Skip to content

Tribunal: Member N Burns

The AAT affirmed a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection not to grant the applicant a protection visa. He was found not to have a well-founded fear of persecution on return to Taiwan.

The applicant was born in Myanmar to Chinese parents and claimed they never obtained identity documents or citizenship in Myanmar. The applicant claimed his parents purchased a Myanmar passport for him to leave and go to university in Taiwan, where he was granted a long-term residency visa. The Tribunal accepted the applicant was a national of Taiwan (Republic of China).

The applicant sought protection on the basis that he feared persecution from the Taiwanese government, Taiwanese society and Myanmar agents operating in Taiwan. The applicant claimed he would be persecuted because of his protest activities in Taiwan against atrocities committed in Myanmar, ancestral links with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Myanmar origins. The applicant also claimed to fear a former colleague and his associates who he had borrowed money from and who continued to harass him for interest repayments.

The AAT found the applicant’s evidence about his alleged protest activities in Taiwan was vague. The AAT also found it implausible that the applicant was assaulted by intelligence agents from Myanmar in Taiwan based on attendance at a single protest, particularly as country information indicated that Myanmar had no formal diplomatic presence in Taiwan at the time. The AAT accepted some community members in Taiwan, particularly those originally from Myanmar, may have told the applicant to avoid such activities and he may have felt excluded from participating in cultural activities, but this did not constitute serious harm.

Based on the evidence before it, the AAT did not accept the applicant’s claim that the Taiwanese authorities would revoke his permanent visa if his ancestral links to the CCP were discovered.

The Tribunal also did not accept that the applicant was harassed by his ex-colleague or his associates on his visits back to Taiwan.

Read the full decision