1702943 (Refugee)

This decision concerns an application for a protection visa by an individual from China. The applicant claimed to have been involved in village elections, refused to withdraw his candidacy when asked by another candidate, and subsequently faced threats and harm to his family. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Cranston J) was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, or membership of a particular social group, if returned to China.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on significant inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence. Specifically, the applicant provided conflicting accounts regarding who won the village election, whether he had already lodged a complaint, and the nature of the harm suffered by his family. While the applicant attempted to explain these discrepancies by referring to cultural differences in the meaning of "threatened" and the simplicity of previous explanations, the Tribunal found these explanations unconvincing, particularly concerning the alleged hospitalization of his father. The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies regarding the applicant's understanding of his initial statement and the role of his lawyer.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had been truthful about the events in China. It did not accept that the applicant was a candidate or winner of the election, nor that he or his family had been threatened, that his child was denied a hukou, that he had petitioned against another candidate, or that he faced restrictions on his movement or employment. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant held political opinions or had a well-founded fear of persecution on any of the grounds prescribed by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The decision under review, which affirmed the refusal of the protection visa, was affirmed.