1713688 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of China, sought a protection visa in Australia, claiming he left his home country to avoid harm from a military facility. He alleged that after protesting the inadequate compensation for expropriated land, he was beaten by military personnel and feared arrest and torture if he returned. The dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either as a refugee or through complementary protection.

The court was required to determine if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), or if he was entitled to complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal to China. This involved assessing the credibility of his claims regarding past mistreatment and the likelihood of future persecution or harm.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa. It accepted that the applicant had been detained and beaten by military guards in relation to his land dispute, likely to prevent negative career or status consequences for the facility's head. However, the Tribunal found that the underlying motive for this persecution no longer existed, as the military facility had received its planned upgrade and the head had retired. The applicant's fear of future persecution was deemed speculative and not well-founded. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the refugee criterion. Furthermore, it found no substantial grounds to believe there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal, thus failing to satisfy the complementary protection criterion.