1617343 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming he and his wife had breached China's family planning regulations by conceiving a second child. He alleged his wife was forced to undergo an abortion and he was scheduled for sterilisation, and that he would face forced sterilisation if returned to China. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant was entitled to protection as a refugee or on complementary protection grounds.

The court considered whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, or if he met the criteria for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa). The applicant's claims were unsupported by evidence, and he failed to attend the Tribunal hearing, which prevented the court from testing his evidence or hearing his response to potential changes in Chinese family planning regulations. The court emphasised that the onus is on the applicant to establish all statutory elements of their claim, and the Tribunal is not obliged to make or assist in making the applicant's case.

The court found that the applicant had not satisfied the Tribunal that his claims were well-founded or that he faced a real risk of significant harm. His failure to provide evidence and attend the hearing meant his allegations remained unsubstantiated. Furthermore, there was no indication that the applicant qualified for protection as a member of the same family unit as another person who met the protection criteria. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.