1503097 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a woman who claimed she would face harm from neighbours and money lenders upon her return to China. She also relied on claims made in a prior application, alleging persecution by Chinese authorities due to her Christian religion. The delegate was not satisfied with the genuineness of her claims, and the applicant subsequently appeared before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under section 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This involved assessing whether there was a real risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm if returned to China, and whether any such risk fell within the exceptions outlined in section 36(2B) of the Act, which consider the reasonableness of relocation, the availability of protection from authorities, or whether the risk was faced by the general population.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's responses during the hearing were not forthcoming and lacked elaboration. While she initially claimed fear of arrest and detention due to attending an underground church, her description of the activities was vague and could equally apply to non-religious gatherings. She could not recall specific details of past detentions, and her assertion that her parents were still harassed did not establish a personal risk of significant harm to her. Given the lack of credible and detailed evidence supporting her claims, the Tribunal was not satisfied that she met the criteria for a protection visa.