1606089 (Refugee)

The applicants, who claim to be citizens of China, sought protection visas after their initial student visa ceased. The primary applicant arrived in Australia in May 2008 and claims to be Catholic. She asserts that she left China due to the persecution of her parents, who were arrested for their religious activities and family planning policies, and that she herself faced ridicule and abuse. She further claims that her passport application was obstructed due to her religion and that she fears mistreatment and loss of religious freedom if returned to China. The second applicant was born in Australia.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) (well-founded fear of persecution) or section 36(2)(aa) (complementary protection criterion, facing a real risk of significant harm upon removal). This required the Tribunal to assess the genuineness of the applicants' claims, the credibility of their evidence, and whether the feared harm amounted to persecution or significant harm as defined by the Act, considering relevant country information.

The Tribunal considered the evidence provided by the applicants, including their statements and the delegate's decision record, alongside independent country information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). The DFAT report indicated that while religious practice in China is possible within state-sanctioned boundaries, restrictions vary by region, and unregistered institutions or public expressions of faith are more vulnerable to adverse official attention. The Tribunal noted that the mere assertion of fear does not establish its genuineness or that it is well-founded, and the onus is on the applicant to provide sufficient evidence. The Tribunal found that the applicants had not satisfied the statutory elements required for a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, finding that they had not established that they are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under either section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).