1509129 (Refugee)

The applicant, who was born in Tianjin, China, sought review of a decision not to grant him a protection visa. He had previously applied for a protection visa in 2004, which was refused. His current application was made in February 2014. The applicant provided personal details, discussed his claims for protection through oral evidence at the Tribunal hearing, and submitted a statement with his protection visa application.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Tribunal was required to consider the application of s.48A of the Act, which addresses further protection visa applications made before 28 May 2014, and the implications of previous assessments against the refugee criterion.

The Tribunal reasoned that, in accordance with the principles established in *SZGIZ v MIAC* and *AMA15 v MIBD*, it did not have jurisdiction to consider the applicant's claims under the Refugee Convention criterion (s.36(2)(a)) as these had been previously assessed. Consequently, the Tribunal limited its consideration to the complementary protection criterion (s.36(2)(aa)). The Tribunal found no suggestion that the applicant satisfied the criterion as a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa. Therefore, the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.