1622300 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a national of China. The applicant claimed a well-founded fear of persecution in China due to his religious faith, specifically his family's long-standing adherence to Roman Catholicism and his grandfather's historical involvement in underground Catholic activities, which led to past persecution. The applicant also raised claims of significant harm if returned to China under the complementary protection provisions. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, considering both the refugee convention grounds and the complementary protection framework.

The Tribunal was tasked with assessing whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J of the Act. In addition, the Tribunal had to consider whether, in the absence of meeting the refugee criterion, there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to China, as per the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal was mandated to consider relevant guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. It accepted the applicant's identity and nationality, and that he did not have a right to enter and reside in a third country. While acknowledging the applicant's claims regarding his family's history of religious persecution and his own involvement in religious activities, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that there were no substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would suffer significant harm upon return to China, thereby not meeting the complementary protection criterion.