1500501 (Refugee)

The applicant, who arrived in Australia in February 2008, sought a Protection visa after his initial temporary visa was cancelled in July 2009. His application for a Protection visa was lodged in July 2010, refused by the delegate in November 2009, and affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal on 5 May 2010. A subsequent application was made in April 2014, permitted due to Federal Court precedent allowing further applications under the complementary protection criterion if a prior application was refused before its commencement. Consequently, the matter before the Tribunal concerned only the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), as the Refugee Convention aspect had already been determined.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa, specifically under the complementary protection criterion, and the credibility of his claims. The applicant asserted fears of persecution upon return to China due to his pursuit of fair compensation for his demolished home and land, his protests against authorities, and his religious practices. He claimed intimidation and physical harm from authorities, including police, and stated his family had been appealing land resumption decisions since his arrival in Australia.

The Tribunal considered the criteria for a Protection visa as set out in section 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994. It noted that an applicant must satisfy one of the alternative criteria in section 36(2)(a) (Refugee Convention), (aa) (complementary protection), or (b) or (c) (family member). The Tribunal found no suggestion that the applicant satisfied the criteria as a family member of a person holding a Protection visa. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the Act. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.