1702411 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of China, sought review of a decision not to grant him a protection visa. The applicant claimed he had been mistreated in China for objecting to the acquisition of his family's land for development, alleging destruction of crops, physical assaults, threats, and detention. The dispute before the Tribunal concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to China.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, as required by section 5J of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm under the complementary protection criterion in section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. A key aspect of the assessment was the applicant's failure to attend the scheduled hearing and provide an explanation, which impacted the availability and reliability of evidence.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the statutory requirements for a protection visa. The applicant's failure to attend the hearing, despite being properly notified, meant the Tribunal had to proceed on the available material. While acknowledging the applicant's claims of mistreatment related to land acquisition and petitioning, the Tribunal found that these claims, as presented without his attendance or further explanation, did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal noted that the onus was on the applicant to supply the relevant facts in sufficient detail, and it was not required to make the applicant's case for him or accept allegations uncritically.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).