1705245 (Refugee)

The applicant, a married woman from China, sought a protection visa for herself and her husband. The dispute arose from her claim that she would face harm upon return to China due to her involvement in protests against inadequate compensation for land resumption in her parents' village. The applicant alleged that she and other villagers had petitioned the government, were ignored, arrested, detained, and subsequently monitored by the police.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved assessing whether she was a refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, or a non-citizen facing a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia. The court also considered the availability of effective protection measures within China and the possibility of internal relocation.

The court reasoned that while protests related to land seizures are common in China, the treatment of individual cases depends heavily on local officials. The applicant's claims of arrest and monitoring were considered, but the court found that she and her husband had not personally lost land, and her parents, who had lost land, were too old to participate in protests. The court was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for political opinion, nor that there was a real risk of significant harm upon return to China, particularly in light of the possibility of internal relocation.

Consequently, the court affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, finding that they did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).