1612545 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant, claiming to be a Chinese national and a Christian, alleged persecution due to his participation in underground church meetings. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or alternatively, whether he met the criteria for complementary protection due to a real risk of significant harm if returned to China.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's credibility and the evidence presented. It noted that the applicant failed to attend his scheduled hearing without providing a satisfactory reason, leading the Tribunal to proceed based on the available material. The delegate's decision record indicated inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence, including a lack of basic knowledge about Jesus and an inability to explain his claimed religious practice in Australia despite stating he came to practice his faith. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was a credible witness, a genuine Christian, or that he was of adverse interest to the Chinese authorities, particularly given his ability to depart China legally.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. It found that the applicant had not satisfied the requirements for a well-founded fear of persecution under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, nor had he established that he met the criteria for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion for the grant of a protection visa.