1619714 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of China, sought a protection visa, with his de facto partner relying on his claims. The applicant alleged that Chinese authorities seized his land without compensation, leading to his arrest, detention, and interrogation, and that he was deprived of his livelihood and discriminated against. He contended that returning to China would inevitably result in harm and mistreatment due to his continued protests against the land seizure.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This required determining if the applicant was a refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution, or if there were substantial grounds to believe he would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to China. The court also considered the applicant's oral evidence in contrast to his written claims, and the relevance of his migration history, including the delay in lodging his protection visa application after his tourist visa expired.

The court found that the applicant's oral evidence was more persuasive and credible than his written claims, which he admitted were not entirely true, having been drafted by his lawyer. Specifically, the applicant acknowledged that the claims of arrest, detention, and interrogation were inaccurate. Based on the applicant's own oral evidence, the court concluded that he did not have a well-founded fear of persecution. Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant had travelled extensively and resided in other countries, and had obtained his passport through normal procedures, departing China legally. The court was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations towards either applicant.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, as they failed to satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).