1617923 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection visa by a citizen of China. The applicant claimed to have been targeted by authorities for his religious activities as a Christian, specifically as a "Shouter," and asserted fears of harm upon return to China. New claims were also raised during the hearing, including fears of harm from a relative's disgruntled customers, alongside issues of delay in his application and inconsistent evidence, leading to credibility concerns. The case was before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Act, which relates to claims of persecution, or alternatively, the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, which concerns the risk of significant harm upon removal. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims in light of the evidence presented, including country information, and determine if there were substantial grounds for believing he would suffer significant harm if returned to China.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims of religious persecution, including his arrest and detention for participating in and organising unauthorised Christian gatherings, and the alleged mistreatment he suffered. However, the Tribunal found significant credibility issues with the applicant's evidence and noted that the claims raised at the hearing, particularly those concerning harm from a relative's customers, were not substantiated. The Tribunal also took into account the applicant's delay in lodging his application and the inconsistencies in his account. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established that he met the criteria for a Protection visa, either under the refugee or complementary protection provisions.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.