1611544 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an appeal by three applicants, citizens of China, against the refusal of their applications for protection visas. The applicants claimed to be Roman Catholics who had actively participated in underground church activities, including preaching and distributing religious materials. They asserted that their religious activities and beliefs placed them at risk of serious harm if returned to China.

The primary 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) by having a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) by facing a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia. The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of the applicants' claims regarding their religious practices and the extent to which these practices would expose them to persecution or significant harm in China, considering the country information provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The Tribunal considered the country information which indicated that while China guarantees freedom of religion, unregistered religious organisations, including underground Catholic churches, are illegal and vulnerable to official action. However, the Tribunal found that the applicants' claims of active participation in preaching and distributing materials, particularly after their arrival in Australia, were not sufficiently credible to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal noted that the adverse attention faced by members of unregistered churches in China was often linked to their activism or association with illegal organisations rather than solely their religious faith. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered that the applicants had not demonstrated that they could not relocate within China or obtain protection from authorities, nor that the risks they faced were not general to the population.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicants were persons in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations. The decision of the delegate not to grant the protection visas was affirmed.