1506592 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of two applicants seeking protection visas. The dispute arose from the primary applicant's claim that she left China due to persecution by local government authorities concerning the demolition of her father-in-law's factory and inadequate compensation. The applicants sought protection visas on the basis of a well-founded fear of persecution should they be returned to China.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act), which pertains to the Refugee Convention, or under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, relating to complementary protection. This required the Tribunal to assess the credibility of the applicants' claims regarding past persecution and the risk of future harm if returned to China, taking into account relevant policy guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the protection visas. While acknowledging that the father-in-law's factory was demolished and compensation was paid, the Tribunal found the primary applicant's evidence regarding her detention when attempting to petition the government lacked credibility. The Tribunal also did not accept that the primary applicant was a director in the family business or that the applicants would engage in future petitioning activities. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded there was no real risk or real chance that the applicants would suffer serious or significant harm if returned to China.