1618167 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of China, sought review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs to refuse to grant a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear persecution in China due to the one-child policy, specifically alleging that she had been sterilised and that her child had been denied a *hukou* (household registration) and subjected to a social compensation fee. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason within the meaning of section 5 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This required the Tribunal to assess the applicant's claims regarding the one-child policy, forced sterilisation, and the consequences for her child, and to determine if these constituted persecution or a real chance of persecution. A significant aspect of the determination involved assessing the applicant's credibility.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence contained inconsistencies and lacked sufficient corroboration to establish her claims. Specifically, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had been sterilised or that her child had been denied a *hukou* or subjected to a social compensation fee in a manner that would amount to persecution. The Tribunal applied the principles of assessing credibility and the standard of proof required for protection claims under Australian refugee law, ultimately concluding that the applicant had not discharged her burden of proof.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa.