1603594 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of a child, born in Australia to Chinese parents, who sought protection visas. The applicant claimed that if returned to China with his parents, he would face persecution due to his religion and the religious profile of his family. The Tribunal had previously affirmed the Department's decision to refuse protection visas to the parents in 2013.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, which concerns a well-founded fear of persecution. The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), which applies if there are substantial grounds for believing that removal from Australia would result in a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal was required to assess the evidence in light of relevant country information and policy guidelines, and to determine the validity of a non-disclosure certificate that had been placed on the departmental file.

The Tribunal reasoned that a non-disclosure certificate citing only "internal working documents and business affairs" as reasons for withholding information was invalid, following the Federal Court's decision in *MZAFZ v MIBP*. Consequently, the Tribunal treated the information contained within the restricted folios in the ordinary way. The Tribunal considered the applicant's baptism certificate and the broader context of an intensifying crackdown on unregistered religious groups in China, particularly in Fujian province, which has led to increased efforts to prevent children from attending unregistered churches or engaging in religious education. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under section 36(2)(a).

The Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant satisfies section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.