1712546 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by applicants from China. The applicants alleged a fear of persecution stemming from a business dispute, where a client allegedly failed to pay for renovation work and subsequently sent individuals to intimidate the applicant husband. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants were entitled to protection in Australia as refugees or on complementary protection grounds.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or if there were substantial grounds for believing that their removal from Australia would result in a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal also considered its obligations regarding the presentation of claims and evidence, noting that the onus rests on the applicant to specify and provide sufficient evidence to establish their claim, and that the Tribunal is not required to make or assist in establishing the case.

The Tribunal found that the applicants' claims, as briefly made in their protection visa application, lacked the necessary nexus for refugee status and were entirely unsupported. Crucially, the applicants failed to attend a scheduled oral hearing, despite being properly invited. In the absence of sufficient evidence and the applicants' unavailability to elaborate on their claims, the Tribunal concluded that it was not satisfied that the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution or that there was a real risk of significant harm upon their removal to China. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visas.