1500598 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by a family unit, comprising a father, mother, and their Australian-born child. The applicants, who are citizens of China, claimed they feared persecution upon return to China. The father alleged that his activities in evangelising to his father in China via telephone and internet, and sending religious materials, had come to the attention of the Chinese authorities. He claimed that a raid on his family's home in China had resulted in warnings and threats of arrest for the entire family if he did not cease his activities, leading him to believe he would be persecuted as an activist threatening social order and state security.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants met the criteria for the grant of protection visas under section 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This required the Tribunal to determine if Australia had protection obligations towards the applicants, either under the Refugee Convention (s 36(2)(a)) or complementary protection grounds (s 36(2)(aa)). The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of the applicant's claims and consider independent country information regarding China and Fujian province.

The Tribunal found the applicant to be not a truthful and credible witness regarding his fear of persecution. It considered the applicant's central claim that he would be arrested as an activist for threatening social order and state security to be speculative and implausible. The Tribunal noted that despite the applicant continuing his religious communications with his father and claiming his family was still being monitored, no adverse consequences had befallen his family in China since the alleged raid. Furthermore, the Tribunal reasoned that if the applicant's online activities were of significant concern to the authorities, they could have disrupted his internet connection or suspended his account, as had occurred with other activists, which did not happen. The Tribunal also found it not credible that the authorities would expend resources monitoring the movements of the applicant's family, who were not described as religious activists or attendees of underground churches.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that any of the applicants were persons in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visas, as the applicants did not satisfy the criteria set out in section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Migration Act, nor the consequential criteria in section 36(2)(b) or (c).