1512987 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a single man from Fujian Province, China. The applicant arrived in Australia in May 2008 on a student visa, which expired in March 2011, and he subsequently became an unlawful entrant. He applied for a protection visa in October 2014. The applicant claimed he was a Christian who attended a family church and had faced detention and ill-treatment in China due to his religious activities. He also asserted that his parents had been detained and his father had lost property and his business due to attending a house church. The applicant contended that if returned to China, he would attend a house church and face a risk of serious or significant harm from the authorities.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution or serious harm if returned to China, specifically in relation to his religious beliefs and practices. This involved assessing the credibility of his claims regarding past detentions and ill-treatment, as well as the likelihood of future harm based on the country information provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's significant delay in seeking protection after his visa expired and his cessation of studies.

The Tribunal found the applicant's claims regarding his religious practices and the problems he faced in China to lack credibility. This conclusion was based on several factors, including the applicant's failure to apply for protection for nearly six and a half years after arriving in Australia, and over three years after his visa expired. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely feared serious or significant harm at that time, given his lack of a plausible explanation for this delay and his assertion that he was unaware of the possibility of seeking protection until a friend alerted him, despite attending various Mandarin-speaking churches in Australia since 2008. Furthermore, the Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding his detentions in China to be confused and unconvincing, noting inconsistencies in his accounts of the number and timing of these detentions.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the relevant Act.