1709870 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by two applicants from China. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicants qualified as refugees or, alternatively, whether Australia had protection obligations towards them under the complementary protection criterion. The decision was made by Anne Grant.

The court was required to determine whether the applicants met the definition of a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the relevant Act. If they did not, the court had to consider whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their removal to China, they would face a real risk of suffering significant harm, as per section 36(2)(aa). This involved assessing the credibility of the applicants' claims regarding their religious beliefs and practices, specifically their affiliation with the Local Church, which the applicants contended was designated as a 'xie jiao' organisation by the Chinese government.

The court considered the applicants' claims that their religious activities, particularly their involvement with the Local Church and their desire to preach the gospel, would expose them to persecution in China. The applicants argued that the Chinese government's laws, while appearing general, were selectively enforced against members of unregistered religious organisations like the Local Church. The court also had to assess the applicants' level of knowledge of their faith and the sincerity of their beliefs. The decision under review was ultimately remitted.