1616607 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of China. The applicant claimed he would face persecution upon return to China due to his resistance against the forced eviction and demolition of his home by the town government. The applicant's wife and child remained in China.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, which requires a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) for complementary protection, where there is a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia. The Tribunal was also required to consider the applicant's credibility and the plausibility of his claims, taking into account relevant policy guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa. It found the applicant's evidence to be inconsistent and implausible, noting that he had left China on his own passport and that his wife and child remained in China without apparent harm. The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims regarding the dispute over compensation for his home and the alleged threats from government officials, but concluded that these circumstances did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm as contemplated by the Act. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria as a member of the same family unit as a person who met the protection visa criteria.