1700991 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of China, sought review of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's decision to refuse his protection visa application. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had established a real risk of significant harm if returned to China, stemming from his involvement in petitioning village officials regarding inadequate compensation for land acquired for a highway project. The Tribunal was required to determine the validity of the applicant's review application and, subsequently, whether he met the criteria for a protection visa, including the complementary protection criterion.

The Tribunal first addressed the validity of the applicant's review application. It found that the Department of Immigration had failed to properly notify the applicant of the refusal decision, as notification was sent by email despite the applicant having provided a change of address and revoked consent for email communication. Consequently, the statutory time limit for lodging a review application had not commenced, and the Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear the matter.

In considering the protection visa claim, the Tribunal noted that the applicant alleged he was persecuted by village officers after reporting their corrupt behaviour concerning land acquisition and compensation for a highway project. He claimed to have been physically assaulted and threatened, and that his wife and parents were also threatened. The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence, including his account of petitioning the Gaocheng Xinfang Bureau and the subsequent threats from the village officer, who had a relative working at the Bureau. The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence, particularly regarding the timeline of the highway construction and his assertion that he would continue to petition for the compensation shortfall if returned to China. The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of the applicant's claims and determine if there was a real risk of significant harm.