//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
austlii:cth/RRTA/1998/5383
appellant. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant a protection visa.
A Filipino woman claimed she was persecuted by corrupt police who extorted money from her family business. The Refugee Review Tribunal found that while police corruption was plausible, extortion for money does not count as 'persecution' under refugee law unless it is motivated by reasons like race, religion, or political opinion. Since the police only wanted money, not to punish her for any protected characteristic, she was not a refugee. The Tribunal also noted she chose not to give oral evidence or provide more details when asked.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
The applicant's claims are set out in written submissions to the Department and to the Tribunal.
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
On 18 February 1998 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising that it had considered all the papers relating to this application but it was unable to make a favourable decision on that information alone. The applicant was invited to give oral evidence before the Tribunal. On 2 March 1998 the applicant advised the Tribunal in writing that she did not wish to give oral evidence and would like the Tribunal to proceed to make a decision "on the papers" This matter has therefore been determined on the evidence available to the Tribunal. That evidence comprises the Department's and Tribunal's files relating to the application and information which the Tribunal has obtained from independent sources about matters referred to in the application.
The applicant has stated that she is a professional who studied at University. Her family owned and operated a business in Manila which they had been forced to close after the PNP [Philippines National Police] took over. She has claimed that the family was threatened and their business ransacked on two occasions. She has also claimed that "local authorities in Manila had been pounding us with corrupt money every week since the PNP took over", which I have taken to understand that the local police were involved in extortion. The family has since suffered financial hardship.
An article in Asiaweek of 14 November 1997 "Cleaning up the good guys: can Manila rein in corrupt and inept cops?" states that "The PNP is behind half the human rights abuses in the country, according to the Philippines' Commission on Human Rights. In some surveys, the public rates the police as the least-respected institution in the country." This has been acknowledged by the government of the Philippines which has taken steps to remedy the situation. DFAT cable MN9047 of 9/11/95 Philippines: political and economic monthly report - October states "In early October, in an effort to improve the government's handling of the country's high crime rate, President Ramos signed Administrative Order 219 assigning the Presidential Anti-crime Commission (PACC) as the overall coordinator for the various law enforcement agencies including the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). President Ramos also approved the creation of a new PACC Task Force with functions limited to detection, investigation and prosecution of heinous crimes and other cases previously handled by other law-enforcement agencies, but which have not yet made significant progress. The administration hopes the restructuring will improve productivity and accountability within the various law enforcement bodies, and help lower the country's high crime rate."
As the applicant has not availed herself of the opportunity to attend an oral hearing, the Tribunal has before it only the information contained in the written material from which to make a determination.
The applicant has claimed that she and her family were subject to extortion by the PNP, and given the independent evidence cited above the Tribunal accepts that this is plausible. The applicant and her family appear to have been the target of PNP extortion attempts which would not amount to a "well-founded" fear of persecution. In Ram's case Burchett J. said (at 319) that "Plainly, extortionists are not implementing a policy; they are simply extracting money from a suitable victim. Their forays are disinterestedly individual. ...[Mr Ram] does not fear persecution for reasons of membership of a particular social group, but extortion based on a perception of his personal wealth and aimed at him individually. " For the same reasons, on the available evidence, including the limited evidence provided by the applicant, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant experienced anything more than extortion. It is not satisfied that the PNP targeted the applicant for a Convention reason but purely because they wanted money. The Tribunal considers that it cannot be said that any harm faced by the applicant amounts to persecution directed at her for any Convention reason.
I am unable, on the evidence before me, to assess the nature and extent of any harm the applicant suffered in the past or might suffer in the future.
The applicant has been put on notice by the Tribunal that it is unable to make a favourable decision on the information before it but has not provided any further information in support of her claims despite ample opportunity to do so. Nor has she given the Tribunal the opportunity to explore aspects of her claims with her. A number of relevant questions are therefore left unanswered. I am not satisfied, on the evidence before me, that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning of the Convention.
Having considered the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2) of the Act for a protection visa.
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant a protection visa.
This definition has been considered by the High Court in Chan Yee Kin v MIEA [1989] HCA 62; (1989) 169 CLR 379, Applicant A & Anor v MIEA and Anor (1997) 142 ALR 331 at 354 and MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 144 ALR 567 at 575-6, and by the Federal Court in a number of cases, notably Ram v MIEA & Anor [1995] FCA 1333; (1995) 57 FCR 565. These cases have established the following general principles.
(1989) 169 CLR 379
(1997) 142 ALR 331
(1997) 144 ALR 567
(1995) 57 FCR 565
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant a protection visa.