1708631 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa, who claimed to be a national of China and a Christian fearing persecution upon return due to his religious beliefs. The applicant asserted that his friend, also a Christian, had been detained and penalised by Chinese authorities for engaging in underground church activities, and had warned the applicant against returning. The applicant's family had also advised him not to return to China.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, by being a refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa), by facing a real risk of significant harm as a consequence of removal to China. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims in light of the evidence provided and relevant legal principles concerning refugee and complementary protection.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims. Despite being invited to attend a protection visa interview and a scheduled hearing, the applicant did not attend either, nor did he provide any supporting documentation beyond his own assertions. The Tribunal noted that while the onus of proof is not strictly applied in administrative inquiries, applicants must supply sufficient detail to enable the Tribunal to establish relevant facts, and the Tribunal is not obliged to construct the applicant's case. Without the applicant's attendance at a hearing to discuss his claims in detail and test their veracity, the Tribunal could not be satisfied that he was a genuine Christian or that he genuinely feared persecution for that reason. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.