1421192 (Refugee) [2015] AATA 3602 (4 November 2015)

DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:	Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:	1421192
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:	Korea, Republic Of
MEMBER:	Lesley Hunt
DATE:	4 November 2015
PLACE OF DECISION:	Brisbane
DECISION:	The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 04 November 2015 at 1:31pm

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

statement of decision and reasons
application for review
1.  	This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
2.  	The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of the Republic of Korea, applied for the visa [in] January 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] December 2014. 
3.  	The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 3 November 2015 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Korean and English languages. 
4.  	The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent. 
CONSIDERATION OF Claims and evidence
5.  	The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (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, the applicant 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.
6.  	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 under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).
7.  	Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
8.  	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 a protection 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 the applicant 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’).
9.  	In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration –PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and any country information assessment 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.
The Issue
10.  	The issue in this case is whether the applicant has a real chance of serious harm, or is at real risk of significant harm, as a result of his parents owing money to creditors. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed. 
Country of Nationality and Receiving Country
11.  	The applicant submitted a certified copy of his Korean Passport, Korean Resident Registration Certificate, and Korean Certificate of Military Service with his visa application.  The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a national of Korea for the purpose of s.36(2)(a) and Korea is the receiving country for the purpose of s.36(2)(aa).  The Tribunal has assessed his claims against Korea accordingly.  
12.  	The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant does not have the right to enter and reside in any country other than the Republic of Korea.  He is therefore not excluded from Australia’s protection by s.36(3) of the Act. 
Claims for protection
13.  	The applicants’ claims and evidence are set out in the departmental file and the Tribunal file.  The departmental file includes the application for protection, a number of identification documents, a recording of the applicants’ interview with the department [in] November 2014, and the delegate’s decision record. Evidence to the Tribunal includes the review application, a copy of the delegate’s decision record provided by the applicant to the Tribunal, and the applicant’s oral evidence at the hearing conducted on 3 November 2015.  The Tribunal has carefully considered all the claims and evidence in this matter and has summarised the applicant’s claims as follows.  
14.  	The delegate’s decision record, a copy of which was provided by the applicant to the Tribunal with the review application, sets out the applicant’s migration history as follows.  He applied for a working holiday visa subclass 417 [in] November 2007.  The visa was granted [in] December 2007 and the applicant first arrived in Australia [in] January 2008.  He departed Australia [in] November 2008 and his visa ceased [in] January 2009.  He applied for a second working holiday visa subclass 417 [in] February 2009.  The visa was granted [in] March 2009.  He arrived in Australia [in] May 2009.  He departed Australia [in] May 2010 and the visa ceased [in] May 2010.  He applied for an Electric Travel Authority which was granted [in] May 2010.  He arrived in Australia [in] June 2010.  The visa ceased [in] August 2010 and he was granted an onshore tourist visa subclass 676 [in] August 2010.  His visa ceased [in] December 2010.  He remained in Australia without a visa until [date] January 2014 when he applied for the protection visa subclass 866 which is the subject of this review application.  
15.  	The applicant sets out his claims for protection in his application form as follows. 
Even though my family wasn’t that rich, we had sufficient money to live on when I was young.  My parents considered education as first priority so that they wanted me to study hard to enter better university instead of working for earning small money.  I remember they used to say to me that it was the most important to find what you like and what you can do in the future.  The experience is more valuable than just studying hard now but it is also necessary to graduate from university for better future as well.  
When I was [age] year old, as a result of the enforcement of an impractical business, my father’s business was in financial trouble.  That was the reason why I had to choose 2 year-college which was supposed to offer me the scholarship instead of giving up university.  I started my college life finally but I had to stop soon and to join military due to my father’s companies bankruptcy.  My parents asked for help to my relatives and fortunately we could pay for the debt.  After being discharged from the army, I considered to be transferred to better university but I could not get away from poverty so easily.  As I remember, my parents brought clothes from cousins for me wearing the same clothes all the time.   
However, I realized there was a working holiday visa in Australia which might provide me with better chance to get precious experience and education to get out of tough life. 
After my father’s business was bankrupted many creditors knocked the door day and night and even at dawn and threatened me.  At that time I didn’t grow up fully enough to understand the situation, perhaps I didn’t want to do. So in the circumstance, I had to evade by staying at the places of relatives and acquaintances or all over the places.  To this end my parents recommend me to join the army earlier. At that time I was desperate with the situation and could not accept the reality.  When I look back the past now, I can imagine how hard time my parents had to survive and understand their struggle, but in those days, it was too hard for a teenager to cope with such life.  I heard from my mother 2 years ago that my father thought of suicide at the time and panicked. Father went to park to drink cheap alcohol and shed tears.  I believe that all parents live for their children and they have passion to try to do all their children want and to give all the good things.  I was grateful to my parents when I left for Australia, they gave me money to by air ticket and to cover living expense as they let me join the army to protect me from all insults and threats which they underwent.  
As I mentioned above, I had gone through enormous hardship, insults and humiliations.  Consequently, I joined the army to avoid such pain for 2 years.  Entry to Australia was an extension of escape.  Behind the purpose of improvement of my life through English study, I was strongly motivated by an idea to run away from such life for peace of mind.  To me, 2 years of working holiday period was a fresh shock.  I was amazed such life was different from hectic daily routine in Korea when watching an old couple walking and holding hands in park and I enjoyed watching that kind of lifestyle. 
Although I began to work in morning and finished around 1 or 2 p.m., I could earn a high wage and enjoy fishing, swimming, drinking and talking hilarious stories with my friends on a beach.  When working holiday period drew to an end I felt like to die really.  Should I go back to Korea? The parents weren’t telling me about their hard situation in Korea much.  Understandably it wouldn‘t be easy to explain to me about their difficulty.  Even if I went back to Korea and got a job, it’s obvious that I should pay creditors about 70% of whole wage.  Is there any future in such life?  That’s how I returned to Australia on a tourist visa. 
As I know, my parents have been threatened by creditors until now.  They used to not only visit my house and cause violence to my parents, but also keep a close eye on us for a couple of days. Because it is true that the debt will be dealt by myself if they are not able to pay back, it would be better not to go back to Korea for safety.  Nowadays, even my parents have lived at basic living cost after creditors took away bank book so that they want me not to come back to Korea in fear that the same thing may recur to me.  
I am the immediate family member of the debtor.  There are many creditors who want to find me if they realize I come back to Korea.  People around me said to me that I should go back to Korea to help my parents pay back as soon as possible.  However the facts that many creditors will hurt me, blocks me from leaving and from returning to Korea. 
The authorities are not interested in individual persecution and hardship for they exist not to protect but to supervise and spy on people. 
Delegate’s Decision
•	That the applicant’s father’s business went bankrupt
•	That the applicant’s parents have been harassed by creditors 
•	That the applicant has a genuine subjective fear of being harassed by creditors if he returns to the Republic of Korea. 
16.  	However the delegate did not accept that the applicant’s parents have been seriously or significantly harmed, and that the applicant has been harassed or threatened by creditors. The delegate concluded that the applicant’s claims were not Convention related and that there was not a real risk that the applicant faces significant harm in Korea. 
Evidence to the Tribunal 
17.  	The applicant provided the following evidence to the Tribunal in response to the Tribunal’s questions at the hearing.  He stated that at present his father worked [in] various locations and his mother is mainly a housewife however she sometimes does some other paid work at home.  He stated that he is not in contact with his parents very often, he has only spoken to them about two or three times in a year, and the last occasion was when he recently spoke to his mother. 
18.  	The applicant clarified that he completed [number] years of formal study in Korea and in February [year] he graduated with a [tertiary qualification].  He worked in that field after graduating until he came to Australia in January 2008.  He clarified that he went to [another country] from [date] March 2009 until [date] May 2009 to study English. 
19.  	The Tribunal asked the applicant why he did not want to return to Korea and in response he re-stated the events and claims for protection that he had outlined in his written application form.  The applicant clarified that military service is compulsory in Korea; however he did it earlier than he had to because his parents thought this would keep him safe from the creditors.  He stated that when he undertook his tertiary studies he lived at his aunt’s home and not his parents’ home and that his aunt lives in the same city as his parents. 
20.  	He stated that after graduating he worked and gave most of his earnings to his parents to help with their financial difficulty and to pay off their creditors.  He stated that after a while he started to doubt what he was doing.  Many of his friends went to Australia on working holiday visas and he thought this was a good idea – partly to escape the situation he was in and partly to have a different life, with better opportunities.  He spent two years in Australia on his first working holiday visa and enjoyed the different life.  He thought he did not want to return to Korea.  
21.  	The applicant clarified that when his father’s business went bad the family had a very hard time financially.  His father went bankrupt and the creditors came to the family home. He stated that some stayed a couple of days and would not leave the house.  Some swore at his parents and slapped his father’s face.  At the time the applicant was a young student and so the creditors did not direct their attention at him only at his parents.  However it was a very frightening experience.  He clarified that he thought this happened when he was in [a certain grade] which would be around 2002. 
22.  	The Tribunal put to the applicant that thirteen years had passed since the events he is describing and asked him if he feared returning to Korea now, in 2015.  He responded that at the time of the events he was describing he was very young and this is why nothing happened to him directly.  However now the creditors would expect something from him and they would direct their attention at him.  
23.  	The applicant stated that he did not know about the amount of the original debt and he did not know how much was still owing to the creditors.  He stated that his mother has not told him anything directly because it is hard for a mother to say these things to her son.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that given that this is the basis for his claim for protection it is reasonable to assume that he would have endeavoured to find out some detail about the debt and in particular about the amount of money owing at the present time; or if any money was still owing at the present time.  The applicant responded that his mother told him that the situation is still not good. 
24.  	The Tribunal asked the applicant if he had any documentary evidence corroborating his claim that his parents owed money to creditors.  He replied that he did not have anything.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that it is reasonable to assume that if his parents borrowed money from a finance company or a money lender that there would be something to document the loan and the rate of repayment, the identity of the money lender or finance company, etc.  The applicant responded that he could ask his mother for this information.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that he lodged his claim for protection [in] January 2014 and his claims are based on the existence of the loan.  The application form asks if the applicant has documentary evidence to support the claim.  He has been assisted with his application by a migration agent and it is reasonable to assume that the agent would have advised him in this regard in the course of preparing the application.  The delegate refused to grant him the visa as the delegate was not satisfied that he faced a real risk of significant him because of the loan and the actions of the creditors in their effort to recoup the money loaned.  It is now November 2015, approximately one year and ten months since he applied for the visa.  In the Tribunal’s view the applicant has had ample time in which to obtain evidence to support his claims and has been provided with a sufficiently clear indication that documentary evidence supporting his claim would assist his application.  
25.  	The applicant stated that he was not sure of the arrangements in place for repaying the debt.  He clarified that the creditors have not ever harmed him directly; however he has seen them slap his father’s face and pull his mother’s hair. As he is no longer young, as he is an adult now, he fears he will be required to repay his parents’ debt and could be physically harmed.  
26.  	The Tribunal put to the applicant that he has returned to Korea more than once since first arriving in Australia in January 2008.  His immigration record set out in the delegate’s decision indicates that he departed Australia [in] November 2008 and returned to Australia [in] May 2009.  He was about [age] years old at that time and no longer young.  The Tribunal asked the applicant if he was approached by the creditors during this time.  He responded that he did not stay with his parents at all when he went back to Korea.  He stayed with a friend.  The friend lived in the same city as his parents.  He stated that he did not stay with his parents because his father was [working] and was not always at home, it depended on what work he had, it was not a full-time job, it was not a stable situation at home.  His mother was not in a great situation.  His parents lived separately a lot of the time; however they lived together when his father worked in their home city.  The applicant stated that for several months he was in [another country] – from March 2009 to [date] May 2009.  The applicant clarified that during the time he was in Korea he had no contact with the creditors and he experienced no harm in relation to his parents’ debt.  
27.  	The Tribunal asked the applicant if he feared he would be harmed if he returned to Korea.  He responded that something could happen to him.  His father’s [brother] also owed money to creditors and he committed suicide when the applicant was in [high school].  
28.  	The Tribunal asked the applicant if his parents had contacted the authorities for protection.  He responded that he did not know; however even if they did contact the police, the creditors are after their money and they will do anything to get their money back.  The fact that his uncle committed suicide means that the police did not protect him.  
29.  	The Tribunal put to the applicant the following information from independent sources and asked him for his response to the information.  The Korean government enacted the 2002 Moneylending Registration Act.  Under Article 10 of the Act, moneylenders shall not assault or threaten borrowers to collect money, nor can they significantly harm the private or work life of the borrower by causing fear or uneasiness to either the borrower or to people connected to the borrower.  Moneylenders also may not visit the borrower, or those connected to the borrower, without just cause.  Those who breach this law may be subject to a maximum prison term of either three or five years or fines of up to KRW 50 million or KRW 30 million, depending on the nature of the offence.  Also, a report in the Washington Post in February 2014 indicates the government of South Korea launched a task force to crack down on the loan sharks. 
30.  	Also there is a Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) in Korea which manages a hotline with the help of the police and municipalities so that people could call and report loan sharks.  Koreans can also obtain assistance from the Korea Legal Aid Corporation.  
31.  	The Tribunal put to the applicant that the independent information indicates that while debt collection methods are identified as a serious problem in Korea, the government has enacted legislation for the protection of people pressured by loan sharks / creditors.  
32.  	In response the applicant stated that even though these may be things that the government is doing a person does not know what the creditors can get up to.  He would have to go back and work very hard, help his parents to repay the debt, however the creditors would always want more.  He fears serious harm because he hears things when he contacts his parents.  Also his uncle committed suicide because of pressure from creditors.  
33.  	The Tribunal asked the applicant why, if he had a genuine fear of being harmed in Korea, he delayed for more than three years before applying for protection, after his visa ceased in December 2010.  He responded that he did not know about the protection visa.  The Tribunal asked the applicant if he tried to obtain any advice or assistance when his visa was expiring, or after his visa had expired.  He responded that he did not.  He heard from other people about applying for protection. 
34.  	The Tribunal put to the applicant that it had several concerns about his application for protection.  The first was that he had no documentary evidence corroborating his claim that his parents owed money to creditors and he has had ample time in which to produce evidence of the debt, who it was owed to, the rate of repayment and the amount, if any, that was still owing.  The second is that his immigration history, as outlined in the delegate’s decision, indicates that he did not ever depart Korea as soon as his visa was granted, he often delayed several weeks before leaving Korea, and this is not indicative of a person who holds a genuine fear of serious harm or significant harm.  Also, he has returned to Korea more than once, during the time that he claims his parents were being harassed by creditors and he has not been contacted by creditors or harmed during the period of time he was in Korea.  Also, he remained in Australia without a visa for more than 3 years before applying for protection, and did not seek any advice or assistance about his circumstances during this time.  This gives rise to a concern about the credibility of his claim of fearing being harmed if he had to return to Korea. 
35.  	The applicant responded that he has already given the Tribunal his reasons for these things.  The applicant asked for additional time in which to provide documentary evidence regarding the debt and the loan.  The Tribunal advised the applicant that it would not grant the applicant additional time for the reason that he has had nearly two years in which to provide corroborating evidence, as stated previously. In the Tribunal’s view this is more than sufficient time for the applicant to have provided corroborating evidence. The Tribunal also stated that even if it were to accept his claim regarding the debt and the creditors it also has to consider the independent information which indicates that the Korean government has legislated and put systems in place to protect and assist people who owe money to creditors.  
36.  	The Tribunal advised the applicant that it would carefully assess the claims and evidence before making a decision. 
Assessment of Claims and Evidence
37.  	The Tribunal has concerns as to the truthfulness of the applicant’s claims.  As put to the applicant at the hearing, the concerns arise from the fact that the information he has provided regarding his father’s bankruptcy, the money borrowed, who the money was borrowed from, the terms of the repayment, and the amount of the debt remaining, are very generalised and vague.  He has not provided any specific information regarding the alleged debt.  Furthermore the applicant remained in Korea for approximately six weeks after being granted his initial visa for Australia in December 2007.  He returned to Korea on two separate occasions, during the time when he claims his parents were harassed and threatened by creditors, before applying for protection in Australia.  In addition he remained in Australia without a visa for more than three years before applying for a protection visa.  In the Tribunal’s view these factors give rise to a concern about the genuineness of his claim of fearing harm from creditors in Korea.  
38.  	However, the Tribunal notes that the evidence provided by the applicant has been consistent and he was not hesitant in responding to the Tribunal’s questions. The Tribunal is therefore prepared to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt and accepts the following claims made by the applicant.  
39.  	The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s father’s business went bankrupt on or about 2002 and his parents were in difficult financial circumstances.  The applicant’s parents borrowed money from creditors.  The creditors have harassed, insulted and intimidated the applicant’s parents in order to enforce repayment of the debt.  The creditor’s actions included slapping the applicant’s father’s face and pulling the hair of the applicant’s mother. The creditors have stayed at the applicant’s parents’ home for a couple of days and watch them. The applicant was not targeted or harmed by the creditors when he lived with his parents, other than the harm caused by his witnessing the assaults on and intimidation of his parents.  The applicant has not been contacted or harmed by the creditors during his return trips to Korea.  
40.  	In assessing the chance of harm to the applicant in the reasonably foreseeable future in Korea, the Tribunal notes that the applicant is unsure as to whether or not his parents continue to have an outstanding debt to the creditors; however based on his mother’s comments about their circumstances not being good, he fears that they still owe money to the creditors.   
41.  	The applicant fears he will be forced to work very hard and repay most of his earnings to the creditors.  The applicant fears he will be threatened and harmed by the creditors to enforce the repayment of the money owed by his parents. 
42.  	As put to the applicant at the hearing, independent sources of information indicate that the government of Korea has enacted legislation governing the actions of creditors seeking loan repayments from debtors and their family members.  The 2002 Moneylending Registration Act, states at Article 10, that money lenders shall not ‘assault or threaten’ borrowers to collect money, nor can they ‘significantly harm’ the private or work life of the borrower by causing ‘fear or uneasiness’ to either the borrower or to people connected to the borrowers.  Moneylenders also may not visit the borrower, or those connected to the borrower, without just cause.  Those who breach this law may be subject to a maximum prison term of either three years or five years, or fines of up to KRW 50 million or KRW 30 million depending on the nature of the offence. 
43.  	The Washington Post reported in February 2014 that the South Korean government has created a government task force to deal with loan sharks / creditors.  The article reports that loan sharks, sometimes visit borrowers at night and threaten them with assault.  Additionally, a few loan companies have set up women with prostitution services so they can pay back the money owed.  The Korea Herald reported in 2012 that victims of illegal money lenders had received threats when they were unable to make repayments, including ‘wrecking their homes’.  
44.  	On the evidence before it, the Tribunal accepts that creditors and their methods of collecting debts is a serious concern in South Korea; however the government has acted to protect people from creditors and loan sharks and to regulate their methods of debt collection.  Under the legislation, loan sharks / creditors who assault or threaten or cause fear or uneasiness, loan sharks who breach the law, are liable for imprisonment or a significant fine.  
45.  	In assessing the effectiveness of the implementation of the law, the Tribunal noted the following independent information.  The Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) managed a hotline with the help of the police and municipalities so that people could call and report loan sharks.  From the opening of the hotline on 18 March 2012 until 22 May 2012, the line had received more than 20,000 calls.  The cases of more than 5,000 of the callers were being handled by the police, with another 3,300 taken to the Korea Asset Management Corporation, and 560 of the callers being supported by the Korea Legal Aid Corporation.  The FSS also had consultation teams in marketplaces and poor neighbourhoods with a high demand for illegal private loans in efforts to reach people who may find it difficult to report damage by telephone or over the internet.Police were investigating cases of lenders who ‘severely damage debtors’ private lives causing them to feel fear or anxiety through repeated phone calls and threats’.  The FSS requested police and prosecution to investigate some cases and arranged long-term, low-interest loans or free legal consulting services for others by informing the Korea Asset Management Corporation. 
46.  	Additionally, the United States Department of State (USDOS), Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2014 in Korea states that civilian authorities have maintained “effective control over police” and the government has “effective mechanisms to investigate and punish police abuse and corruption.”
47.  	Given the laws in place specifically to protect debtors, their family members, and other people connected to them, the independent information regarding the general effectiveness of police in South Korea, and the mechanisms in place to assist low-income earners to repay debts from private money lenders, the Tribunal is satisfied that the chance of the applicant being forced to work hard and hand over all or most of his earnings to creditors is remote, and the chance that he will be seriously harmed in other ways by creditors is also remote.  
48.  	The Tribunal assessed the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively.  The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant does not have a real chance of serious harm in the reasonably foreseeable future in Korea for any of the reasons in the Refugees Convention. Accordingly the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s fears of Convention-based persecution in the future in Korea are not well-founded. 
Complementary Protection 
49.  	The Tribunal then considered the applicant’s claims under the complementary protection legislation. In so doing the Tribunal considered whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Korea, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm, as it is defined in s.36(2A) and s.5(1). 
50.  	The Tribunal considered the applicant’s claims that he will be forced to repay his parents’ debt and that he will be subjected to harm by the creditors. Given the laws in place specifically to protect debtors, their family members, and other people connected to them; and the independent information regarding the general effectiveness of police in Korea; and the mechanisms in place to assist low-income earners to repay debts from private money lenders, the Tribunal finds that the level of protection offered by the South Korean authorities reduces the risk of significant harm to the applicant to less than a real risk. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that there are not substantial grounds for believing the applicant faces a real risk of significant harm from creditors in the future in Korea.  
51.  	The Tribunal considered the applicant’s claims separately and cumulatively.  The Tribunal is satisfied that there are not substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Korea, he will be at real risk of significant harm.  

CONCLUSION 
52.  	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 the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).
53.  	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). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
54.  	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
55.  	The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Lesley Hunt
Member