1713554 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a protection visa made by the applicant, a national of China. The applicant claimed to be a victim of a stabbing due to his religious beliefs as a Christian. The dispute before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) centred on the applicant's credibility and the veracity of his claims, particularly in light of a delay in applying for protection and evidence suggesting he was not currently a practicing Christian.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) in China. Secondly, if the refugee criterion was not met, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant's removal to China, there was a real risk that he would suffer significant harm, thereby meeting the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal considered the applicant's claims and the evidence presented, including country information regarding China. The applicant had been granted an extension to provide further supporting documents and translations, but failed to do so. Consequently, the Tribunal proceeded to make its decision based on the available evidence. The Tribunal found issues with the vagueness and inconsistency of the applicant's evidence, leading to credibility concerns. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant was not currently a practicing Christian. Applying the principles of refugee law and complementary protection, and having regard to the lack of credible and consistent evidence to support the claims of a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm, the Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.