1511984 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by three individuals, identified as the first, second, and third named applicants, who claimed to be citizens of China. The first named applicant alleged he left China due to threats of death from a person he had injured in a road accident years prior, and that this individual, along with their associates, continued to threaten his family and him. The second and third named applicants did not make independent claims but sought to be included as members of the same family unit as the first named applicant. The case was before the Tribunal, which was required to consider the applicants' claims in light of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and relevant Ministerial Directions.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the first named applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) (the refugee criterion) or under section 36(2)(aa) (the complementary protection criterion). Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the first named applicant's removal from Australia to China, he would suffer significant harm. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the second and third named applicants qualified for protection as members of the same family unit as the first named applicant, should he satisfy the relevant criteria.

The Tribunal considered the first named applicant's claims regarding the road accident and subsequent death threats, as well as the alleged lack of protection from Chinese authorities. It also noted the applicants' failure to attend an interview with the Department. In its reasoning, the Tribunal referred to Ministerial Direction No. 56, which mandates consideration of departmental policy guidelines and country information assessments. Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicants would suffer significant harm upon removal to China, and therefore found that they did not satisfy the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). As the first named applicant did not satisfy either the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion, and there was no suggestion that the second and third named applicants qualified as members of the same family unit as a person who did satisfy those criteria, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visas.