1709337 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a protection visa made by two applicants from China. The primary applicant claimed a well-founded fear of persecution in China due to her Christian faith, her association with a local church in Australia, and her status as an unwed mother to an unregistered child. The second applicant, the child, relied on the claims of the first applicant as a member of the same family unit.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Act, specifically whether they had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion or membership of a particular social group, and whether Australia had complementary protection obligations under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal was required to reconsider the application afresh, having regard to the delegate's previous decision to refuse the visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, concluding that the applicants did not face a real chance of persecution upon return to China for reasons of religion, or for being an unwed mother or the parent of an unregistered child. The Tribunal found that while religious observance was historically more freely practised in Fujian province, religious control had incrementally tightened in line with the rest of the country, and that the applicants' claims did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution for these reasons. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that none of the applicants' claims engaged Australia's complementary protection obligations.