1517548 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a protection visa. The applicant, a citizen of China, claimed to be an underground Falun Gong practitioner who feared persecution if returned to her home country. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, including the complementary protection criterion.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was the applicant's credibility and the veracity of her claims regarding her involvement with Falun Gong and her reasons for leaving China. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm if removed from Australia, as required by section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This involved considering the applicant's evidence in light of country information and relevant policy guidelines.

The Tribunal found significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the applicant's evidence, particularly concerning her place of residence and employment in China prior to her arrival in Australia. The applicant initially stated she had lived at the same address in Hebei Province since birth, but later claimed she had moved to another city to work to avoid trouble. She also provided conflicting information about her employment dates and failed to mention this move in her protection visa application, despite a specific question asking if she had moved to seek safety. The Tribunal concluded that these discrepancies indicated a recent invention and embellishment of her claims, leading to findings that the applicant was not, and had not been, a Falun Gong practitioner or supporter, had not practised Falun Gong in Australia, and had not been involved in any Falun Gong activities. Consequently, the Tribunal found there was no real chance or risk that the applicant would suffer harm upon return to China for the reasons she claimed.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant had not established that she met the criteria for the grant of a protection visa.