1706018 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse protection visas to two Chinese nationals. The applicants arrived in Australia in September 2016 using false passports and names, and subsequently applied for protection visas. The Tribunal referred to the first applicant as 'the applicant' and his wife as 'the applicant wife'.

The court was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for the grant of a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This involved assessing whether the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to China, considering the claims they made regarding debt incurred through gambling, harassment by a casino manager, and fear of criminal involvement.

The Tribunal concluded that the decision to refuse the protection visas should be affirmed. This conclusion was based on significant inconsistencies and shifts in the applicants' evidence throughout the process, relating to their claimed employment, gambling activities, debts, and interactions with the casino manager. When confronted with these inconsistencies, the applicants ultimately resiled from their original claims, admitting they had not been persecuted and had not gambled, but still owed a large sum of money. They also revealed a prior refused visa application due to a fake bank account and stated their intention to come to Australia to work. The Tribunal found that the applicants' evidence lacked credibility due to these material inconsistencies and their subsequent admissions, leading to the finding that they did not satisfy the criteria for protection obligations.

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