1503329 (Refugee)

The applicant, claiming to be a Chinese citizen, sought review of a delegate's decision to refuse his application for a Protection visa. The applicant had arrived in Australia in November 2007 and subsequently applied for a Protection visa in December 2007, which was refused. A review by the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) affirmed this refusal in April 2008. The applicant remained in Australia and lodged a further protection visa application in December 2013, which was again refused by a delegate in February 2015. This latter decision formed the subject of the current Tribunal review.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal were whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would suffer significant harm if returned to the People's Republic of China (PRC). Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider the applicant's claims of potential harm due to his Catholic religion and a purported property dispute involving neighbours and police collusion. The Tribunal also had to assess the credibility of the applicant's evidence and whether his claims were well-founded.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims regarding religious persecution and a property dispute. It accepted the applicant's father-in-law had recently passed away and his father might be unwell, but found these circumstances did not create a real risk of significant harm upon return to the PRC. Regarding his religious claims, the Tribunal found the applicant's evidence to be vague, evasive, and inconsistent, even during the hearing. The Tribunal formed the impression that the applicant had rehearsed his evidence and was repeating core claims without regard for their truth or supporting evidence. The Tribunal noted that independent country information suggested Fujian Province, where the applicant claimed to be from, had a relatively liberal religious policy, with only occasional crackdowns on house churches and "underground" Catholics, and that the applicant's profile did not suggest he would be targeted for significant harm. The Tribunal rejected the applicant's claim that he would face significant harm for practising Catholicism in China.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.