1510154 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for a protection visa made by an applicant who feared returning to China. The applicant claimed that his parents had been involved in "economic crimes," borrowing money from banks and loan companies, and that his family had been intimidated by local criminal elements and corrupt government officials. He asserted that his family, including himself, would be harmed if returned to China due to the strong influence of organised crime in his local area.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This involved assessing whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or if he was a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfied the criteria for a protection visa. The Tribunal was also required to consider relevant policy guidelines and country information as mandated by Ministerial Direction No. 56.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the lack of evidence to establish that the applicant himself met the criteria for a protection visa. Specifically, the Tribunal found no suggestion that the applicant satisfied section 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2).

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