1600590 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear harm in China due to her religion, the former one-child policy which allegedly led to a forced abortion, and adverse attention from a local security guard leader in Xiamen city. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either under the refugee convention or under complementary protection provisions.

The primary legal issue was whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of her religion, or if she faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to China, as contemplated by section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958. This involved assessing the credibility of her claims regarding religious persecution, the impact of the one-child policy, and the alleged extortion and violence by the security guard leader. The Tribunal also had to consider whether any claimed harm constituted "significant harm" as defined by the Act and whether effective protection measures were available to the applicant in China.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had been given a real opportunity to present her case. However, after considering the evidence and submissions, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was generally credible. This lack of credibility was based on her responses to material questions during the hearing, which were at times evasive and not always meaningful, and this was not attributed to her education level or emotional trauma. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a) of the Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under the complementary protection criterion in section 36(2)(aa) or section 36(2)(c).

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.