1621751 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant, who claimed to be an underground Christian from China, alleged he had been unlawfully arrested, imprisoned, and tortured in March 2015 after attending an underground religious meeting. He stated he fled China due to his faith and feared re-incarceration or death if returned. The applicant provided his visa application form, including a statement of his claims, a copy of his passport, and a bridging visa grant notice, but no further evidence to the Tribunal. The delegate had interviewed the applicant, who provided information consistent with his statement.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, which requires the applicant to be a refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution, or under section 36(2)(aa), which requires substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to a receiving country. The Tribunal was also required to consider the definitions of "refugee," "well-founded fear of persecution," and "significant harm" as set out in the Act, and to take into account relevant guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the protection visa. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. While the applicant claimed to be a Christian who attended underground meetings and had been arrested and tortured, the Tribunal noted the lack of corroborating evidence. The Tribunal applied the principles outlined in sections 5H, 5J, 36(2)(a), and 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act, considering the applicant's claims against the evidentiary requirements for establishing a refugee status or complementary protection. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the Act, as there was no suggestion he was a family member of someone who met the criteria.