1514612 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of China, sought a protection visa. The dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically under s.36(2)(a) or the alternative provisions for complementary protection under s.36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The decision reviewed was that of the delegate who had refused to grant the visa.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had established that he would suffer significant harm if returned to China, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal. This required the Tribunal to assess the applicant's claims regarding land expropriation without adequate compensation, threats and harassment by local officials, and his fear of not being able to find employment upon return. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's credibility and the consistency and coherence of his evidence.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims that his family's farmland had been expropriated with insufficient compensation and that his parents had faced unresolved issues when petitioning the government. The applicant also claimed he would "lose face" if he returned without his wife and feared unemployment due to his extended absence from China. However, the Tribunal found the applicant's evidence to be vague and confused, noting inconsistencies in his account of his marriage date and his failure to adequately explain submitted photographs or provide a translation of a news report. The Tribunal applied the criteria for protection visas and complementary protection as outlined in s.36 of the Act, and considered relevant Ministerial Directions and country information.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the relevant criteria.