1608026 (Refugee)

This matter concerned applications for protection visas by Applicant A, a man from China, and his child, Applicant B. The applicants claimed they would face serious or significant harm upon return to China due to Applicant A's membership in the True Jesus Church and their breach of China's family planning laws. The case was heard by Roslyn Smidt.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion or membership of a particular social group, and whether they would suffer significant harm if returned to China. This required an assessment of the risks associated with attending unregistered churches in China and the consequences of breaching family planning policies.

The Tribunal considered country information regarding the treatment of Christians and unregistered churches in China, noting that while some unregistered churches faced harassment and detention, the level of risk varied significantly by region and the specific nature of the church. The Tribunal also considered the applicants' migration history, including Applicant A's delay in applying for protection and his obtaining of a new passport in 2012, which suggested he did not fear returning to China at that time. The Tribunal found that the applicants had not established a well-founded fear of persecution, nor a real chance of suffering significant harm, and that effective protection measures were available in China.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, finding that they did not satisfy the criteria under s.36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Migration Act 1958.