1609495 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming to fear persecution in China due to her environmental activism. The dispute concerned whether Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant under either the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion. The matter was before the Tribunal for review.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia owed protection obligations under the refugee criterion, which requires a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or under the complementary protection criterion, which requires a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had satisfied the statutory elements for either criterion, considering that the onus was on the applicant to provide sufficient evidence to establish her claim.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not a credible and truthful witness, noting inconsistencies in her evidence. The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims that she had complained about local pollution, leading to harassment, physical assault, detention, and threats to her safety, and that the authorities had not offered protection and assisted businessmen in suppressing dissent. However, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the Tribunal that all statutory elements were made out. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.