1605023 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection visa by a citizen of China, who was the secondary applicant on his wife's original application. The applicant did not make any protection claims in his own right, nor were any made on behalf of their son, who was also included in the family unit application. The applicant's wife subsequently withdrew her application for review before the Tribunal, and the applicant and their son departed Australia. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of a Protection visa, specifically under section 36(2) of the Act. This required determining if the applicant satisfied the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion, either personally or as a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfied those criteria. The Tribunal also considered the relevant policy guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not made any claims for protection to the Department or the Tribunal. While the applicant's wife had initially made claims based on religious persecution, she later stated these claims were fabricated and that she did not fear returning to China. She subsequently withdrew her application for review, and the applicant and their son were included in that withdrawal. The applicant himself gave evidence that he was a Christian, had not suffered harm in China due to his religion, and did not believe there was anyone who would harm him if he returned. He also stated that his wife and children resided in a town he considered safe. Crucially, the Tribunal found no suggestion that the applicant satisfied section 36(2) of the Act, either personally or as a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfied the criteria, given the withdrawal of his wife's application.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa, as he did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the Act.