1512703 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for protection visas by two minor applicants. The dispute concerned whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, either under the refugee convention or complementary protection grounds. The Tribunal also considered the validity of non-disclosure certificates issued by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants could establish a well-founded fear of persecution or harm, and whether Australia had protection obligations towards them. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicants, as minors born in Australia to Chinese parents, were Chinese nationals, if they could obtain household registration in China, and if their religion (Mormon) or their status as children born out of wedlock would expose them to serious harm. The Tribunal also had to assess the economic burden of a Social Compensation Fee and the impact of a past personal dispute. A preliminary issue involved the validity of non-disclosure certificates issued under section 438 of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the non-disclosure certificates were not valid, referencing the Federal Court's decision in *MZAFZ v MIBP*, which held that citing "internal working documents" was insufficient to justify non-disclosure. The Tribunal determined that the material covered by the certificates was not adverse to the applicants and did not affect its decision. Regarding the applicants' claims, the Tribunal was not satisfied that they were Chinese nationals, that they would be unable to obtain household registration, or that they would face serious harm due to their religion or out-of-wedlock birth. The Tribunal concluded that the economic burden of the Social Compensation Fee and the societal discrimination faced by children born out of wedlock did not amount to serious harm. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no basis for a fear of harm arising from a past personal dispute, given the significant time elapsed since the incident.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that either applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations. Therefore, the applicants did not meet the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or (aa), nor under the complementary protection grounds in section 36(2)(b) or (c). The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visas.