1513272 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by a person from China. The applicant claimed she feared persecution upon return to China due to her religious beliefs as a practising Christian and member of the Salvation Army, and also due to her daughter being born out of wedlock, which contravened China's family planning rules. The applicant asserted that she would be unable to practice her faith freely, would be forced to join state-sanctioned churches, and that proselytising, a practice she considered central to her faith, was prohibited. She also claimed her daughter would face discrimination in education and other services due to her birth circumstances.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion or membership of a particular social group, and whether she or her daughter faced a real risk of suffering serious or significant harm if returned to China. This involved assessing the extent to which religious practice, specifically that of the Salvation Army and unregistered Christian groups, was restricted in China, and whether the applicant's specific circumstances, including her level of religious engagement and her daughter's birth outside of marriage, would attract adverse attention or harm from Chinese authorities.

The court considered extensive country information regarding religious freedom in China, noting that while registered churches must comply with government oversight and restrictions on proselytising, unregistered "house churches" often operated with a degree of tolerance. The court found that the applicant's claims regarding persecution for her religious beliefs were not substantiated. While accepting the applicant was a genuine member of the Salvation Army, the court found her involvement in proselytising in Australia lacked credibility and concluded she would not engage in such activities upon return. Furthermore, the court found that the applicant's daughter's birth outside of wedlock, while contravening past family planning regulations, would not lead to serious or significant harm, particularly given recent changes to household registration requirements and the discretion afforded to local authorities in imposing social compensation fees.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant or her daughter faced a real chance of suffering serious or significant harm if returned to China. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, finding they did not satisfy the criteria under s.36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), nor the criteria under s.36(2)(b) or (c).