1618573 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by two applicants, a husband and wife, who were citizens of China. The first applicant alleged that she and her family faced persecution and harassment in China, including threats and violence related to a land dispute, police inaction, and her arrest and detention following a petition to the city government. The second applicant, her spouse, did not make separate claims. The delegate of the Minister had previously found that the first applicant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants met the criteria for the grant of protection visas under section 36(2) of the Act, specifically whether they satisfied the refugee criterion (s.36(2)(a)) or the complementary protection criterion (s.36(2)(aa)). The Tribunal was required to consider the evidence presented by the applicants in light of relevant policy guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal considered the first applicant's claims, which included allegations of threats from a developer, police brutality, harassment, extortion, and her subsequent arrest and detention. The Tribunal noted that the first applicant attended an interview with the Department and reiterated her claims, but the second applicant did not give evidence. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the first applicant did not satisfy the criteria under s.36(2)(a) or (aa). Consequently, as the second applicant's eligibility was dependent on the first applicant's, he also failed to satisfy the criteria under s.36(2)(b) or (c).

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.