1506071 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection visa by a national of the People's Republic of China. The applicant sought to establish eligibility under the complementary protection provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically section 36(2)(aa), alleging a fear of authorities and harm from individuals to whom he owed money. The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of the applicant's claims and determine whether he met the criteria for complementary protection.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied the requirements of section 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which pertains to complementary protection. This involved determining if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or significant harm, and whether Australia was the only country to which he could seek protection. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's country of nationality, the People's Republic of China, as the receiving country, and whether he had taken all possible steps to avail himself of protection in any other country.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was a national of the People's Republic of China and that it was the relevant receiving country. It noted that there was no evidence suggesting the applicant had a right to enter or reside in a third country, nor that he had failed to take all possible steps to secure such a right. Crucially, the Tribunal did not find the applicant's claims convincing and concluded that he was not a witness of truth, having fabricated or concocted his current claims. The Tribunal observed that the applicant's claims had changed substantially since his original application in May 2010, and while acknowledging that changes can sometimes occur legitimately, it was not satisfied this was the case here. The Tribunal specifically addressed the applicant's original claims regarding a dispute with a contracting company, his inability to pay subcontractors, a protest, and subsequent arrest and prosecution, noting these were not found credible by previous decision-makers but were for the Tribunal to assess anew.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the Act.