1703945 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of China, sought a protection visa. The dispute 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 upon removal to China. The matter was heard by Mr S Norman, a member of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant qualified as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) due to a well-founded fear of persecution, or if he met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) by facing a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims regarding his father's arrest and imprisonment for protesting land disputes, the applicant's subsequent alleged mistreatment and bullying, and his own detention and alleged torture by police after distributing an "anti-government" letter.

The Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed. It found that the applicant's claims were not credible, citing inconsistencies in his evidence. While acknowledging the applicant's citizenship and that China was his receiving country, the Tribunal found no material evidence to suggest he did not have effective protection under sections 36(3)-(5A) of the Act. The Tribunal did not find that the applicant satisfied the refugee criterion in section 36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion in section 36(2)(aa).

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, as he did not satisfy the criteria set out in section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).