hearing submissions
On 9 April 2025 the Tribunal wrote to the applicants requesting further information and a series of questions to clarify evidence given in the hearing.
On 15 April 2025 the Tribunal received a two and half page document signed by the primary applicant (dated 13 April 2025) which sought to respond to the Tribunal’s further questions (Post-Hearing Submissions). The detail of the document is discussed further in the Tribunal’s consideration of the claims and evidence below.
RELEVANT LAW: CRITERIA FOR A 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) of the Act 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) of the Act, 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) of the Act, 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, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicants’ claims satisfy the requirements of either s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
By way of observation, the applicants’ claims relate solely to issues arising from the conduct of the primary applicant. In essence, the primary applicant claims he has accumulated debts which he has sought to remedy by taking making further high-risk investments or participating in questionable transactions on borrowed money – all which appear to have failed, to the detriment of himself and his family.
Identity, Nationality and Receiving Country
The applicants each provided a copy of their Filipino passport to the Department. According to the Department’s decision record, there was no evidence available to suggest that either passport was a bogus document and accordingly the Tribunal is prepared to accept the applicants’ identities based on the Department’s assessment and a copy of the passport provided to the Tribunal.
There is no evidence to suggest that either applicant has a right to enter or reside, whether temporarily or permanently, in any other country. Both applicants gave oral evidence they are citizens of the Philippines.
Based on the documents provided by the applicants and accepted by the Department, the Tribunal finds the applicants are both citizens of the Philippines and accordingly their claims for protection will be assessed against the Philippines as the receiving country.
Findings of fact: the original claims made in the protection visa application
The Tribunal notes that some of the applicants’ personal particulars in the visa applications are accurate but does not accept the protection claims made in the visa applications are credible. The Tribunal arrives at this finding because it has received identical claims in other applications and because it accepts the primary applicant’s explanation that a third party wrote the original claims which are not accurate. Specifically, the Tribunal does not accept the applicants ever took a loan from an illegal money lender or that they were harmed or threatened with harm by an illegal money lender.
Having regard to the operation of s 367A of the Act, the Tribunal has not drawn an inference unfavourable to the credibility of the new claims and evidence raised by the primary applicant, because it is satisfied with the explanation provided, namely that the applicants had paid an unscrupulous third party to lodge their protection visa application and they were not aware that incorrect claims had been made until they received the delegate’s refusal decision record. Accordingly, the Tribunal has proceeded to assess the merits of the new claims and evidence.
Findings of fact: the new claims
The claimed ponzi scheme
In the Pre-Hearing Submissions, the primary applicant claimed his debts started in 2015 when he participated in an ‘investment scam’. He does not name the scam, other than to list examples of the company names including [Company names]. He said that he ‘put money in this group’ to receive incentives and became ‘an agent to invite friends of friends’. In the hearing, the applicant then referred to the scam as a ‘ponzi scheme’. The primary applicant provided limited detail about how the scheme operated however claimed that there is a group of potentially aggrieved participants who attribute their losses to his role and conduct in the ponzi scheme.

The primary applicant has provided no evidence of how much money he personally invested in the scheme, nor has he particularised who he referred to the scheme, or how much money his contacts channelled into the scheme on his referral or recommendation.
By way of supporting evidence, the primary applicant included extracts of two news article in the Pre-Hearing Submissions. The first article from the Herald Express dated 1 March 2015[1] reports that an investment company faced multiple charges because of a controversial ponzi scheme. A second media article dated 27 May 2016[2] reports that a top official from a ponzi investment firm was arrested.
[1] Dexter A. See, ‘Firm faces estafa raps’, Herald Express (online, 1 March 2015)
[2] Hent, ‘Satarah queen arrested for estafa raps’, Herald Express (online, 27 May 2016) <www. baguioheraldexpressonline.com/firm-faces-estafa-raps>.
Relevantly to claims for protection, section 5AAA of the Act provides that it is the responsibility of the non-citizen to specify all particulars of his or her claim to be such a person and to provide sufficient evidence to establish the claim. The limited evidence before the Tribunal speaks to the existence of a ponzi scheme in the Philippines in approximately 2015-2016, however the primary applicant has not provided any documentary evidence to support his oral evidence that he was personally involved.
On the limited evidence provided, the lack of details explaining the scheme’s operation or his personal involvement, the Tribunal is not satisfied his claims are made out. Accordingly, it does not accept that the primary applicant was engaged as a referrer, or in any other capacity, in a ponzi scheme. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is being pursued by persons aggrieved by his conduct related to the ponzi scheme. On that point, even if the Tribunal were to have accepted the claim, a question remains as to whether an actual debt exists at law because of the nature of the investor-referrer relationship, however the Tribunal has not placed any weight on that aspect when arriving at its decision because it has not accepted the claim.
The claimed Coinmax scheme
In the Pre-Hearing Submissions, the primary applicant wrote that in November 2020 he began channelling funds to CoinMax to purchase Bitcoin. The applicant wrote that he trusted his friend who was involved and proceeded to borrow money from his mother’s friend to invest. He wrote that after some weeks, he did not receive the payout and suspected it was a scam. He wrote that he lost a lot of his friends’ money and that he began experiencing sleepless nights and bullying from his friends about the money he lost. He wrote that the [Social media] group they used has been removed because of the use of inappropriate words and threats.
By way of evidence to support the claim, the primary applicant provided extracts of what appears to be extracts from [Social media] dialogues that reference the words ‘CoinMax’ but also refer to other financial promotional schemes including a ‘[Promotion]’ which the applicant did not raise in oral evidence. The extracts were written in a combination of Tagalog and English and fall significantly short of the formality of a statement of account from a financial institution. The messages do however contain ‘GCash’ reference numbers, which the Tribunal recognises is a common form of payment transfer in the Philippines, however, do not demonstrate that any corresponding transfer of funds from his accounts occurred.
In the applicant’s favour, the Tribunal has found media commentary suggesting that the Securities Exchange Commission in the Philippines previously warned the public against investing in Coinmax.ph,[3] which suggests that the applicant’s claim may be credible. The Tribunal has also placed weight on the oral evidence from the secondary applicant that her husband had been involved in a Bitcoin investment, although the secondary applicant did not specifically name the trading platform or investment scheme.
[3] Denise A. Valdez, ‘SEC flags investment scheme of Coinmax.ph’, Business World (online,9 November 2020) <
While the Tribunal is prepared to accept that a Coinmax scheme operated in the past and that the primary applicant has invested in Bitcoin historically, on the balance of the evidence, the Tribunal is not persuaded and does not accept that the primary applicant was personally involved in the Coinmax scheme.
Was the primary applicant a victim of a parcel scam?
The Tribunal is informed that the Philippines experiences an alarming level of scams:
In 2023, the Philippine National Police Anti Cybercrime Group recorded 16,297 scam cases, resulting in estimated financial losses of USD 37 million. Even more alarming is the broader cyber threat landscape, with approximately 1.2 million records, including sensitive information of applicants and employees of multiple government agencies in the Philippines, have been leaked online.
Common scams exploit popular platforms such as Facebook, which is the main social media platform used by Filipinos. In addition, messaging apps and e -commerce platforms, which saw 76% participation rate as of 2020, are also common channels where scams and fraud proliferate.
The State of Scams in the Philippines 2024 report reveals alarming scam levels, with 67% of Filipinos encountering scams monthly and losses totalling USD 8.29 billion (1.9% of GDP). Common scams include fake online stores, phishing via SMS and social media, and AI-generated voice/video scams.[4]
[4] Tech for Good Institute, ‘Building Resilience against Scams and Fraud: Spotlight on the Philippines’ (webpage) <
In the Pre-Hearing Submissions, the primary applicant provided a narrative and a series of copies of [Social media] dialogue extracts which paint a story of the primary applicant having commenced online liaison with a person claiming to be [a Country 1] soldier and the primary applicant agreeing to act as a local agent for receipt of gold bars being imported to the Philippines from [Country 2]. It would seem the scam was premised upon the primary applicant needing to pay the Customs Service to release the parcels to him. The primary applicant told the Tribunal he borrowed funds from personal contacts to quickly raise the funds necessary for the gold bars to be released to him. Upon realising he had been scammed, he claims he reported the fraud to the National Bureau of Investigations (NBI). The Pre-Hearing Submissions contain a digital extract dated 30 November 2022 of an apparent email he sent to complain about the scam. It is not possible from the digital extract to determine which email address his complaint was sent to. The applicant has not provided any other correspondence or reports that support his claim that he reported the scam to the NBI.
The Tribunal is concerned that the [dialogue] provided to the Tribunal does not appear to be complete (some dialogue is cut off from visibility) and upon magnification of the digital copy of the [Courier] receipt it appears the address details listed are missing the primary applicant’s house number and street name, which raises a question as to how the gold bars were meant to be delivered to him. It appears that only a highway exit, suburb and zipcode were specified on the courier receipt. It is an oddity that the evidence has not resolved.
The Tribunal is concerned that the primary applicant has provided no evidence of having made a transfer of funds from his financial institution to the scammers. The Tribunal is also somewhat perplexed that any person would believe that an unknown person offering high-value financial gain making unsolicited contact through [Social media] to import gold bars from [Country 2] was not a scam. As discussed further in paragraphs 79-80, the Tribunal has accepted that the primary applicant previously suffered from a mental health condition and consider that might offer some explanation for his claimed behaviour, however the Tribunal does not consider that fact in isolation is sufficient to explain why a person would engage the kind of questionable transaction the applicant has claimed.
On balance of all the evidence, the Tribunal does not accept that the primary applicant was a victim of a parcel scam as claimed.
Have the applicants received threats?
Threats communicated to the primary applicant
In the Pre-Hearing Submissions, the primary applicant wrote that ‘in 2019 a headline newspaper came out about the killing fields… [and] I was shaking in that moment because earlier that time [sic] I receive a message’. The primary applicant included a digital image of a cell phone text message (written in a language other than English) that he claims says ‘money is not important anymore, your life will be enough’. He wrote that he received the text message in 2019. He said the threat was received on his cell phone in the Philippines and that he could no longer produce the message for the Tribunal’s benefit.
At the hearing, the Tribunal discussed the text message with the primary applicant with the benefit of an interpreter to provide the Tribunal with confidence that the primary applicant’s translation was accurate. The Tagalog interpreter was unable to read the dialect. The primary applicant said the text message was written in [Language], and proceeded to translate the words from [Language] verbally to Tagalog, to permit the interpreter to translate his words from Tagalog to English for the benefit of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has only placed a small amount of weight on the oral evidence, because it was not accompanied by a NAATI certified translation[5] and the Tribunal cannot be satisfied as to the genuineness or content of the threat. For that reason, the Tribunal does not accept the threat was received as claimed.
[5] Administrative Review Tribunal, Administrative Review Tribunal (Common Procedures) Practice Direction 2024, 6.2 (c).
In the Pre-Hearing Submissions, the primary applicant wrote that in the months after November 2020 that he was bullied by friends in the group messenger chat because of his role in the Coinmax scheme. His written evidence suggests the group message was banned by [Social media] because of the use of inappropriate and threatening language. Accordingly, the Tribunal understands that the claimed bullying dialogue is not available for inspection. In any event, having regard to the Tribunal’s findings at paragraphs 53-56 that the primary applicant was not involved in the Coinmax scheme as claimed, it follows that the Tribunal does not accept he was subject to related bullying.
In the Pre-Hearing Submissions, the primary applicant further wrote that in about May 2021, prior to being hospitalised for having a break-down at work, he received ‘harassment through text that they will harm my family’. He wrote that the text said ‘Bay-am ta kuarta uray biag yi laengen’ and that it means (in English) that ‘money is not important, your life will be enough’. The Tribunal was not provided with visibility or a copy of that text message and also notes the source scripts (written in a language other than English) appears quite different to the translation for a similar phrase of words described above in paragraph 62. Absent an original source document and a certified NAATI translation, the Tribunal does not place significant weight on the applicant’s translation owing to its growing credibility concerns about the claims. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant received a harassing text message in about May 2021.
The primary applicant further claimed that he received threats from the parcel scammers, writing that ‘those scammers contacted me about my testimony, that I still manage and pursue my report, they will harm my family and I was scared’. There is no evidence of a written threat to that effect in the documents provided to the Tribunal. There are also inconsistencies in the evidence concerning the [Social media] account in effect at the time, that the Tribunal has not been able to resolve through post-hearing correspondence. For those reasons, the Tribunal does not accept that the primary applicant was threatened following the parcel scam.
In the hearing, the primary applicant also claimed that he is concerned for his safety because he provided his home address to the parcel scammers, for delivery of the gold bars. As discussed above at paragraph 59, there is no documentary evidence before the Tribunal that demonstrates the primary applicant provided his home address to the scammers. That detail appears missing from the dialogue extracts and is not contained in the [Courier receipt. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not persuaded and does not accept that the parcel scammers have the applicants home address.
In forming its findings, the Tribunal has also placed weight on differences that emerged between the claims made in the Pre-Hearing Submissions, and the oral evidence received at hearing. The primary applicant said that he had received four threats in total, however later revised the number to three, specifying that the threats were:
I.a cell phone message from an unknown number on an unknown date stating ‘if you do not pay, someone will hurt you – we know where you live’.
II.during 2019, a cell phone message stating words written in the Ilacona dialect to the effect that ‘Nevermind money, you will repay with your life’;
III.during 2022, a cell phone message stating he would go the ‘Poyopoy’ (which the Tribunal notes based on publicly available information[6] is a location historically associated with the dumping ground of deceased human remains in the Philippines).
[6] Artemio Dumlao, ‘Bodies found in old Benguet 'dumping ground', PhilStar Global (online,16 October 2019 <
The primary applicant stated that he has not received any threats since arriving in Australia.
The Tribunal notes a difference concerning the primary applicant’s references to fear of harm associated with ending up in Poyopoy, noting his Pre-Hearing Submissions suggest he read newspaper headlines about Poyopoy in 2015 and shortly after received a threat that worried him, whereas his oral evidence claimed a threat that he would end up in Poyopoy was received in 2022.
In conclusion, the Tribunal finds the threats claimed by the primary applicant are not made out on the evidence and therefore the Tribunal does not accept that the primary applicant received any threats as claimed.
Other threats received by the primary applicant’s family
At the hearing, the primary applicant stated that his family have not received any threats.
In contrast, the secondary applicant gave oral evidence that on three occasions she received text messages demanding she pay money. The claims were not detailed further. She said she ignored all the messages. She said she had no debt at the time. It would seem on the evidence that the primary applicant was not aware the secondary applicant had received the messages. The Tribunal considers that the fact the primary applicant was not aware of the messages, and because the secondary applicant chose to ignore them and delete the messages, suggests to the Tribunal that the messages did not rise to a level of real threat and were not of sufficient gravity that caused fear to the secondary applicant. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds the secondary applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution owing to the messages she received, or any other prior harm in the Philippines.
When asked in the hearing what she fears on return to the Philippines, the secondary applicant told the Tribunal she could not return because of her husband’s debts, and because she feels she will be impacted by his debts and wanted to be able to save money for the future of their children. The secondary applicant did not express any other reasons that she fears of return.
The secondary applicant also told the Tribunal that her mother-in-law receives threats. When asked why the secondary applicant believes her mother-in-law is receiving threatening messages the secondary applicant said she understands it is because of the primary applicant’s debts. When asked if she could provide any supporting evidence, the secondary applicant said she could not, because most people in the Philippines ignore the messages and delete them.
In Post-Hearing Submissions, when the matter of the difference in the evidence was raised with the applicants, the primary applicant responded by stating that the threats received by his mother may or may not be linked to his debts, and that he did not consider her evidence of being threatened relevant to their claims because scams are common in the Philippines.
The Tribunal accepts the primary applicant’s claim that scams are common in the Philippines and that the threats his mother receives may not be linked to his claimed debts.
How much debt does the primary applicant owe?
In Pre-Hearing Submissions, the table provided by the primary applicant suggests he owes 965,000 pesos at the time he wrote the document to thirteen different people, however he revised his claim in oral evidence to indicate that he had since paid back some of the money and thought he owed approximately 600,000 pesos (approximately AUD16,000) at the date of hearing. The primary applicant has not provided any further evidence as to the identity of the lenders, or other documents, however informal, to demonstrate he was loaned money. At the hearing, both the primary applicant and secondary applicant stressed that they suffer from the weight of debts, however the Tribunal is troubled by the absence of supporting evidence and differences contained in the evidence provided. The Tribunal has attributed only a small amount weight to the table of debtors the primary applicant has produced. The table is not sufficient to persuade the Tribunal that the debts are owed as claimed. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not accept that the primary applicant is in debt to thirteen people for the sum of 965,000 pesos, 600,000 pesos or any other sum.
Does the primary applicant suffer from depression?
In the Pre-Hearing Submissions, the applicant claimed that his financial troubles caused him significant stress, leading to him having a break-down at work in 2021. The documentary evidence supplied includes a workplace incident report dated 14 May 2021, and a medical certificate report written by a hospital dated 3 February 2022 stating the primary applicant had been diagnosed with a major depressive disorder and had been receiving treatment since 21 May 2021. The documentary evidence also includes two records of the applicant being prescribed escitalopramin and olanzapine (anti-depressant medications) in 2021 and 2022, respectively. The primary applicant gave further evidence that he has been able to maintain full-time work in Australia despite his earlier depression diagnosis.
In the hearing, the primary applicant gave oral evidence that he ceased taking his medication in November 2024 and that he has not sought medical treatment in Australia because he does not have Medicare, but also because he said he feels well now. The Tribunal accepts this to be true.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
Do the applicants satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?
Primary applicant
Following the Tribunal’s findings above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the primary applicant faces a real chance of serious harm (or any harm) now, or in the reasonably foreseeable future, if he returns to the Philippines.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution per s 5J of the Act. As the Tribunal is not satisfied the primary applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution it is not satisfied that the primary applicant is a refugee per s 5H of the Act. Because the applicant does not satisfy the definition of refugee, the Tribunal is not satisfied he is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
Secondary applicant

As set out in paragraphs 73-74, the secondary applicant sought to rely on the primary applicant’s claims (his claimed debts) as the reason she fears return to the Philippines. It follows that because the Tribunal has not accepted the primary applicant’s debt and threat claims, for the same reasons the Tribunal is not satisfied that the secondary applicant faces a real chance of serious harm (or any harm) now, or in the reasonably foreseeable future, if she returns to the Philippines.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the secondary applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution per s 5J of the Act. It follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that the secondary applicant is a refugee per s 5H of the Act. Because the applicant does not satisfy the definition of refugee, the Tribunal is not satisfied she is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
Do the applicants satisfy the complementary protection criterion for protection?
Primary applicant
Having concluded that the primary applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Section 36(2)(aa) refers to a ‘real risk’ of an applicant suffering significant harm. In MIAC v SZQRB,[7] the ‘real risk’ test was held to impose the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in the Refugee Convention definition and that reasoning appears equally applicable to the refugee criterion in s 5J(1)(b) of the Act.[8]
[7] MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505.
[8]See Explanatory Memorandum, Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Caseload Legacy) Bill 2014 (Cth), pp.170-1 at [1169], [1180].
Following the Tribunal’s findings set out above that the applicant will not face serious harm (or any harm) now, or in the reasonable foreseeable future, if he is returned to the Philippines, for the same reason the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to the Philippines, that there is a real risk he will suffer significant harm.
Additionally, on the evidence provided, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the primary applicant’s diagnosis of depression raises a real risk of the primary applicant facing significant harm if returned to the Philippines, especially because he has stated he no longer takes medication and is feeling better.
Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the primary applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Secondary applicant
The secondary applicant has sought to rely on the primary applicant’s claims.
Adopting the Tribunal’s finding that it is not satisfied that the primary applicant faces a real risk of significant harm, for the same reasons the Tribunal is not satisfied the secondary applicant faces a real risk of significant harm if she returns to the Philippines now, or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The Tribunal has also considered her additional claims that she personally received some messages demanding she pay money, however for reasons set out in paragraph 72, the Tribunal does not consider the messages would amount to the secondary applicant facing a real risk of significant harm (or any harm).
For those reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the secondary applicant being removed from Australia to the Philippines, that there is a real risk she will suffer significant harm. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the secondary applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore, the applicants do not satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa. It follows that they are also unable to satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(b) or (c) and cannot be granted the visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants protection visas.
Date of hearing:   25 March 2025
Representative for the applicants: Muzhgan KARGAR (MARN: 1689083)
(not present at the hearing).
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.
…

<