1605519 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection visa by a woman from China. The applicant claimed to be a devout underground Catholic who had suffered persecution by the police in China, including illegal incarceration, a hunger strike, forced feeding, sleep deprivation, physical assault, and a significant fine, after attending an underground church meeting. She asserted that she was forced to leave China due to this persecution and that her family had warned her not to return, as she would be arrested. The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was a real chance the applicant would suffer serious harm on return to China due to her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her removal, she faced a real risk of suffering significant harm.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the criteria for a Protection visa, including the complementary protection criterion. It noted that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion under s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958. The Tribunal also examined the definition of "significant harm" under s.36(2A) and the circumstances under which a real risk of such harm would not be taken to exist under s.36(2B). In reaching its decision, the Tribunal applied Ministerial Direction No. 56 and considered relevant policy guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2) of the Act, as there was no suggestion she met the requirements based on family unit membership. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.