1713499 (Refugee)

The applicants, nationals of China, sought protection visas based on claims of persecution due to their practice of Christianity in unregistered "house" churches. They alleged past detention and torture by Chinese authorities and expressed fear of future harm and inability to practice their faith if returned to China. The dispute concerned whether these claims established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason in China. Secondly, if not, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their removal to China, they faced a real risk of suffering significant harm.

The Tribunal found that while the applicants were accepted as Chinese nationals, their claims of persecution lacked credibility. The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in their evidence and a limited understanding of their claimed faith, citing their inability to explain the significance of Christmas or Easter, and their description of their religious beliefs as akin to reading stories. The Tribunal concluded that the applicants did not meet the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the *Migration Act 1958*, nor could they satisfy the family unit criteria under section 36(2)(b) or (c).

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.