1621121 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa, who claimed to fear persecution in China due to his religion as a Roman Catholic. The dispute centred on whether the applicant's claims of religious persecution were credible and well-founded, and if not, whether he faced a real risk of significant harm upon return to China.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary issues: first, whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution in China for one of the reasons specified in section 5J of the Act; and second, if not, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to China, the applicant would suffer significant harm. In making its determination, the Tribunal was mandated to consider relevant Ministerial Directions, Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's credibility and the nature of his religious practice. It found inconsistencies and discrepancies in the applicant's evidence, leading to concerns about his genuine commitment to Roman Catholicism. Specifically, the Tribunal noted the applicant's claims of being baptised twice in China and his decision not to baptise his son, which were viewed as undermining his assertion of being raised as a devout Catholic. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the applicant attended an officially registered Catholic Church in China, even after becoming aware that its bishop was appointed by the Chinese Government rather than the Pope. This willingness to practice within a state-sanctioned institution, governed by the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, led the Tribunal to conclude that the applicant was not involved with the unofficial "underground" Catholic Church and that Chinese authorities would likely have no adverse interest in him upon his return. Consequently, the Tribunal found that any fear of future persecution was not well-founded and that the applicant had not been persecuted in the past for attending an unregistered church.

Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion and did not face a real risk of significant harm upon return to the People's Republic of China. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.