1702979 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision not to grant him a protection visa. The applicant claimed he was a farmer who had his land lease rescinded by the local government of [Town 1] in China. He alleged that he then engaged in "petitioning" activities against the local and provincial governments, which resulted in his arrest, detention, and threats of death from a relative who had taken over his land. The applicant contended that these events gave rise to a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of imputed political opinion or membership of a particular social group, or alternatively, that he faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to China, thus qualifying for complementary protection.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa as a refugee, or alternatively, on complementary protection grounds. Specifically, the court had to determine if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution due to his alleged political opinion or membership in a particular social group, or if he faced a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia. The court was also required to consider the applicant's credibility and the evidence presented in light of relevant policy guidelines and country information.

The court affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa. The court found that the applicant's claims regarding his "petitioning" activities and the resulting fear of persecution were not credible. The court noted inconsistencies in the applicant's account of his actions and the nature of his alleged persecution. Furthermore, the court considered the provisions for complementary protection, which require substantial grounds for believing that a person faces a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. Based on the evidence and the applicant's lack of credibility, the court concluded that he had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.