1611509 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by two applicants from China. The dispute centred on whether the applicants were persons in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations, either under the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion. The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of the applicants' claims of persecution based on their religion, Christianity, and the alleged raid on their family church in China.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or alternatively, whether they faced a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicants' evidence in light of relevant policy guidelines and country information, and to determine if the applicants had discharged their onus of satisfying the statutory elements for protection visas.

The Tribunal found that the applicants were citizens of China and were outside their country of nationality. However, the Tribunal was not satisfied that many of the applicant's claims were credible, noting significant anomalies between written and oral evidence, the addition of new claims, and internal inconsistencies. The Tribunal applied the principles that the mere assertion of fear does not establish its genuineness or well-foundedness, and that the applicant bears the responsibility to provide sufficient evidence to establish their claim. The Tribunal also considered the definition of significant harm and the circumstances under which a person would not be taken to face a real risk of such harm.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas. The Tribunal noted that the second born child was born after the delegate's decision and was therefore not considered a visa applicant for the purposes of the review.