1512678 (Refugee)

This matter concerned the review of a decision to refuse a protection visa for a minor applicant, who was born in Australia to Chinese citizen parents. The applicant claimed he could not return to China due to his parents' breach of China's one-child policy, the inability to pay the associated social compensation fee, fears of his parents being forcibly sterilised, his birth out of wedlock, and his family's Christian beliefs. The country of reference was determined to be China.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he qualified as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the Refugees Convention, or alternatively, whether he met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). This involved assessing the applicant's claims of well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and the risk of significant harm upon return to China.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of available country information. It found that the claim regarding forced sterilisation was not supported by country information, which indicated that such measures had been abolished. Regarding the inability to obtain household registration (hukou), the Tribunal noted that recent reforms in Fujian Province meant that payment of the social compensation fee was no longer a prerequisite for registration, and that the applicant, possessing a birth certificate and passport, would likely not face difficulties. The Tribunal also found that being born out of wedlock or the family's Christian beliefs did not establish a real chance of suffering serious harm or significant harm upon return to China.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the refugee criterion, nor the complementary protection criterion. The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the protection visa.