1613669 (Refugee)

The applicant, a married man from China, sought a protection visa in Australia. He claimed to have become a practicing Christian in early 2014 and attended underground religious gatherings. He alleged detention, torture, and release due to ill health, after which he went into hiding and subsequently travelled to Australia. The delegate assessing his application found his claims lacked credibility due to vague and unconvincing evidence regarding his religious beliefs, and implausible assertions about his ability to leave China while on temporary release from detention. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as a refugee, or under section 36(2)(aa) as a person facing a real risk of significant harm if returned to China. This required an assessment of the applicant's claims of persecution based on his religious beliefs and the credibility of his evidence.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the 'Refugee Law Guidelines' and 'Complementary Protection Guidelines'. It found the applicant's evidence regarding his religious beliefs to be vague and unconvincing. Furthermore, the Tribunal deemed it implausible that the applicant could have left China legally on his passport while on temporary release from detention, especially given the country information indicating stringent checks at airports. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion for being a refugee. As there was no suggestion that the applicant satisfied the criteria under section 36(2)(b) or (c) as a family member of a protection visa holder, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa.