1701166 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the protection visa applications of two applicants from China. The dispute concerned whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, particularly in relation to their claims of persecution based on their status as unmarried parents in China and the circumstances surrounding their children.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the first applicant was a member of a particular social group in China, specifically unmarried parents who had breached family planning policies. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicants' evidence regarding harassment by authorities, the circumstances of their children born in China and Australia, and the financial and social compensation fees associated with their children's registration. The Tribunal also had to consider adverse information presented about the applicants' work history, finances, and the general country information regarding returnees and children born overseas.

The Tribunal found significant inconsistencies and a lack of corroboration in the applicants' evidence. The first applicant provided vague and contradictory testimony regarding his student visa, his study, and his financial situation. His claims about his family background, including his father's mental health and his mother's religious beliefs, were not linked to any protection claims. The Tribunal noted that the first two births in China were registered with full parental details, and the first applicant had travelled on his own passport, suggesting a level of official recognition. The delay in applying for a protection visa and the nature of the evidence presented led the Tribunal to conclude that the applicants' claims were not credible.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicants had not established that they met the criteria for a protection visa.