1705756 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by two Chinese nationals, Ms A and Mr A. The applicants claimed they had experienced severe discrimination and unfair treatment by Chinese authorities after their factory was dismantled against their will and without reasonable compensation. They sought to avoid returning to China due to fear of further repercussions.

The court was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Specifically, the court had to consider whether the applicants were refugees within the meaning of section 5H of the Act, or whether they faced a real risk of suffering significant harm as contemplated by section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, which constitutes the complementary protection criterion. The court also had to consider the relevant guidelines and country information as mandated by Ministerial Direction No. 84.

The court considered the applicants' written statement detailing the dismantling of their factory, the inadequate compensation offered, and their unsuccessful attempts to seek redress from higher government authorities. The court noted that the applicants did not satisfy the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a). Furthermore, the court found that the applicants did not satisfy the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), as there was no suggestion that they were members of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa under either section 36(2)(a) or (aa).

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.