1502705 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection visa by a citizen of the People's Republic of China. The applicant claimed he was at risk of harm in China due to complaining to officials about the compensation offered for the forcible expropriation of his family's land. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims against China and determine whether the decision under review, which refused the visa, should be affirmed.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution or significant harm in China, as required for a Protection visa. This involved assessing the applicant's credibility, particularly in light of inconsistencies in his evidence regarding his travel history. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's claims concerning the expropriation of his land and the alleged inadequacy of the compensation offered.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence regarding his past travel was inconsistent and untruthful, which undermined his overall credibility. While the specific details of his travel were not critical to the assessment of his claims about events in China, the lack of candour in his application and subsequent evidence led the Tribunal to doubt the veracity of his account. Applying the principle that an adverse finding on a material claim cannot be made with confidence without proceeding to assess the claim on the basis that it might possibly be true, the Tribunal nonetheless concluded that the inconsistencies significantly impacted the applicant's credibility. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.