1708055 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of Ms A and her son, who sought protection visas. The dispute centred on Ms A's claims of conversion to Catholicism in China and her subsequent fear of persecution, which formed the basis of her protection visa application. The Tribunal was required to determine whether Ms A and her son were entitled to Australia's protection as refugees or on complementary protection grounds.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Ms A had established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, as defined by the Migration Act 1958, or if she faced significant harm on complementary protection grounds if returned to China. The Tribunal also had to assess the credibility of Ms A's claims, particularly in light of the delay in lodging her protection visa application and the circumstances surrounding her alleged religious conversion and subsequent activities.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied the principles outlined in Ministerial Direction No 84, the 'Refugee Law Guidelines', and the 'Complementary Protection Guidelines'. It considered the country information provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Tribunal found that Ms A's claims regarding her conversion to Catholicism and her involvement with an "underground" church were not sufficiently credible to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the decision under review, which refused the protection visas, should be affirmed. The Tribunal did, however, refer Ms A's request for ministerial intervention regarding her autistic son to the Minister, noting compassionate circumstances.