1714329 (Refugee)

1714329 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 3825 (26 July 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1714329
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   China
MEMBER:Peter Booth
DATE:26 July 2021
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 26 July 2021 at 8:46am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – Falun Gong – unresponsive to the question – vague, imprecise or discursive – failure to refer to corroborative witnesses and documents – delay in seeking protection – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36, 65, 91R, 91S
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
Appellant S395/2002 v MIMA (2003) 216 CLR 473
Applicant A v MIEA (1997) 190 CLR 225
Applicant S v MIMA (2004) 217 CLR 387
Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379
Chen Shi Hai v MIMA (2000) 201 CLR 293
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
MIMA v Haji Ibrahim (2000) 204 CLR 1
MIMA v Khawar (2002) 210 CLR 1
MIMA v Respondents S152/2003 (2004) 222 CLR 1
Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
Selvadurai v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 34 ALD 347
SZATV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 18
SZFDV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 51
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of China, applied for the visa on 18 September 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa on 23 June 2017.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 21 April 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from several witnesses. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review by her registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
RELEVANT LAW
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, the applicant is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Refugee criterion
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).
Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
The High Court has considered the Convention definition of refugee in a number of cases, notably Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379, Applicant A v MIEA (1997) 190 CLR 225, MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559, Chen Shi Hai v MIMA (2000) 201 CLR 293, MIMA v Haji Ibrahim (2000) 204 CLR 1, MIMA v Khawar (2002) 210 CLR 1, MIMA v Respondents S152/2003 (2004) 222 CLR 1, Applicant S v MIMA (2004) 217 CLR 387, Appellant S395/2002 v MIMA (2003) 216 CLR 473, SZATV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 18 and SZFDV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 51.
Sections 91R and 91S of the Act qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the Regulations to a particular person.
There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.
Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s.91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve ‘serious harm’ to the applicant (s.91R(1)(b)), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s.91R(1)(c)). Examples of ‘serious harm’ are set out in s.91R(2) of the Act.
Section 91R(2) provides that the following are instances of serious harm: (a) a threat to the person’s life or liberty; (b) significant physical harassment of the person; (c) significant physical ill-treatment of the person; (d) significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist; (e) denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist; (f) denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.
Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors.
Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition – race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase ‘for reasons of’ serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s.91R(1)(a) of the Act.
The meaning of the expression ‘for reasons of ... membership of a particular social group’ was considered by the High Court in Applicant A’s case and also in Applicant S. In Applicant S, Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Kirby JJ gave the following summary of principles for the determination of whether a group falls within the definition of particular social group at [36]:
… First, the group must be identifiable by a characteristic or attribute common to all members of the group. Secondly, the characteristic or attribute common to all members of the group cannot be the shared fear of persecution. Thirdly, the possession of that characteristic or attribute must distinguish the group from society at large. Borrowing the language of Dawson J in Applicant A, a group that fulfils the first two propositions, but not the third, is merely a "social group" and not a "particular social group". …
Whether a supposed group is a ‘particular social group’ in a society will depend upon all of the evidence including relevant information regarding legal, social, cultural and religious norms in the country. However, it is not sufficient that a person be a member of a particular social group and also have a well-founded fear of persecution. The persecution must be for reasons of the person’s membership of the particular social group.
It is well established that a family is capable of constituting a particular social group within the meaning of the Convention. However, this is subject to s.91S of the Act, which provides that the following matters must be disregarded in determining whether a person has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of membership of a particular social group that consists of the person’s family:
(a)any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other family member has experienced, where the fear or persecution is not for one of the Convention reasons; and
(b)any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that the applicant or any other family member has experienced, where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in (a) above had never existed.
Therefore, a person who is pursued only because he or she is a relative of a person targeted for a non-Convention reason will not have a well-founded fear of persecution under Australian law.
Fourth, an applicant’s fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a ‘well-founded’ fear. This adds an objective requirement to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution under the Convention if they have genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted for a Convention stipulated reason. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.
In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. The expression ‘the protection of that country’ in the second limb of Article 1A(2) is concerned with external or diplomatic protection extended to citizens abroad. Internal protection is nevertheless relevant to the first limb of the definition, in particular to whether a fear is well-founded and whether the conduct giving rise to the fear is persecution.
Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.
The focus of the Convention definition is not upon the protection that the country of nationality might be able to provide in some particular region, but upon a more general notion of protection by that country: Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 per Black CJ at 440-1. Depending upon the circumstances of the particular case, it may be reasonable for a person to relocate in the country of nationality or former habitual residence to a region where, objectively, there is no appreciable risk of the occurrence of the feared persecution. Thus, a person will be excluded from refugee status if under all the circumstances it would be reasonable, in the sense of ‘practicable’, to expect him or her to seek refuge in another part of the same country. What is ‘reasonable’ in this sense must depend upon the particular circumstances of the applicant and the impact upon that person of relocation within his or her country. However, whether relocation is reasonable is not to be judged by considering whether the quality of life in the place of relocation meets the basic norms of civil, political and socio-economic rights. The Convention is concerned with persecution in the defined sense, and not with living conditions in a broader sense: SZATV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 18 and SZFDV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 51, per Gummow, Hayne & Crennan JJ, Callinan J agreeing.
Harm from non-state agents may amount to persecution for a Convention reason if the motivation of the non-State actors is Convention-related, and the State is unable to provide adequate protection against the harm. Where the State is complicit in the sense that it encourages, condones or tolerates the harm, the attitude of the State is consistent with the possibility that there is persecution: MIMA v Respondents S152/2003 (2004) 222 CLR 1, per Gleeson CJ, Hayne and Heydon JJ, at [23]. Where the State is willing but not able to provide protection, the fact that the authorities, including the police, and the courts, may not be able to provide an assurance of safety, so as to remove any reasonable basis for fear, does not justify an unwillingness to seek their protection: MIMA v Respondents S152/2003 (2004) 222 CLR 1, per Gleeson CJ, Hayne and Heydon JJ, at [28]. In such cases, a person will not be a victim of persecution, unless it is concluded that the government would not or could not provide citizens in the position of the person with the level of protection which they were entitled to expect according to international standards: MIMA v Respondents S152/2003 (2004) 222 CLR 1, per Gleeson CJ, Hayne and Heydon JJ, at [29]. Harm from non-State actors which is not motivated by a Convention reason may also amount to persecution for a Convention reason if the protection of the State is withheld or denied for a Convention reason.
It is generally accepted that a person can acquire refugee status sur place where he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution as a consequence of events that have happened since he or she left his or her country. However this is subject to s.91R(3) of the Act, which provides that any conduct engaged in by the applicant in Australia must be disregarded in determining whether he or she has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for one or more of the Convention reasons, unless the applicant satisfies the decision maker that he or she engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening his or her claim to be a refugee within the meaning of the Convention.
Complementary protection criterion
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’).
‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s.36(2A): s.5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s.5(1) of the Act.
There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s.36(2B) of the Act.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs (the Department), and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the criteria set out in either s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa). For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
The facts are taken from the applicant’s protection visa application as follows:
Identity and country of reference
a)The applicant is a [age]-year old female, born [date] in Shanghai, China. The applicant has declared her relationship status as “never married or been in a de facto relationship.”
b)The applicant can speak, read and write both Mandarin and English.
c)The first applicant did not state which ethnic group she belongs to and declared that she is of Falun Gong faith.
d)The applicant claims to have Chinese citizenship by birth and a copy of her passport, held upon the Department file, confirms that she is a citizen of China.[1]
e)The applicant recorded former employment in Australia in her Protection visa application, including as an [Occupation 1], and listed education in Australia including a [Qualification 1] from [University 1].
[1] Passport, Department file [number] at folio 21
In summary, the applicant claimed that she left China because she fears persecution by the Chinese communist regime and the police due to being a Falun Gong practitioner.
Migration history[2]
a)The applicant first arrived in Australia [in] July 2002 on a [Tourist Visa]. The applicant was subsequently in Australia as the holder of a [Student Visa] between 2002 to 2011.
b)The applicant also held a [Temporary Skilled Visa] which was granted on 23 May 2012 and ceased on 23 November 2013.
c)The applicant departed Australia on the [Temporary Skilled Visa] [in] November 2013 and later returned as the holder of a [Visitor Visa] [in] April 2014, further to departure [in] June 2014 before returning again as the holder of a [Visitor] visa [later in] June 2014 (valid for stay until 20 September 2014).
d)The applicant applied for a XA-866 Protection visa on 18 September 2014.
CLAIMS
[2] Movement Record as at 25 February 2021, Tribunal File, Doc ID [number]
866 visa application
A Department interview was conducted on 7 December 2016. The applicant’s claims for protection are contained in her protection visa application as follows:
I am seeking protection in Australia so that I do not have to return to:
CHINA
Why did you leave that country?
I am a Falun Dafa practitioner, however Fa Lun Gong is forbidden in China. It has been 15 years since the government of China persecuting Falun Gong practitioners. I was one of the victim. I was threatened by the agents from Ministry of State Security of China, they threatened by life, my parents’ life, even my grandparents and my aunt who are practising Falun Gong in Australia. Their inhuman action forced me to escape from my country and my family.
Have you experienced harm in that country?
Applicant selected ‘yes’.
Give details
When the agents from the MSS were interrogating me, I was suffering under extreme fear and desperation. The psychological torture is much crueller than physical suffering. They even depraved our whole family’s privacy, we were under 24-hour survillence, including monitoring phone calls, letters, my communication was. If I didn’t cooperation with them, I would be in prison and my father would lose their job.
What do you fear may happen to you if you go back to that country?
If I go back to China, I would imprisoned immediately as I would not give up my believe that being a Fa lun Dafa practitioner. There is no doubt that I would be tortured with various methods. There’re millions of practioners died as a result of suffering inhuman interrogation at the detention centre. Moreover, mounting evidence tells a terrible tale of murder and mutilation in Chin. Reports from witness and Chinese physicians reveal that thousands of Falun Gong practitioners have been killed for their organs, which are sold and transplanted at enormous profit in the transplate trade. I deeply believe any of these inhuman punishments might happen on me.
Who do you think may harm/mistreat you if you go back?
The Ministry of State Security of China Local Police Officer and Media.
Why do you think this will happen to you if you go back?
For three years prior to the official launch of the nationwide persecutions in July 1999, practioners were under increasingly intense government oppression. As early as 1996, Falun Gong books were banned from publication, and the first article criticizing Falun Gong was published in a major state-run newspaper. By 1998 and 1999, the police were disrupting group exercise sessions in parks. Propaganda attacks smearing Falun Gong in the state-run media increased. Following a series of events in April 1999 in which the police wrongly arrested and beat practioners in Tianjian. On July 20 1999, the police conducted sweeping arrests of coordinators of Falun Gong exercise site. On July 22 an all-out media blitz was launched against Falun Gong and the practice was officially declared banned. Since that time, the persecution has continued unabated, regardless of the fact that no actual law exists that establishes the ban or allows the persecutions.
Do you think the authorities of that country can and will protect you if you go back?
Applicant selected ‘no’.
Why not?
Absolutely not. It is the authorities of China who spearheaded the persecution of Falun Gong. And former President Jiang Zemin established the 610 office, a nationwide police agency with special authority over all local law enforcement bodies, governments and the courts, just like the two agents who interrogated me, they’re the one who has persecuted Falun Gong for the last 15 years.
EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
The Tribunal

The applicant’s representative provided the following materials to the Tribunal:
a)Undated statement of [Mr A], [position], The Epoch Times stating the applicant worked as a [Position 1] for the Melbourne newspaper between 2017 and 2018.
b)Undated statement of [Ms B], regarding the applicant’s participation in Falun Gong and the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China.
c)Statement of [Ms C], dated 13 April 2021, in support of the applicant’s work at Epoch Times.
d)Transcripts claimed to have been completed by the applicant at Epoch Times. Each transcript is an interview of a person following a dance [performance]:
e)Undated letter of [Mr D], regarding the applicant’s participation in Falun Gong.
f)Certified copy of a business card of [the applicant], [Position 2], Epoch Times.
g)Certified copy of a card for the [specified year] Australian Falun Dafa Cultivation Experience Sharing Conference, held on [date], 9am–5pm, [location].
h)Photographs apparently of the applicant attending Falun Dafa events in Australia.
i)Article published Minghui.org on 13 and 14 June 2005 titled ‘The Epoch Times: Exclusive Interview with Chinese Diplomatic Defector Chen Yonglin (Photo)’.
j)Article published on clearwisdom.net, on 28 July 2005 titled ‘Chen Yonglin Exposes Harrassments of Falun Gong Practitioners Backed by Evidence (Photos)’.
k)Article published on clearwisdom.net dated 26 July 2005 titled ‘Chen Yonglin Claims Chinese Diplomats to U.S. Persecute Falun Gong Practitioners’.
l)Article published on clearwisdom.net dated 24 June 2005 titled ‘Chen Yonglin: The Chinese Communist Party Believes the Australian Government Can Be Bought (Photo)’.
m)Research Report from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada dated 19 October 2016, titled ‘China: Monitoring of Chinese citizens who practice Falun Gong (Falun Dafa) outside of China; consequences upon return to China (2013-September 2016).
The Department
The applicant provided the following materials to the Department:
a)Untranslated news article ‘15 years persecuting Falun Dafa Protest – Melbourne’ from (folios 33-37), accompanied by photographs (folios 31-32)
b)Certified Translation of Shandong Provincial Public Security Bureau relating to a crackdown deployment of the ‘harsh crackdown on criminal activities of underground cults, jasmine action groups and remnants of Falun Gong’ issued 04/01/2013 (folios 40-41)
c)Signed statement from the applicant dated 27 November 2014 with paragraph numbers in English in the following terms (page numbers omitted):
l,My name is [the applicant], I was born on [date]. I joined Youth communist in 2004, and quit the organisation in 2007 on [named] website using my real name.
2, It has been 10 years that Chinese government protest Falun DaFa, my elderly grandparents ([Mr E] and [Ms F]) are forced to leave their birth place, Shanghai, where they were harassed and protested by Chinese government as they are falun gong practitioner. Four years ago, my grandparents they finally granted the protection visa, received protection from Australian government. My aunt, [Ms G], has been practicing Falun DaFa in Australia for 10 years, however, she is on the black list of the Chinese government , therefore she could n't go back to China, even to visit her own parents.
3,The Chinese government has been continuously persecuted Falun Gong practitioner since the official launch of the nationwide persecution 15 years ago. There are many accounts of persecution including threatening, torture, imprisonment & forced labor, and even organ harvesting. Therefore, I am seeking protection from Australian government, to save me from the life threatening persecution.
4, Thanks to my aunt, I could obtained Fa as she is the one who actually propagated DaFa to our whole family. My Aunt came to Australia in 1987, and began practicing Fa since 1998. I came to Australia for studying in July 2005, while I was in high school, I lived with my Aunt. She always told me how wonderful Falun DaFa is and how she walked in to Fa. My aunt used to suffered illness from diabetes ,stomach ulcer, depression, chronic insomnia. She has never stopped going to hospital for almost ten years, howeve r, after she has practiced Fa, all her illness disappeared. She was thrilled to tell my grandparents and asked them to practice Fa as well. Later on, my grandparents started practicing Fa, my grand father's white hair turned black, and his high blood pressure and gout diseases has been miraculously cured . Since then they have never taken any medication. At that time, I was still young, and I haven't walked into DaFa because I couldn't understand what Falun Gong is . I just have a feeling that this is a powerful therapy which can help people, however, I was totally wrong. DaFa is way more than anything. It is a universe law. My aunt told me that eventually you will be brought in to Fa by Master but not now.
5, After a few years, just like my aunt said, I do walked in DaFa. In April 2013, my health condition was pretty bad as I had two part time jobs when I was in university, so I couldn't eat well and rest well as the work load and cour se load. When I took the medical examination, the doctor said my physical condition was like some people who is 50 years old, and I also diagnosed having hypothyroidism and migraine therefore I could easily get sick as my immune system was not strong enough. Sometimes when I had severe headache, it would come up with vomit in g, I felt like this is the end of the world. I couldn't get off the bed when I opened my eyes, I saw everything spinning. My aunt saw me like this, she brought the Zhuan Fa Lun and audio records. She said this was the only thing that can help me. So since then I started practicing Falun Gong. When I felt better I started reading the book, after I read two pages, I felt relaxed and lightened up. Not for a while I started having diarrhea, my aunt told me that this is good as Master has cleansed you body, this is the basic requirements of the Fa, the body should be purified first, any evil dark attachments should be vanished from your body and your mind. I believed even when I felt headache I still tried to read the book. I thought that as long as I cultivated diligently and conformed to the requirements of the Fa, the interference would vanish immediately and my body should recover right away. After I finished the book I felt my body was brand new and so energetic. All my friends said I look brightened and glowing.
6, I kept studying Fa and practicing Fa, every week I attended to group seminar with other DaFa practitioners to study Fa, exchanging our ideas and what we have received from Fa. During that period of time I truly felt Master was with me. I kept telling myself I am a DaFa practition er I should consider everything from "Truthfulness, Benevolence and Tolerance". Master had taken away the real karma from other dimensions, and only left a small surface fraction for me to endure. When I studied the Fa I often saw direct hints of the notions and attachments I should eliminate, such as pursuit, thinking I could control the outcome, the attachment to good looks and my reputation, etc... I found a new attachment almost every day and let go of it. As I identified more and more attachments and rejected them with righteous thoughts, the bad substances were eliminated layer by layer.
7, After seven months which was November 2013, I came back to China to visit my parents, during the visiting period I was luckily obtained a decent job (employment agreement is attached) and I believed that Master helped me and I felt grateful to Master. Therefore I thought I should do what I could to tell more people about DaFa, to help Master saving more people. By doing that, I started from my friends. February 2014, I attended a high -school mates party, I saw a lot of friends there. I was happy to see them. When I started talking my experience from practicing Falun Gong, all my friends became very quiet and uncomfortable and one of them left the party and the others were so surprised when I brought up DaFa, they couldn't understand me and even mocked on me. I didn't feel embarrassed or angry. I just had sympathy for them as they don't know the truth of Falun Gong. All the information regarding with Falun Gong was banned in China, from media to internet. They had no idea that how cruelty that Chinese Community Party are in persecuting Falun Gong practitioner. I also brought some material s, CDs and " Nine Commentaries" to clarify the truth, I also showed them how to use the softwares to jailbreak the firewalls to visit Epochtime (the major website of Fa Lun Gong) website. I believed that when they finish reading this materials they would change their attitudes towards DaFa.
8, [Later in] February 2014, one week after the party, I went home after work as usual, two strangers approached me stating that they are secret agents from Ministry of State Security of the People's Republic of China, they also showed me their badges. They said they want to talk to me. I have no idea why the agents want to talk to me. When I asked them they just said you have to go with us, I kept rejecting them and I felt scare. They saw me not corporating with them, the middle aged agent started threatening me,' If you are not coming with us now, we will come to your company tomorrow. I don't think it's good for you if your manager or colla ges see us to take you.' I had no choice, I just got this job and I didn 't want to lose it. So I went with them but with only one condition that I choose the place where they want to talk with me. So I chose a coffee shop near my working pl ace th at I felt safe.
9, After we arrived at coffee shop, they started asking me whether I was practicing Falun Gong, the middle aged agent said it is illegal in China, 'we could arrest you immediately, and you even spread material s to you friends.' Apparently, they have investigated me, I was stunned when they told me about all these. They stated that they would continue tracking and monitoring me. I felt extreme fear and tried to calm down and said, 'Falun Gong is good, it emphasises cultiv ation.'Suddenly, the younger officer yelled at me , 'Falun Gong is illegal in China, CCP banned it, how dare you spread the materials to your friends? Have you forgotten that we talked to your father a few years ago regarding with your aunt, your father is a [Occupation 2] as well, if you continued practicing Falun Gong, he will lose his job and you will be regretted.' the other officer continued, if I wanted to keep my parents safe, I should persuade my aunt to come back to China, and ask my grandparents stop practicing Falun Gong, they would stop harassin g me and my parents. I felt so sad and started sobbing, if my aunt comes back to China, she would be illegally detained and tortured. I wouldn't compromised with them. I started meditation, to fought with evil. I remembered Master said when you encounter evil, you should meditation to defeat evil. The two agents saw me keeping silence, they said, ' You can consider about this but you are not allowed to send any materials to others, we have already monitored all your communication ways including phone calls and mails.' After they left I couldn't stand up. I felt so sad and worried about my family.
10, When I came back to home, my parents noticed that I was not well. I told them everything, my father was shocked and heartbroken, he told me to leave as soon as possible if I still stayed here I would be locked up. He also told me that they came after him when they found my aunt practicing Falun Gong a few years ago, not mentioned my grandparents , and my uncle is still missing. If l still stayed in China, I would end up like my uncle, even worse. I was still here because they want to use me to get my aunt back. My father cried, I am the only child he has, he didn't want anything bad happened on me.
11, I couldn't sleep on that night, Falun Gong is such a miracle thing, it changes a lot of people's lives, Falun Dafa is the Buddha's Law and Falun Gong practitioners are cultivators who practice Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance.I would never give up such a good thing. I shouldn't feel fear, we're protected when we truly believe in Master, he would help me to de feat evil.
12, [In] April I arrived in Australia, and I am seeking protection from Australian government to save me from life threatening persecution. CCP has tortured me by threatening me and my family, the psychological fear and pressure pushed my edge to madness, if I don't practice Falun Gong , I could not bear these extreme emotional abuse at all. CCP are good at manipulating people and taking advantage of people's weakness. I am forced to give up my career, leave the country where I was born and I even couldn't go back to see my own parents.Therefore, I am asking the immigration officer to consider my situation, to allow me to embrace and respect my belief. Australia gives me freedom to practice Falun Gong freely, now I could study Fa with fellow practitioners through Sonant every mo rning, clarify the facts to the people who deceived by CCP's lies at [location] once a week and I also joined [a specified] Orchestra. I will continue to protest CCP persecuting Falun Gong practitioners.Thank you!
Best Regards,
[the applicant]
d)Epoch Times ‘[the applicant]’ [Position 2] Business Card and two undated photographs (folios 62-64).
e)Statutory Declaration from [Ms H], [position] of Epoch Times Chinese Weekly newspaper dated 10 November 2009 (folio 65) regarding the applicant’s aunt – [Ms G] - as follows:
I am an Australian citizen. I started practicing Falun Gong in the end of 1996. I have been working as [position] for Epoch Times Chinese weekly newspaper in Melbourne and [position] for Epoch Times news site ( since 2003.
In 6^th February 2004, I received request from my fellow practitioner [Ms G] ([address]) that if one article written by her could be posted on website. I read and edited the article, and then published under [specified column]. (Printing copy attached.)
I got to know [Ms G] since 1999, shortly after [Ms G] starting practicing Falun Gong. Because of living in same area at that time, we became close friends since then.
I heard of the story of her family suffering severe prosecution in China due to practicing Falun Gong, as a result her husband which doesn't practise did not allow [Ms G] to take part in activities of Falun Gong in Australia at that time.
I agreed with [Ms G] that an article published in The Epoch Times web site could expose the evil and release the pressure of her family in China. So I helped [Ms G] with posting the article.
[Ms G] has been working for Epoch Times as [position] since 2003.
f)Letter from [Mr A], [position] at Epoch Times, Melbourne dated 14 November 2009 (folios 65-67) regarding the applicant’s aunt – [Ms G] – as follows:
Dear Immigration Officer,
Re: [Mr E] Client ID [number] File Number: [number]
This is to certify that [Ms G], female, has been working for the Melbourne Chinese Epoch Times Weekly newspaper as a [position] since 2003. She is responsible for [specified duties redacted].
She and her parents also personally distribute Epoch Times papers in her area ([Suburb 1]).
As is known, Chinese Epoch Times newspaper is an independent paper free of any influence from the Chinese Communist regime and aims to inform readers of true information. It often contains articles that expose corruption, abuse of human rights, and persecution of various religious groups for their faith including Christians, Buddhists and Falun Gong practitioners.
Sometimes, pro-CCP (Chinese Communist Party) members steal papers from our distribution site. To avoid this, [Ms G] has coordinated some people to hand distribute the papers in some areas such as [locations redacted], etc.
She also takes care of distribution of the papers to SA, WA and TAS as well as making sure that papers are sent to same individuals who have booked the paper for a year.
She is the contact person to liaise with [a third party business].
The Chinese Epoch Times is a free paper and all workers are volunteers, therefore, [Ms G] has never been paid for anything since 2002. She has to pay for her own petrol over the years for what she has been doing.
[Ms G] has been a contact person for her local Falun Dafa practice site. Her phone number is placed on [a named] website as contact person for her local area (please refer to the attachment).
She is also coordinating flyer distribution of Falun Gong materials at [location] and go there twice a week her self
Being a mother of two, she has to do a lot of house work as well and look after her children.
She and her parents have been attending our Friday night group reading of Falun Gong books together.
The fact that she has been able to do so much for the sake of others over the years as a humble volunteer, responsible and consistent, is itself a manifestation of her faith in Falun Gong teachings and her practice in life proves just that.
Yours Sincerely,
[Mr A]
g)Letter from [Mr H], [office bearer] of The Falun Dafa Association of Victoria Inc, dated 24 May 2009 (folio 68) in support of the applicant’s grandfather [Mr E] as follows:
Dear Sir/Madam,
The Falun Dafa Association of Victoria Inc. is pleased to support the application for a protection visa of [Mr E].
One of [Mr E]'s daughter's, [Ms G] has been a prominent member of the Falun Gong community in Melbourne for many years, and it was actually she who introduced Falun Gong to her father and mother.
[Mr E] began practising Falun Gong in February 1999 about five months before the start of the persecution. Despite the fact that he was a career police officer he refused to obey the directive to cease practising Falun Gong when the ban came into effect. The Communist Party was especially hard on members of the armed forces and police who were discovered to be Falun Gong practitioners or sympathetic to Falun Gong and [Mr E] was severely reprimanded. He was constantly monitored and eventually forced to write a 'guarantee' statement.
His nephew was a Falun Gong coordinator and active in distributing information about Falun Gong and was therefore seen by the authorities as a "leader". The security forces would also consider anyone in public service, such as a member of the police force, as being someone able to influence others and therefore also in the "leadership” category. Of course everybody and nobody is a "leader in Falun Gong - there are no recognised leaders - but what is important is how the security forces see the situation.
[Mr E] was earmarked for re-education (brainwashing) classes which are well known to involve sever psychological and physical mistreatment amounting to torture. It was this that made him try again to leave the country.
If [Mr E] returns home again in the current climate, particularly after having been in contact with the Falun Gong community here, he would be a prime candidate for detention and interrogation and to be sent for "reeducation through labour". The defectors in Australia, Chen Yonglin and Hao Fengjun, have indicated that Chinese Communist Party informers routinely send information back to the Public Security Bureau outlining Chinese visitors' activities in Australia, and this is likely to be the case with [Mr E]. It goes without saying that in [Mr E]'s case there is absolutely no doubt about him being already well known to the authorities.
[Mr E] is now attending study groups and exercise practice sites, rallies and other Falun gong activities in
Melbourne, and it is our opinion that he is thoroughly deserving of protection. It is our belief that [Mr E] has a well-founded fear of persecution should he be forced to return to China, and we therefore urge the Department to act in his favour.
Yours faithfully
[Mr H]. PhD, ([office bearer])
h)Statutory Declaration from the applicant’s aunt, [Ms G], dated 26 February 2015 (folios 69-72) as follows (page numbers omitted):
I, [Ms G] of [address] in the State of Victoria , do solenmly and sincerely declare as follows:
1, I was born on [date] and I am the aunt of [the applicant]. I came to Australia in 1987 from Shanghai, China and became a citizen later on. In February 1999, I was fortunate enough to start practicing Falun Gong. After practicing Falun Gong for some time, the symptoms of my bodily pains, insonmia and diabetes disappeared gradually.
2, I used to see doctors very often, and had all sorts of physical examinations and took various medicines but I still felt the pain all over my body. After practicing Falun Gong, I began to realise that the karma from one's past was the cause of the diseases of one's present life. As one practices the exercises and improves one's moral values, the karma is being eliminated and so are the diseases. As a result, I didn't have to see any doctor and barely used my Medicare card in the past ten years after I started practicing Falun Gong.
3, In china, many people have benefited from practicing Falun Gong and they told their relatives and friends about it. That was how Falun Gong became very popular in China. The number of practitioners grew to 100 million from 1992 to 1999. However , the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) viewed Falun Gong as a potential threat to its power and banned it in July 1999. after 10 years of persistent and brutal persecution of Falun Gong in China, Falun Gong is now practiced and widely accepted in 114 countries. In this respect, the CCP has, in effect, 'helped' to spread Falun Gong around the world.
4, In October 1999, I invited my parents to come to Melbourne and they started their practice of Falun Gong here. In 2005, I introduced Fa to my niece, [the applicant], until 2013, she started practicing Falun Gong. We always gathered together to practice the exercises and read the Falun Gong text books everyday. On weekends I took her to [location] to do the exercises. My niece took part in group exercises and parade in Melbourne during her stay in Australia.
5, During the 10 years of senseless persecution of Falun Gong by the CCP, my parents' home phone was tapped by the local police and al the mails I sent them couldn't reach them. My niece has been threatened by the secret agent from Ministry of State Security of the People' s Republic of China, therefore she has to give up a decent job in Shanghai. Whenever I had a telephone conversation with my parents or my brothers, the voices were on and off all the time and clearly audible. We know my mails have been monitored by the police and I found it very difficult to maintain normal communication with them. They didn't know what I was doing over here and I had no idea what sort of suffering they went though under the persecution in Shanghai.
6, I've been [involved with] The Epoch Times newspaper Melbourne edition since it was established in Melbourne 3 years ago. I very often took part in the Falun Gong activities across Australia. I've been to Canberra, Sydney and Adelaide at least 50 time. I'm also a member of the [named] Band (a band organised by Falun Gong practitioners) in Melbourne. I've organised "Truthfulness, Compassion and Tolerance" Arts Exhibition and promoted the Shenyun Performing Arts show in Melbourne. I also promoted the news of the Nine international Chinese Competitions for potential candidates to take part in the competitions held in New York. I could not tell my family in China about my activities in Australia but they all knew that I was very busy. On the other hand, I could not know the reasons for the danger to my niece's life on several occasions. Her parents dared not tell me about it over the phone.
7, In January 2004, secret agents from Shanghai National Security Bureau visited my father and pressured him to give up his practice of Falun Gong. They also threatened him that my younger brother would be sacked from his job if my father did not submit. They even told my fat her to pass on a message to me asking me to stop all the Falun Gong-related activities in Australia. The secret agents also urged me to go back to Shanghai so that they could talk to me in person. They wanted to know more information about the development of Falun Gong overseas so that they could monitor the activities of overseas Falun Gong practitioner.
8, In January 2004, after the secret agents talked to my father, they visited my younger brother (My niece's father) three times in a fortnight. They asked my brother to pass on a message to me that I must top all my Falun Gong-related activities and they've been monitoring me for a long time. They also threatened my brother that he might lose his job for that. He only told me that I must be very careful. I was very worried and I didn't want to see my brother's work and life destroyed because of me and my practice of Falun Gong. I therefore wrote a short article and published it on the Epoch Times website. Please refer to the attached article printed from website.
9, In February 2014, they revisited my niece again as she is a Falun Gong practitioner, threatened her to stop practicing, if she doesn't cooperate with them she might go to jail for that or even worse. My niece stood for her belief, she insisted and claimed that she won't give up practicing Falun Gong. Therefore, she has been forced to leave China and quit her decent job in Shanghai, otherwise she and her parents will be persecuted by CCP.
10, My husband's name is [Mr I] and he started working as a [Occupation 3] in 2002. one day he received some tourists from a delegation of Fujian provincial Communist Party Committee. Whey they came to [location], the tour guide told the tourists that they were not allowed to take any materials from Falun Gong stall in the park and all those people who handed out materials were paid to do so. Upon hearing that, my husband commented that the Falun Gong practitioners were all volunteers and they didn't receive a single cent for what they did and that he knew them well. Later that day, my husband received a phone call from his employer asking him to leave the job and go home. His boss said that someone else would be replacing him the following day. My husband lost his job just for a truthful remark which he made out of his conscience.
11, Australia is a democratic country. My husband is an Australian citizen. Falun Gong is a legitimate organisation in Australia and around the world. Yet, he was sacked from his job. This very clearly shows the CCP will persecute anybody who shows sympathy for Falun Gong, irrespective of where he/she is in the world.
12, [In] April 2014, my niece arrived in Melbourne. Since she came to Melbourne, she spent more time practicing Falun Gong exercises and reading Falun Gong text book. She did't let go of any chance when she could expose the persecution of Falun Gong in China. She often went to [location] in the mornings and she becomes the [Position 2] of Epochtimes newspaper advertising apartment from 2nd February 2015. She continually tells the truth of Falun Gong whenever she meets new customers. She often took part in the group study every week and also played [specified instrument] in [the named] band.
13, According to reports from the Epochtimes newspaper and Clearwisdom.net website, the CCP sent out a large number of secret agents to overseas countries to carry out espionage activities about local political and economic affairs, with special emphasis on Falun Gong. Former Chinese diplomat Chen Yenglin said there were about 1,000 active CCP informants in Australia. As my niece is still Chinese citizens, her carrying out of Falun Gong related activities daily in the tourist sites, outside Chinese consulate general and other public places will definitely attract the attention of these secret agents. That will put her in a dangerous situation if she return to China. I have no doubt that she will be persecuted for her belief in Falun Gong if they are forced to go back to China.
14, Therefore, as a Falun Gong practitioner in Melbourne and an Australian citizen, I earnestly request the Australian Government and the Department of Immigration to grant my niece a protection visa on humanitarian grounds.
i)Statutory Declaration from the applicant dated 20 February 2015 (folios 73-81) as follows (page numbers omitted):
I, [the applicant] of [address] in the State of Victoria, do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:
1, I am making this statutory declaration in support of my protection visa application .I would like to address the questions that appear on the application forms from the Department of Immigration.
2, I was born on [date] in Shanghai. I joined Youth communist in 2004, and quit the organisation in 2007 on [named] website using my real name.
3, I am forced to leave China because I am a genuine Falun Gong practitioner. During the last ten years of brutal persecution of Falun Gong in China, tens of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners were illegally detained in China. My uncle, [Mr J] is one of them and his whereabouts is to date unknown to his family. I could not stay any longer in China because of my adherence of Falun Gong.
4, My elderly grandparents ([Mr E] and [Ms F]) are forced to leave their birth place, Shanghai , where they were harassed and prosecuted by Chinese government as they are Falun gong practitioner. Four years ago, my grandparents finally granted the protection visa, received protection from Australian government. My aunt, [Ms G], an Australian citizen is on the blacklist of the Chinese Consulate General in Melbourne for her practice of Falun Gong. She is deprived of her rights to go back to China to see her family.
5, Chinese communist regime broke its commitment as a signatory to the UN Human Rights Convention and used every means to suppress freedom of religion and persecute people with faith. Therefore, I earnestly request the protection from the Australian Government so that I could be spared from inhumane treatment, threat and persecution, and even the real danger to my life if I were to return to China.
6, Thanks to my aunt, I could obtained Fa as she is the one who actually propagated DaFa to our whole family. My Aunt came to Australia in 1987, and began practicing Fa since 1998. I came to Australia for studying in July 2005, while I was in high school, I lived with my Aunt. She always told me how wonderful Falun DaFa is and how she walked in to Fa. My aunt used to suffered illness from diabetes, stomach ulcer, depression, chronic insomnia. She has never stopped going to hospital for almost ten years, however, after she has practiced Falun Gong, all her illness disappeared. She was thrilled to tell my grandparents and asked them to practice Fa as well. Later on, my grandparents started practicing Fa, my grandfather's white hair turned black, and his high blood pressure and gout diseases have been miraculously cured. Since then my grandparents have never taken any medication. At that time, I was still young, and I haven't walked into DaFa because I couldn't understand what Falun Gong is. I just have a feeling that this is a powerful therapy which can help people, however, I was totally wrong. DaFa is way more than anything. It is a universe law. My aunt told me that eventually you will be brought in to Fa by Master but not now.
7, After a few years, just like my aunt said, I did walk into DaFa. In April 2013, my health condition was pretty bad as I had two part time jobs when I was in university. The disorder of my lifestyle pushed me to the edges of madness. After I took the medical examination, the doctor said my physical condition was like some people who is 50 years old, and I also diagnosed having hypothyroidism and migraine. Therefore I could easily get sick as my immune system was not strong enough. Sometimes when I had severe headache, it would come up with vomiting, I felt like this is the end of the world. I couldn't get off the bed when I opened my eyes, I saw everything spinning. My aunt saw me like this, she brought the Zhuan Fa Lun and audio records. She said this was the only thing that can help me. So since then I started practicing Falun Gong. When I felt better I started reading the book, after I read two pages, I felt relaxed and lightened up. Not for a while I started having diarrhoea, my aunt told me that this is good as Master has cleansed you body, this is the basic requirements of the Fa, the body should be purified first, any evil dark attachments should be vanished from your body and your mind. I believed even when I had headache, I still tried to read the book.I thought that as long as I cultivated diligently and conformed to the requirements of the Fa, the interference would vanish immediately and my body should be recovered right away. After I finished the book I felt my body was brand new and so energetic. All my friends said I looked brightened and glowing.
8, I kept studying and practicing Fa, every week I attended to group seminar with other DaFa practitioners to study Fa, exchanged our ideas and what we had received from Fa. During that period of time I truly felt Master is with me. I kept telling myself I am a DaFa practitioner I should consider everything from "Truthfulness, Benevolence and Tolerance". Master had taken away the real karma from other dimensions, and only left a small surface fraction for me to endure. When I studied the Fa I often saw direct hints of the notions and attachments I should eliminate, such as pursuit, thinking I could control the outcome, the attachment to good looks and my reputation, etc... I found a new attachment almost every day and let go of it. As I identified more and more attachments and rejected them with righteous thoughts, the bad substances were eliminated layer by layer.
9, After reading Nine commentaries on the Communist Party, I know the true evil of the CCP. I joined Youth Communist in high school in 2004. I regret to have joined this evil party so I quite the CCP using my real name and from my heart. At that time in China, it requires really great courage for one to quit the CCP.
10, After seven months which was November 2013, I came back to China to visit my parents, during the visiting period I was luckily obtain ed a decent job (employment agreement is attached) and I believed that Master helped me and I felt grateful to Master. Therefore I thought I should do what I could to tell more people about DaFa, to help Master saving more people. By doing that, I started from my friends. [In] February 2014, I attended a high-school mates party, I saw a lo t of friends there. I was happy to see them. When I started talking my experience from practicing Falun Gong, all my friends became very quiet and uncomfortable and one of them left the party. The others were so surprised when I brought up Falun Gong, they couldn't understand me and even mocked on me. I didn't feel embarrassed or angry. I just had sympathy for them as they don't know the truth of Falun Gong. All the information regarding with Falun Gong was banned in China, from media to internet. They had no idea that how cruelty that Chinese Community Party are in persecuting Falun Gong practitioner. I also brought some materials, CDs and Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party to clarify the truth, I also showed them how to use the softwares to jailbreak the firewalls to visit Epochtimes (the major website of FaLun Gong ) website. I believed that when they finish reading these materials they would change their attitudes towards Falun Gong.
11, The CCP controlled and mobilised all the media in China to defame and persecute Falun Gong and built the Chinese firewall to censor the Internet. The regime paid extra attention to eliminate all the Falun Gong materials available because they were afraid of letting Chinese people learn the truth of persecution towards Falun Gong in China. Once any such materials, a book called Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party, or its DVD versions which expose the atrocities committed by the CCP against the Chinese people were found, the holder of these materials was subject to 3-4 years' jail term.
12, [Later in] February 2014, one week after the party, I went home after work as usual, two strangers approached me stated that they are secret agents from Ministry of State Security of the People's Republic of China, they also showed me their badges. They said they want to talk to me . I have no idea why the agents want to talk to me. When I asked them they just said 'You have to go with us', I kept rejecting them and I felt scared. They saw me incorporated with them, the middle aged agent started threatening me,' If you are not coming with us now, we will come to your company tomorrow. I don't think it's good for you if your manager or collages see us to take you away.' I had no choice, I just got this job and I didn't want to lose it. So I went with them but with only one condition that I choose the place where they want to talk with me. So I chose a coffee shop near my working place that I felt safe.
13, After we arrived at coffee shop, they started asking me whether I was practicing Falun Gong, the middle aged agent said it is illegal in China, 'we could arrest you immediately, and you even spread materials to you friends.' Apparently, they have investigated me, I was stunned when they told me. They stated that they would continue tracking and monitoring me. I felt extreme fear and tried to calm down and said, 'Falun Gong is good, it emphasises cultivation. 'Suddenly, the younger officer yelled at me, 'Falun Gong is illegal in China, CCP banned it, how dare you spread the materials to your friends? Have you forgotten that we talked to your father a few years ago regarding with your aunt, your father is a [Occupation 2] as well, if you continued practicing Falun Gong, he will lose his job and you will be regretted.' the other officer continued, 'if you want to keep your parents safe, you should persuade your aunt to come back to China, and ask your grandparents stop practicing Falun Gong, we would stop harassing me and my parents'. I felt so sad and started sobbing, if my aunt comes back to China, she would be illegally detained and tortured. I wouldn't compromised with them. I started meditation, to fought with evil. I remembered Master said 'When you encounter evil, you should meditation to defeat evil.' The two agents saw me keep silence, they said, 'You can consider about this but you are not allowed to send any materials to others, we have already monitored all your communication including phone calls and mails.' After they left I couldn't stand up. I felt so sad and worried about my family.
14, When I came back to home, my parents noticed that I was not well. I told them everything, my father was shocked and heartbroken, he told me to leave as soon as possible. If I still stayed here I would be locked up. He also told me that they came after him when they found my aunt practicing Falun Gong a few years ago, not mentioned my grandparents, and my uncle ([Mr J]) is still missing. If I still stayed in China, I would end up like my uncle, even worse. I was still here because they want to use me to get my aunt back. My father cried, I am the only child he has, he didn't want anything bad happened on me.
15, I couldn't sleep on that night. Falun Gong is such a miracle thing, it changes a lot of people's lives, Falun Dafa is the Buddha's Law and Falun Gong practitioners are cultivators who practice Truthfulness-CompassionForbearance. I would never give up such a good thing. I shouldn't feel fear, we're protected when we truly believe in Master, he would help me to defeat evil.
16 , [In] April I arrived in Australia, and I am seeking protection from Australian government to save me from life threatening persecution. I treasure every opportunity to expose the persecution of Falun Gong in China. In China, I risked being detained, beaten, or sentenced to jail terms without trials, even being persecuted to death like thousand of other Falun Gong practitioners who told people about the persecution or secretly handed out Falun Gong materials. In Australia, practitioners can freely do these things at tourist sites, Chinese consulates, train stations, markets or on the street.
17, Within the past months, I regularly attended study groups and did the exercise at practice sites. I went to attend weekly study group for the whole Melbourne at [location] every Friday night (20th June-Now). I went to [another location] to hand out Falun Gong materials to overseas visitors from China and other countries. I also joined [a named] band (a band organised by Falun Gong practitioners), played [specified instrument] every Sunday afternoon. (22th June-Now)
18, [In] July, I took part in the World Falun Day celebration in Melbourne, in the parade, I was holding a banner which read [redacted]" The news report was published on the [named] website:
[Link redacted]
As far as I know, the police, secret police and CCP high-ranking officials browse this website daily and they could see my photos on the website. (photos attached)
19, On 2nd February, I worked as an [Position 2] in Epochtimes newspaper. Everyone work in there are volunteers, our goal is to telling the truth to the public through the advertisement campaign. (business card is attached)
20, Meanwhile, secret agents from Chinese Consulate in Melbourne followed Falun Gong practitioners in every public activity and they took photos and record videos. At each gate of the Chinese Consulate in Melbourne, there is a surveillance camera recording images and activities of Falun Gong practitioners.
21, The reason why I go to [location] is that it is a good opportunity to tell tourists from China about the truth of world-wide acceptance of Falun Gong. I want to show them while being severely persecuted by the CCP in China, there is absolute freedom to practise Falun Gong in every other corner of the earth.(photos attached)
22, I was force to leave China and came to Australia just to avoid the CCP's persecution towards myself and my family. CCP has tortured me by threatening me and my family, the psychological fear and pressure pushed my edge to madness, if I don't practice Falun Gong, I could not bear these extreme emotional abuse at all. CCP are good at manipulating people and taking advantage of people's weakness. I am forced to give up my career, leave the country where I was born and I even couldn't go back to see my own parents.
23, I cannot go back to China because I have been persecuted by the Chinese communist regime and its police, secret police, party officials in China. From my past experiences in China and my activities in Australia, there is a real danger that I will be persecuted if I were to return to China.
24, I am fearful of going back to China, as I have no doubt that I will be persecuted by the local police and people from former workplace and the authorities, who launched the persecution. My Falun Gong practice is well known by the authority and the police in Shanghai. Also, in 2007, I publicised an open statement of me on the [specified] website that I quit from Chinese Communist Party's affiliated organisations. If I am forced to return, I will be again put under 24-hour close surveillance by the secret police. Moreover, I will be forced to be brainwashed, sent to a labour camps, sentenced to prison terms, and my personal freedom. I would again suffer from enormous fear and pain both mentally and physically.
25, Moreover, I will be interrogated and persecuted even more severely because of my activities in Australia. Since I came to Australia, I have actively taken part in activities exposing the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China and the evil nature of the CCP. Many Falun Gong practitioners returning from overseas suffer severe persecution because the authority is aware that these people have better knowledge of the persecution and the nature of the evil regime. They are afraid that these people will expose their crimes to the world. For example, Australian citizen Ms. Zhang Cuiying from Sydney was put in to male prison for eight months in China when she returned to China. She also suffered torture and persecution. Thanks to the great efforts of the Australian Government, she was released and returned to Australia. This can definitely happen to me if I were to return to China.
26, Ten years of persecution is so cruel, so prolonged and so saddening. I could not describe all that I had suffered in the last ten years. If not for the reason of seeking protection from the Australian Government, I am not wiling to revisit these painful memories. Therefore, I plead to the Department of Immigration acting on behalf of the Australian Government and hope that the Department could help me realise my wish that I could practise Falun Gong freely on the Australian soil for the rest of my life.
27, I also hope that the Australian Government could step froward and stop the persecution of Falun Gong in China. There are millions of Chinese people still living under the iron fist of the CCP without any freedom.
28, Thank you very much indeed!
j)Photographs apparently from Falun Gong Activities (folios 82-86):
k)Photograph apparently [from] March 2016 [City 1] Easter Parade with the [named] Band (folio numbers missing).
l)Transcript of interview with Shenyun Performer [from] February 2016 (folio numbers missing).
m)Photographs apparently [from] October 2015 ‘Bring Former Leader JIANG ZEMIN to Justice for Persecuting Falun Gong at [location] (folio numbers missing)’.
n)Text messages between the review applicant and the Epoch Times [position], [Ms C], during the promotion of [a] Performance 2015 (folio numbers missing).
o)Photographs apparently [from] May 2016, World Falun Dafa Day at [location].

In summary, the applicant’s claims for protection are:
a)She left China because she is a Falun Gong practitioner.
b)Her uncle was illegally detained because he is a Falun Gong practitioner. His whereabouts is unknown.
c)Her grandparents were harassed and prosecuted by the Chinese government because they are Falun Gong practitioners. They received protection from the Australian government.
d)Her aunt is an Australian citizen and is on the blacklist of the Chinese Consulate General in Melbourne for her practise of Falun Gong.
e)The applicant started practising Falun Gong in Australia in April 2013 because her health was bad.
f)In November 2013, the applicant returned to China to visit her parents and she obtained a decent job.
g)In February 2014, she attended a party and started talking about Falun Gong.
h)One week later, two secret agents from the Ministry of State Security threatened her and asked her to persuade her aunt to come back to China.
i)The applicant returned to Australia [in] April 2014. She became involved in a number of Falun Gong activities and took part in World Falun Day.
j)If she returns to China, she will be persecuted by the Chinese communist regime and the police. She risks being detained, beaten, sentenced to jail without trial or sent to a labour camp. She may be killed.
EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
The applicant gave evidence at the hearing, with the assistance of a translator, the substance of which was as follows.
The applicant confirmed that, in summary, the basis for her claim for protection in Australia was that she fears persecution due to her involvement with Falun Gong (FG). She also confirmed that she did not make any claim for protection in Australia on any other basis.
The Tribunal asked the applicant when she had started practising FG. She responded ‘July 2012’. When asked where she had commenced the practice of FG she said ‘in Australia’. The Tribunal observed that the delegate had found that the applicant commenced practising FG in April 2013 in Australia. She was asked whether that was correct. She responded ‘started July 2012, reading book and practising at home, April 2013 had been practising for a while’.
She was asked whether she practised FG when she had returned to China. She said ‘not in the period when I was in high school or university but changed when I finished, my last visit I started practising FG’.
When asked whether since July 2012, when in China, she had practised FG, she said ‘yes at home’. She was asked whether she had returned to China after July 2012, she responded ‘once’. When asked to identify that trip she said ‘between late 2012 and April 2013’. She was asked whether she was practising FG when in China during that period. She responded ‘yes’. She added ‘both practised and study the way’. The Tribunal asked the applicant to explain the form in which the practice of FG had been undertaken in China. She responded ‘initially when I was new I only study at home but after a while started talking with friends and people I went to school’. When asked whether this had occurred when she was in China, she said ‘yes’. The Tribunal observed that her response was vague and invited her to be more particular. She responded ‘every day I would study the law, one lecture each day and also read verses and also five routines I would practice each day’. She was asked whether she carried out these activities with other people, she said ‘not at the time, just myself practising at home’. She was asked whether there was any restraint on her ability to carry out these practices privately. She responded ‘I was privately in own home secretly, was determined to continue on’.
The applicant confirmed that she left Australia [in] November 2013 and had returned to China. The Tribunal observed that she returned to Australia [in] April 2014. The applicant responded ‘in March 2014’. When asked to provide the date she said ‘no correct’.
She was asked whether she was practising FG in Australia before she had returned to China. She said ‘yes’. She was asked whether at the time she held a fear of persecution based on her practice of FG if she were to return to China. She said ‘yes’. The Tribunal asked the applicant why she had returned to China if she feared she would be persecuted. She said ‘at the time I miss my parents terribly so wanted to visit them’.
When asked whether she had been harmed or threatened while in China during that period. She responded ‘[in] February 2014 I encountered two officers from the State Security in plain clothes. They located me and found out I was practising FG at home’. When asked whether this was an instance when she was harmed or threatened with harm, she responded ‘at the time they threatened me and my father who worked as a [Occupation 2], who worked [in the government], they threatened if I continue preaching my father would lose his job; also they try to get my aunt back through me’. The Tribunal asked the applicant how she was threatened. She said ‘they acted quite aggressively and harshly towards me. They claim that they put me under surveillance and they knew everything about me and where I was living at the time’. She did not elaborate.
She was asked to confirm that she had departed Australia on another occasion [in] June 2014. She responded ‘I had a four-day holiday in [Country 1]’. When asked why she returned to Australia after the trip she said ‘because I was based in Australia at the time’. The Tribunal asked why she used the expression ‘based on Australia’, because at the time she had a one-year visitor visa. She said ‘meant that when I was threatened I fled China I was studying in Australia’.
The Tribunal asked the applicant when the conversation with the state police had occurred. She replied ‘[date in] February 2014’. In answer to a question from the Tribunal she confirmed that she returned to Australia [in] April 2014. The Tribunal asked whether this was when she had described in her statement as ‘fleeing China’. She said ‘yes, because the conversation with the police took place in February I tried to arrange my trip to Australia’.
She was asked why it took her so long to leave China. She said ‘after the conversation of the police I immediately applied for a visa and purchase the flight ticket, I had to wait for the visa to be granted’. When asked if she could produce evidence of the application for the tourist visa she said ‘don’t think so’. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she was employed in Australia at that time. She said ‘no’. She was asked whether she held any Australian visa as at [date in] February 2014. She said ‘no’.
In answer to questions from the Tribunal she confirmed that she commenced FG activities in Australia in July 2012. The Tribunal asked the applicant why she did not make an application for a protection visa until 18 September 2014. She replied ‘July 2012 I started learning I didn’t fully devote my whole self to FG, at the time I didn’t have much knowledge of about immigration policies in Australia, at the time I did not practice’.
She was asked whether her aunt had applied for a protection visa Australia. She replied ‘no’. When asked whether her grandparents had applied for protection visas in Australia she said ‘yes’. In answer to a question from the Tribunal she said that that occurred in ‘2009’. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she was aware of her grandparents’ application. She said ‘not at the time’. When asked when she became aware of the application she said ‘later on they tell me’. The Tribunal observed that her answer was vague and invited her to be more particular. She said ‘I became aware after the visa got approved’. She was asked as to the extent of her contact with her grandparents when she was in Australia. She said ‘no I didn’t meet with them I lived on my own’. She was asked where her grandparents lived. She said ‘with my aunt’. She was asked whether she had a lot of contact with her aunt. She replied ‘yes’. She was asked whether she went to her aunt’s house often. She said ‘not often’. When asked how often she attended her aunt’s house, she said ‘once a month’. The Tribunal asked the whether she was asserting that she did not have contact with her grandparents who were then living with her aunt. She replied ‘they didn’t tell me’. The Tribunal observed that the applicant had given evidence that she did not meet with her grandparents very often or see them very often on her own. She was asked whether she was trying to draw a distinction between seeing them and something else. She said ‘didn’t meet just my grandparents but every time I visit my aunt place I get to see them’. The Tribunal put to her that her aunt would have been well aware that her grandparents had obtained protection visas in 2009. The applicant agreed. The Tribunal informed the applicant that it had difficulty accepting the evidence that she did not have much knowledge of immigration practices or policies in Australia. When invited to comment she said ‘I am not familiar with the process’. The Tribunal put to her that she knew that she could apply for a protection visa and she’d known that well prior to 2014. She responded ‘my understanding of the time needed to wait for the visa to expire’. The Tribunal observed that her answer was different to earlier evidence as to why she didn’t apply. She replied ‘I didn’t lodge the application because I didn’t know the details of the process’.
The Tribunal returned to the conversation with the plainclothes police officers which had occurred, on the applicant’s evidence, on 20 February 2014. She was asked whether the police had approached her at her home. She said ‘not at my home’. When asked where the conversation had taken place she said ‘coffeeshop’. When asked whether she was sure of this she said ‘no I left work’. She was invited to look at her witness statement dated 27 November 2014, in particular paragraph 8. The Tribunal put to the applicant that in that paragraph she said that she had returned home after work and then was approached by the police officers. She replied ‘I met them at the gate’. The Tribunal again drew her attention to paragraph 8 in the statement. She replied ‘on my way home’. She added ‘maybe I misstated in my statement’.
She was asked why the police agreed to go to a coffee shop rather than talk to her where they had met. She said ‘no idea why they stopped me’. The Tribunal observed that she did not answer the question and invited her to respond. She said ‘they wanted to speak to me, I was reluctant to talk’. When asked why the police had agreed to talk somewhere else she said ‘they wouldn’t leave me alone’. When asked the distance to the coffeeshop from the point of initial contact, she said ‘not very far away, in the vicinity’.
The Tribunal observed that the applicant had asserted that one purpose of the meeting was so the police could ask the applicant to procure her aunt’s return to China. She said ‘they tried to get aunt to get back’. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it was curious that the police would agree to the applicant’s suggestion of a change of venue for the discussion and also try and use the applicant as a means to require her aunt to return to China. She was invited to comment. She said ‘on the first point they wanted to talk to me, it was their choice’. The Tribunal observed that in paragraph 8 of her statement she had stated that she chose the venue. She replied ‘yes I chose the venue’. The Tribunal reminded the applicant of the second point, namely that it found it strange that the police invited the applicant to procure her aunt’s return to China. She responded ‘they threaten family members, they wanted to threaten me in order to threaten aunt”. The Tribunal observed that it was curious of the police, who were aware that she was practising FG and of her relationship with her aunt, but that they did not arrest applicant. She responded ‘they didn’t immediately arrest me because they were to use me to get my aunt back, that is why they didn’t arrest me’. The Tribunal observed that it was curious because if she was arrested, she would be well motivated to assist the police who would have arrested a FG practitioner, but they did not do so despite the applicant saying that she would not help. When invited to comment she said ‘secret agent don’t arrest people, get local police to do arrest, main reason not arrested was because new in FG and didn’t participate in events, because they wanted aunt to come back and work for them as informant’. She was asked whether the police spoke to her again after that meeting. She said ‘I left before they could’. The Tribunal observed that she had remained in China for several weeks after this event. She said ‘I stayed for six weeks, they allowed me time to contact aunt’. The Tribunal observed that the response was not in her statement as to that point. She said ‘because I can’t put every single detail in the statement’.
When invited to add anything further to her application for review, she said ‘many things happened afterwards, in Australia, initially I didn’t have the courage to take part in public events in China, but I have participated in events in Australia, I am proved as a practitioner through my study of the law, three most important tasks are to study the law, practice exercises and have the positive thinking and to clarify the truth’. She added ‘thing I want to stress after I arrived in Australia, I studied FG together with others, the mentors kept telling me as the three most important things we should do is to learn, second is to keep good intention in telling the truth, and we have always been instructed with others to tell the truth’. The Tribunal invited her to confine her comments to any new material which had not been introduced or was not in the existing material. She said ‘the most important part of practice is telling the truth, before I did not go out and speak publicly and we were worried’.
The Tribunal observed that the Act required it to be satisfied that her activities in Australia were not undertaken for the purposes of strengthening the claim. She was invited to comment and said:
this is not true, I have benefit from FG, and my conditions have been improved and this kind of FG is not gained easily, it is the law of the universe, and we should strive to use our life to protect it, we have been oppressed by CCP for 10 years, lots of my people have lost their lives, they have not given up, and after I did practice I really feel that if she is most important thing in life, I have spoken to public and on Internet, a lot of pictures of me, so if I get to return to China I will be oppressed, I could be seized and put in prison immediately, I didn’t do these activities because of my application, there are lots of spies, if I get return to China.
She was asked to identify the public FG activities in which she had engaged prior to her protection visa application. She responded ‘I have been explaining all the time I am doing all the public activities to tell the truth, we must go out and tell the truth, I have doing that all the time’. When invited to respond to the question she said ‘[in] July 2014 in celebration of FG I was already doing the march and holding the banner’. The Tribunal asked why this event was not discussed in her written statements. She said ‘this is a recent declaration where I have made, all the documents which I have submitted already, this statement have been made before have already been included’ .
The Tribunal proceeded to hear evidence from the witnesses nominated by the applicant.
The first witness was [Ms G]. She produced a short undated statement and a statutory declaration dated 26 February 2015. The undated statement was provided to the Tribunal on 20 April 2021. She stated that she is the applicant’s aunt. In the undated statement she stated that ‘I am aware that [the applicant] has been practising FG since July 2012’. She did not state the basis of her belief. The assertion is given little weight. She also stated that the applicant ‘lived with me between 2005 – 2008’. In paragraph 9 of the undated statement she asserted that Chinese government ‘spies’ had taken photographs of her and the applicant protesting outside the Chinese Consulate. When asked to provide the source of that belief she said ‘all members have been going public for some time, we held activities in public places or places have CCTV, the people do the video of the activities, we think FG good, we are not afraid of CCTV or video recording, we have benefit from FG, we knew it is good, CCP also knew that, CCP leader, in Australia if you speak in public are in a dangerous position’. The assertion is given little weight. The Tribunal asked [Ms G] whether the applicant’s grandparents had resided with her in Australia. She responded ‘the parents lived with me in 2009, lived with me for three or four years’.
The next witness was [Ms K] who had provided an undated witness statement. She stated in paragraph 5 of that document that she first met the applicant in 2014 and that the applicant’s aunt and grandparents had introduced the applicant ‘to me at a FG event – a parade on May 13’. She stated in paragraph 6 of that document that in 2017 the applicant moved to [Suburb 2] and that ‘we would go to Fa study group in [Suburb 3], I was the coordinator of the [Suburb 3] Fa study group’. In answer to a question from the Tribunal, the witness said that she had signed the document ‘yesterday’. The Tribunal asked as to the reference in paragraph 5 about meeting the applicant [in] May 2014, and in particular asked what the applicant was doing. She said ‘the big day for FG, I think that [the applicant] is the practitioner of FG’. When asked to confine the answer to what she saw on that day and the applicant’s involvement, she said ‘in those activities were lots of people in different activities, I was familiar with [the applicant] activity, I had never seen [the applicant] before, I didn’t notice what she had been doing’.
The next witness was [Ms L] who had provided a statement dated [in] April 2021. In that document she stated that she first met the applicant in June 2014 ‘when we both were working for Epoch Times’. She went on to say that she participated in many FG activities together with the applicant, although did not say when. When asked to describe the applicant’s FG participation prior to late 2014, she said ‘no but before that I already knew her’. The Tribunal observed in paragraph 1 of the statement, she asserted that she had sought and been granted asylum in Australia. The Tribunal asked when that occurred. She said ‘approve March 2017’. When asked when she applied she said ‘year 2013’. In answer to a question from the Tribunal she confirmed that she first met the applicant in June 2014. The Tribunal asked the witness whether she believed she would have spoken to the applicant about her own protection visa application in the months before June 2014. She responded ‘cannot remember exactly, in 2014’. When asked whether the protection visa application was important to the witness she said ‘yes’. She was asked whether she was involved in the practice of FG from June 2014. She replied ‘yes’. When asked whether she believed that it was likely that she would have discussed her own protection visa application with the applicant in the months after June 2014, she said ‘I feel like no, we have discussed something about FG. Protection visa is my private’. When asked the question again she said ‘I don’t think normally I would not have discussed with her. I usually did not discuss such matters with others’. The Tribunal informed the witness that her response was difficult to accept and invited her to comment. She replied ‘as practitioner gathering together we only such practitioners’. She did not elaborate.
The applicant’s representative was invited to make submissions and did so in broad terms. The oral submissions have been taken into account. In particular, he was asked whether he could point to any photograph of the applicant involved in FG activity prior to the date of the protection visa application. He could not do so. Prior to the hearing the applicant’s representative had made detailed written submissions dated 20 April 2021. The Tribunal has taken them into account and given them appropriate weight.

The applicant produced a variety of documents and witness statements to the Tribunal which were not referred to during the oral hearing. Nonetheless, the Tribunal has taken them into account and given them appropriate weight. The Tribunal makes a number of observations in relation to those documents. An undated statement by [Mr A] asserted that the applicant worked as a [Position 1] for the Epoch Times newspaper for one year between 2017 and 2018. It does not otherwise attest to her involvement in FG with any detail. An undated and unsigned statement of [Ms B] asserted that [Ms B] had known the applicant since 2017 when she came to work at the Epoch Times newspaper. Further, that they played in the band together and in 2018 went to a FG conference in Sydney. It does not attest to the applicant’s involvement prior to 2018. The letter dated 13 April 2021 from [Ms C] asserts that he has known the applicant since 2016 and ‘I met her for the first time at a (FG) study group’. It is not clear whether this person met the applicant in 2016 at a FG study group, or has known her since 2016 but only was aware from some other time that she was involved in FG when he met her at a FG study the group, the date of which is not disclosed. Several documents described as ‘various transcriptions completed by [the applicant] on behalf of Epoch times’ appear to be undated, and are in the form of question and answer transcription, although the questioner’s identity is not clear. They are given no weight. An undated and unsigned statement of [Mr D] asserts that he had known the applicant ‘since 2016’. He goes on to assert that ‘she joined the band since 2016, attended rehearsal every Sunday’. The inference seems to be that the applicant joined the FG band sometime in 2016, although the date is not mentioned. A certified copy of a business card apparently showing that the applicant was an [Position 2] at the Epoch Times newspaper is given little weight. Another document is described as ‘certified copy of entry card to a conference [in] October 2019 organised by Falun Dafa and attended by [Ms G]’. However an examination of the document discloses no reference to the applicant but does appear to be, as described, a memento from that conference. It is given no weight. A series of photographs is described as ‘photographs of [the applicant] at various Falun Dafa events’. An examination of the documents discloses them to be apparently dated [in] April 2021. In the absence of evidence from the applicant as to what she was doing there, they are given little weight except to the extent that they may show her involvement in FG activities on one day in April 2021.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant:
a)is a [age]-year-old female, born on [date] in Shanghai, China.
b)can speak, read and write both Mandarin and English.
c)is a citizen of China.[3]
d)first arrived in Australia [in] July 2002 on a [Tourist Visa].
e)subsequently resided in Australia as the holder of a [Student Visa] between 2002 to 2011.
f)held a [Temporary Skilled Visa] which was granted on 23 May 2012 and ceased on 23 November 2013.
g)departed Australia on the [Temporary Skilled Visa] [in] November 2013.
h)returned to Australia as the holder of a [Visitor Visa] [in] 13 April 2014.
i)Departed Australia [in] June 2014
j)Returned to Australia as the holder of a [Visitor] visa [in] June 2014 (valid for stay until 20 September 2014).
k)applied for a XA-866 Protection visa on 18 September 2014.
[3] Passport, Department file [number] at folio 21
THE COUNTRY INFORMATION
In accordance with Direction No.84 made pursuant to s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal also had regard to country information assessments prepared by the DFAT. The DFAT report titled ‘People’s Republic of China’ dated 3 October 2019 relevantly stated as follows (footnotes omitted):
HUMAN RIGHTS FRAMEWORK
2.4The Constitution provides for freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association and religious belief. Article 33 states that ‘all citizens of the People’s Republic of China are equal before the law. The State respects and preserves human rights’. In practice, however, the Constitution is non-justiciable and these freedoms are significantly curtailed. The one-party political system lacks effective safeguards to allow independent monitoring and investigation of human rights abuses by the state, such as an independent media, judiciary or a national human rights institution.
SECURITY SITUATION
2.55Gaining support for CCP policies throughout the country and maintaining social stability are top priorities for the CCP. To achieve this, the government deploys a vast internal security apparatus. China’s internal security agencies include: the Ministry of Public Security, which is responsible, inter alia, for the police, border security and household registration (hukou, see Hukou (household registration) system, Health and Children)); the Ministry of State Security, the main intelligence agency; the People’s Armed Police (PAP), a paramilitary force responsible for internal security; and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), China’s military (see also Military and Police). In November 2013, President Xi established a new National Security Commission to strengthen coordination of both international and domestic security issues.
2.56Security personnel and surveillance technology are ubiquitous throughout China. Increased artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities serve China’s economic and military modernisation interests, while simultaneously enhancing Party stability through increased power to surveil and control the population (see The Social Credit System).
2.57Some reports estimate 170 million surveillance cameras have been installed in cities and towns across the country in the past decade. Everyday street crime and violence in China’s major cities is generally low. Sensitive social groups, including religious organisations, Uighur and Tibetan ethnic groups, Falun Gong practitioners and human rights activists, have alleged that the government uses a range of surveillance methods to monitor their activities. Since 2016, media have reported that Chinese police and security agencies have begun combining photo databases, artificial intelligence and facial recognition technology installed in surveillance cameras to track down criminal suspects and ‘destabilising agents’ in society.
2.58 Since 2010, China’s expenditure on internal security agencies such as the police, the PAP, the courts and the prison system has outstripped spending on the military. In 2016, the gap between domestic security and defence expenditure reportedly reached a record high of 13 per cent, with domestic security expenditure increasing by 17.6 per cent compared to the previous year, to exceed RMB 1 trillion (AUD 209.4 billion), while defence expenditure only increased by 7.5 per cent. However, the actual amount China spends on its military and domestic security is widely debated. Most foreign experts, governments and relevant publications concur that Chinese statistics on security spending do not include some outlays that are standard reporting for most other countries, and note there is no way to verify the accuracy of official figures reported by China.
2.59 Domestic security expenditure across all provinces and regions increased by 215 per cent between 2007 and 2016, and continued to grow in 2018 - particularly in sensitive minority regions such as Xinjiang and Tibet, where security remains volatile due to heightened ethnic tensions and government attempts to curb perceived threats to social stability (see Ethnic Uighurs and Ethnic Tibetans). Over the same 10 year period, security expenditure increased by 411 per cent in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR, Xinjiang), by 404 per cent in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) and 316 per cent in Qinghai (where the population is approximately 25 per cent Tibetan). In February 2018, Xinjiang reported a 92.8 per cent increase in its domestic security spending, from RMB 30.05 billion (AUD 6.3 billion) in 2016 to RMB 57.95 billion (AUD 12.9 billion) in 2017. The increase in security spending in TAR is estimated at 9.3 per cent, although TAR maintains its position as the region with the highest per capita domestic security expenditure of all provinces and regions since 2008, ahead of Xinjiang. Analysts of Chinese security expenditure suggest that per capita domestic security spending in sensitive minority regions is now higher than per capita domestic security spending in the US or Russia (PP adjusted by wage levels).
2.60 In June 2017, China’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee also passed a new National Intelligence Law (2017; amended 2018) which forms part of a national security legal architecture introduced in 2014 which includes the Counter-Espionage Law (2014), Criminal Law (1979; Amended 2015), National Security Law (2015), Anti-Terrorism Law (2015) and Cyber Security Law (2017). The National Intelligence Law calls upon all elements of Chinese society, including individuals, to contribute to national intelligence work. The law inter alia empowers security agencies: to launch intelligence operations in China and abroad; to collect intelligence on foreign bodies ‘engaged in activities that may harm China’s national security or its interests’; to monitor suspects, raid premises or seize vehicles during the investigation of domestic or foreign individuals or groups; to gain priority use of transportation or telecommunications equipment, buildings or enterprises; and to employ ‘technical reconnaissance’ measures with permission. The law explicitly requires security agencies to act in strict compliance with laws relating to the protection of human rights, and states agencies should not exceed their authority or abuse their powers. DFAT is aware of reports of kindergarten children being given homework instructing how they should assist state security officers.
TORTURE
4.14China ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Inhuman and Degrading Treatments in 1988. Chinese law prohibits the physical abuse of detainees and forbids prison guards from extracting confessions by torture, insulting prisoners’ dignity, and beating or encouraging others to beat prisoners. Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law that exclude evidence, including confessions, obtained through illegal means, including under torture, took effect on 1 January 2013.
4.15In 2015, the UN Committee against Torture expressed serious concern over consistent reports indicating torture and ill-treatment were still deeply entrenched in China’s criminal justice system (see Torture). In 2016, in its concluding observations on the Fifth Periodic Report of China in January 2016, the UN Committee against Torture also expressed concern over a number of continuing practices that it assessed increased the risk of torture of detainees. These practices include: lengthy pre-trial detention; denial of access to a private lawyer; withholding of information from the detainee’s family in cases deemed ‘endangering state security’, ‘terrorism’ or serious ‘bribery’; ‘residential surveillance’ (see Arbitrary Arrest and Detention); the lack of independence of medical practitioners examining detainees; revisions to laws that prohibit (undefined) ‘conduct that disrupts court order’; lack of judicial or procuratorial oversight of criminal investigations; lack of information on past investigations of allegations of torture by security officials; unexplained deaths in custody; solitary confinement and use of restraints; a lack of information on inspection of detention facilities; exclusion of matters relating to ‘State secrets’ from the government’s reporting on torture; and the broad definition of many offences, including ‘endangering State security’, ‘picking quarrels and provoking troubles’, and ‘gathering a crowd to disturb social order’.
4.16Family members of the ‘709 lawyers’ (see Human Rights Defenders (including Lawyers)) wrote an open letter to world leaders on 1 March 2017 detailing allegations of mistreatment of their family members while in detention. The allegations included: forced consumption of drugs; marathon interrogation sessions and sleep deprivation; beatings; the application of heavy weights on legs; being almost entirely submerged in water for several days at a time; and threats and detention of family members. Individual lawyers detained during the ‘709’ crackdown have also detailed allegations of mistreatment at the hands of the authorities.
4.17Falun Gong practitioners have reported mistreatment in custody including sleep deprivation, enforced standing and kneeling for extended hours, nasal feeding (forced feeding through a tube inserted into the nostril), being forced to drink dirty or salty water, shackling and beatings (see Falun Gong). International human rights reporting continues to document use of psychological pressure against Falun Gong practitioners. Media, human rights groups, members of the international community, and Uighurs have also reported the use of violence and torture of Uighurs in re-education centres in Xinjiang (see Ethnic Uighurs, Muslims).
4.18Media and Uighurs’ reports of physical and psychological maltreatment have included, but are not limited to, interrogation, inappropriate clothing for climate, sleep deprivation, administration of electric shocks, having weights tied to feet, indefinite confinement, forced administration of medication, psychiatric drugs, injections, blood tests, DNA sampling, and medication to stop menstruation, as well as intrusive medical examinations.
4.19DFAT considers allegations of torture, particularly those detailed in cases deemed politically sensitive, to be credible.
CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT
Arbitrary Arrest and Detention
4.20The Ministry of Public Security manages pre-trial detention facilities and procedures. Authorities with the power to authorise the detention of a criminal suspect include (but are not limited to) the Public Security Bureau (PSB), Ministry of State Security, and the Anti-Smuggling Bureau.
4.21Under the Criminal Procedure Law, the term ‘arrest’ refers to the stage of the criminal prosecution process when authorities determine there is sufficient evidence to proceed with prosecution. A suspect can be, though is not necessarily, detained prior to being formally arrested. A detention warrant must be issued to a suspect’s family within 24 hours of their detention. The formal arrest of a detainee must be approved by the Procuratorate, which can take up to 37 days. Unless released on bail, criminal suspects will generally remain detained until the conclusion of the judicial process, including appeals. In practice, the rate of release on bail is extremely low. Bail is not considered a right; under the Criminal Procedure law bail ‘is not an individual right designed to minimize restraints on freedom, but an alternative pre-trial coercive measure. When bail is granted, it is usually on the initiative and for the convenience of the police.’
4.22These procedures are not subject to judicial oversight. The post-arrest investigation period can be up to seven months, and preparation of indictment can take up to six and a half months. The total time required to hear a case and issue a verdict in standard cases ranges from twenty months to an indefinite period. Security agencies can hold individuals for years while they progress through the charge, arrest, investigation, court hearing and sentencing processes. Individuals convicted of an offence do not move into the prison system until their case is finalised, including any appeal processes. Time served in a detention centre is deducted from their custodial sentence.
4.23Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law (1979; amended 2012, 2018) require the prompt delivery of suspects to detention facilities following arrest. The law stipulates that interrogations must take place in the detention facility, and must be recorded in audio and video. The revised law also requires judicial officials to investigate cases of extraction of confessions under torture.
4.24Police and other security agencies have broad administrative detention powers and the ability to detain individuals for extended periods without formal arrest or criminal charge. Police can hold individuals for up to 30 days in criminal detention before deciding whether to pass the case to prosecutors, and for an additional seven days prior to formal arrest. Police detention beyond 37 days requires prosecutorial approval of a formal arrest and notification of family members within 24 hours of detention. The law permits officials not to provide notification if doing so would ‘hinder the investigation’ or for cases pertaining to ‘national security, terrorism, and major bribery’. During periods and anniversaries considered politically sensitive, authorities often detain activists without charge for the full 37-day period.
4.25Administrative detention is regulated under the law on Penalties for Administration of Public Security (2006). Administrative detention is imposed for crimes of a minor nature, and which are not serious enough to warrant criminal prosecution and punishment under the Criminal Procedure Law or Criminal Law. It is imposed by public security organs at the local (county) government level. While there are various forms of administrative detention in China with different procedures and time-limits, the maximum period of administrative detention for any one act is 15 days, and where multiple periods of administrative detention are imposed concurrently for several acts, the maximum period of detention is 20 days.
4.26Under the Criminal Procedure Law, police may also detain individuals in ‘residential surveillance at a designated location’ (RSDL) away from their home for up to six months before formal arrest or release. RSDL can be used to detain individuals suspected of crimes endangering national security, involving terrorist activity, or involving serious corruption (see Corruption), or where the suspect or defendant does not have a fixed residence. Authorities must notify relatives of individuals placed under formal arrest or residential surveillance in a designated location within 24 hours, unless notification is impossible. The notification does not need to specify the reason for or location of detention. Suspects do not have the right to meet defence lawyers in these categories of cases. In cases involving national security or terrorism, police are authorised to detain a suspect after arrest for up to an additional seven months while investigating the case. Following investigation, the procuratorate has an additional 45 days to determine whether to file criminal charges of detention, during which time detention can continue. The law explicitly allows detainees to meet with defence counsel before criminal charges are filed but this rarely happens where cases are considered politically sensitive. After filing charges, authorities can detain a suspect for an additional 45 days before beginning judicial proceedings.
4.27RSDL has been criticised for exposing detainees to risk of mistreatment (see Torture) and for enabling conditions of detention that produce forced confessions. While evidence obtained while in RSDL should be able to be excluded in court, rarely is this the case. Human rights groups report RDSL has been increasingly used to detain activists, human rights lawyers and government critics in recent years, and claim police training dormitory facilities have been repurposed for RSDL.
4.28Locations used to enforce RSDL are often referred to as ‘black jail,’ however the term ‘black jail’ more correctly describes short-term detention in rented/owned, run down hotel rooms or similar, often used for petitioners, criminals and those under suspicion of less sensitive allegations, as a coercive measure. The primary distinction between RSDL and ‘black jail’ is that RSDL is a formal feature of the Chinese legal system. RSDL also reportedly often entails treatment more severe than in ‘black jails,’ and occurs in government-run, custom fit for purpose facilities, whereas black jails are quasi-administrative holding centres for petitioners and criminals.
4.29Public security authorities continue to use other forms of administrative detention to suppress political and religious dissidents, sex workers, drug users and petitioners. Authorities also detain family members of dissidents: poet Liu Xia, widow of Nobel Peace laureate Liu Xiaobo, was released in July 2018 after being under house arrest for nearly eight years following her husband’s nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010 (see Deaths in Custody). Authorities have also curtailed the freedom of family members of ‘709’ lawyers (see Human Rights Defenders (including Lawyers) and Uighur and Tibetan activists (see Ethnic Uighurs and Ethnic Tibetans). The law does not provide for house arrest. Individuals facing this type of detention do not have the right to legal counsel or due process. The Chinese government abolished its ‘re-education through labour’ policy in December 2013, although media and human rights groups claim re-education through labour (including in prisons and linked to Xinjiang-based re-education centres) continued in 2018 and supported production in factories for overseas markets (see Detention and Prison and Ethnic Uighurs).
4.30DFAT assesses that reports that security authorities use extra-legal detention for politically sensitive investigations are credible.
STATE PROTECTION
5.1 Article 5 of the Constitution states that ‘no laws or administrative or local regulations may contravene the Constitution. All State organs, the armed forces, all political parties and public organisations and all enterprises and institutions must abide by the Constitution and other laws. All acts in violation of the Constitution or other laws must be investigated. No organisation or individual is privileged to be beyond the Constitution or other laws’.
5.2 There is no organisation in China tasked with enforcement of the Constitution and courts do not have the general power of judicial review which would allow them to invalidate laws on the grounds they violate the Constitution. The Constitution states the National People’s Congress and its Standing Committee have the power to review laws that violate the Constitution, but, in practice, these powers are rarely exercised, with only one instance of regulations being rescinded.
5.3 Crimes are investigated by public security organs, generally the PSB, but also including other organs such as the Anti-smuggling Bureau, Ministry of State Security and National Supervision Commission, prosecuted by the People’s Procuratorate, and tried in the People’s Courts. All lawyers must be registered with, and operate in compliance with, regulations issued by the All China Lawyer’s Association, which is directly supervised by the Ministry of Justice (see Human Rights Defenders (including Lawyers)).
5.4 The Criminal Procedure Law and Criminal Law regulate arrest and detention. The Criminal Procedure Law sets out the procedures to be followed in the criminal process. It applies prior to a verdict being issued by a court and the Criminal Law is applied after a verdict has been issued. Criminal prosecution can be lengthy, and it can take in excess of one year for a case to progress from initial detention to verdict and sentencing.
Military
5.5China has the largest active military service in the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reports to the Party’s Central Military Commission, which is headed by the president (and Party General Secretary). The PLA currently has over two million members. It serves the Party, rather than the Chinese state. In March 2018 the Ministry of Finance proposed increasing China’s defence budget by 8.1 per cent, from RMB 1.044 trillion (AUD 218.6 billion) in 2017, to RMB 1.107 trillion (AUD 231.8 billion) in 2018. The PLA has shrunk significantly from an estimated three million active personnel in 1992. It continues to decrease as it seeks to improve the quality of its staff and systems. The PLA has five branches of service: Army, Navy, Air Force, Rocket Force (strategic missile force) and Strategic Support Force (space and cyber forces). While China reported spending 1.28 per cent of GDP on the military in 2016, actual military expenditure is probably higher. The military service age is 18-24 years for selective compulsory military service, with a two-year service obligation. There is no minimum age for voluntary service (all officers are volunteers). The PLA has not been deployed against Chinese citizens in China since June 1989, when PLA units killed several hundred protesters in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square and surrounding areas.
Police
5.6 The Ministry of Public Security oversees the police force, which is organised into specialised police agencies and local, county, and provincial jurisdictions. The government no longer publicises the size of its police force, but media estimates place the number at around two million. The People’s Armed Police, a paramilitary force responsible for internal security issues such as riots, terrorist attacks, natural disasters and other emergencies, has an estimated 660,000 members. Police undertake four-year training programs that include courses in procedural law and public order, as well as extensive physical training. Performance is statistics-driven and a national ranking system provides incentives for compliance. Local-level police are generally entitled to receive housing and food allowances as part of their monthly salaries, which are calculated according to local conditions rather than a national standard.
5.7 Maintaining public order and social stability – defined as defending CCP rule – are the key priorities of the police force in China, and outweigh protection of the public from criminal activity. Regular police do not generally carry firearms but can do so in areas of heightened security (such as in Xinjiang and Tibet). Reflecting the power held by the Ministry of Public Security, procuratorate oversight of the police is limited, localised and ad-hoc.
5.8 Chinese citizens have the right to lodge complaints against the police in their city of residence through a telephone hotline, or online complaints website, in person, or in writing to the Public Security Bureau Complaints Office. Local authorities have targeted petitioners (including those with complaints against police) with punishments including arrest and detention (see Protesters/petitioners). Complaints against police rarely lead to disciplinary action and, where investigations are announced, their outcomes are not publicly released (see also Deaths in Custody).
5.9 Police are unable to open a case until the prosecutor is confident there is a high chance of conviction. Police are required to send a brief to the prosecutor seeking formal permission to arrest, and only very clear- cut cases are generally approved, accounting for the 99 per cent conviction rate. When the procuratorate deems there is not enough evidence to justify arrest, it sends the case back for further investigation. Sources report that police are under pressure to obtain confessions prior to trial, and to ensure success in all police investigations. However, China has taken some positive steps to protect individual rights through amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law prohibiting the use of confessions obtained under torture as evidence, and requiring interrogations in major criminal cases to be audio and video recorded. However, these protections do not apply in cases involving national security, which are investigated outside of China’s criminal justice system. In practice, the number of cases in which evidence is not accepted at trial because it was obtained through torture or other coercive means is still very low, and only very few cases of this nature have been reported.
5.10 DFAT has no additional information on the quality of local policing or responsiveness of the PSB to local crime.
Judiciary
5.11 China has explicitly rejected ‘Western notions’ of separation of powers and judicial independence. While China has undertaken significant reform to minimise officials’ interference in lower-level court cases and professionalise China’s judiciary, courts remain subject to a variety of internal and external controls that limit their engagement in independent decision-making. The CPP approves judicial appointments and personnel decisions. Jurors are also appointed to a jury pool by the CCP for a five-year period and therefore serve the needs of the Party. The CCP also exercises direct influence in individual cases through Political-Legal Committees (PLCs) at each level of government. PLCs supervise and direct the work of state legal institutions, including the courts, and are typically staffed by court presidents, the heads of law enforcement agencies, officials of the justice ministry or bureau, and other legal organs. Although PLCs focus primarily on ideological matters, they can influence the outcome of cases, particularly when the case is sensitive or important.
5.12 China’s 2016 White Paper on Judicial Reform includes measures to reduce political influence on courts, improve access to justice, strengthen professionalism of the judiciary, and increase transparency. In an effort to curb local corruption, new policy shifts funding of courts from the local to provincial level and courts have started recording attempts to influence proceedings. Since May 2015 there has been a mandatory nation-wide case filing system, through which courts cannot refuse to hear cases without sound legal justification.
5.13 Enforcement of court judgements remains an issue. However courts now publish many routine judgements online on the Open Trial Network (OTN). The OTN is a case database platform, which increases transparency (for listed cases) to help enforce judgements and parole. If individuals or entities do not comply with fines or fulfil judgements, they can face other restrictions in line with the SCS (see The Social Credit System). Nevertheless, OTN coverage is patchy and not all cases reported in the media are listed. The 709 crackdown cases, for example, are not listed on the OTN. Only final judgements can be viewed on the OTN; intermediary judgements are not always accessible if there is an appeal.
5.14 Articles 183, 274 and 196 of the Criminal Procedure Law require cases involving state secrets, personal privacy, trade or commercial secrets or where the defendant is under 18, to be tried in a closed court. Cases involving trade or commercial secrets are also held in private if any party concerned in the matter requests a closed court session. However, Article 196 requires all verdicts to be issued in open courts.
5.15 Judicial reforms implemented in recent years have led to an increase in administrative law cases, albeit from a very low base, including local cases of official abuse of power. For example, the Shenzhen court has published figures for administrative cases showing 10,133 administrative cases in 2015, compared with 9,167 in 2014 and only 3,840 in 2013. In 2015, the government lost 381 (15.2 per cent) of 2508 lawsuits against it. While improving, these relatively low numbers - even in one of China’s wealthiest and most international cities (Shenzhen has a population of 12 million) - indicate the difficulties faced by ordinary people in pursuing cases against officials.
5.16 A number of special courts also play a key role in the judicial system. The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress has the power to list the functions and powers of special courts and set up new special courts. Special courts include the military courts, maritime courts, railway transportation courts, forestry courts and the intellectual property courts. The military court, established within the People’s Liberation Army, is responsible for hearing criminal cases involving servicemen and women. This is a relatively closed system without external supervision.
5.17 The maritime court system deals with highly specialised issues related to waters under Chinese jurisdiction. Maritime courts operate in Shanghai, Tianjin, Qingdao, Guangzhou, Wuhan, Haikou, Xiamen, Ningbo, and Beihai, and there are also 39 detached tribunals in major port cities across 15 provinces. Maritime courts have jurisdiction over maritime tort disputes, maritime contract disputes, sea environmental protection cases, and maritime administrative and special procedure cases, including any disputes in this category arising between Chinese and foreign citizens, organisations and enterprises. The procedures of the maritime courts are governed by the Civil Procedure Law (1991; amended 2017), and where there is no provision in the Civil Procedure Law, the Special Maritime Procedure Law (1999) applies. However, maritime courts have no jurisdiction over criminal cases and other civil or administrative cases without a maritime element. In the event of a jurisdictional dispute regarding the existence of a maritime element, the ordinary court at one level higher than the maritime court and the ordinary court seeking to exercise jurisdiction, will determine jurisdiction. The High People’s Court in the locality where a particular maritime court is located has appellate jurisdiction over judgments and orders of the maritime court. Sources claim the maritime court’s remit has, at times, increased to include administrative cases, labour cases involving unpaid workers, shop workers (sailors) and maritime pollution cases. The Maritime Courts connect with port and border authorities, and entry and exit can be prohibited if an Individual has a pending Maritime Court order.
5.18 DFAT assesses that a lack of separation of powers creates structural vulnerabilities within the judicial system. Judicial autonomy is limited in cases that authorities consider politically sensitive or that involve vested economic or political interests. Public confidence in the ability of courts to enforce judgements, particularly in rural areas, remains low.
INTERNAL RELOCATION
5.31 There are many opportunities for internal relocation in China and movement of people is fundamental to China’s push for continued economic growth and urbanisation. While there are no legal impediments to internal migration, the hukou system presents the biggest administrative impediment to freedom of internal movement (see Hukou (household registration) system). Those who have otherwise come to the attention of the authorities may also face impediments to freedom of movement (see The Social Credit System and Security Situation).
5.32 Linguistic and cultural barriers are not an inhibiting factor for ethnically Han Chinese to move away from their place of hukou registration. Ethnic minorities may face varying degrees of difficulty or discrimination, depending on their ethnicity and their destination (see also Uighurs and Tibetans).
5.33 DFAT assesses internal relocation is possible unless a person has attracted adverse attention from authorities at the local or national level or has a low social credit score (see The Social Credit System, Religion, Political Opinion (actual or imputed) and Groups of Interest). People subject to adverse attention from authorities or with a low social credit score are unlikely to be able to re-locate internally, due to the Chinese state’s significant surveillance capability and ability to restrict finances and travel (see Security situation and The Social Credit System).
Hukou (household registration) system
5.34 The hukou system ties access to government services, such as education above a certain level and health, to a citizen’s place of birth, or even their parents' place of birth, rather than their place of residence. Only an estimated 35 per cent of urban residents have an urban hukou. Chinese migrant workers (estimated at 282 million) who move away from rural areas for better employment opportunities, are unable to access key services and in some cases, face institutionalised discrimination. An estimated 60 to 100 million children have been ‘left behind’, either in their grandparents' care or alone, while their parents work in cities.
5.35 The Ministry of Public Security reported 28.9 million new urban residency permits issued in 2016, mostly in third or fourth tier cities. The local governments of the largest cities, including Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Chengdu, Wuhan and Xi’an, have historically had tough restrictions on granting new hukou permits given the already high populations and overburdened infrastructure in these cities. Lower-tier cities (with fewer than 3 million permanent residents in downtown areas) have been generally more willing to issue hukou, in line with government’s aim to drive economic growth in less developed and less populated regions.
5.36 In April 2019, the National Development and Reform Commission announced the 2019 Urbanisation Plan, which relaxed hukou residency restrictions in small and medium-sized cities. The 2019 Urbanisation plan requires cities with populations between one and three million to end all household registration restrictions under the hukou system. Cities with populations between three and five million will relax restrictions on new migrants and remove limits on key population groups, including graduates of universities and vocational colleges. Small and medium-sized cities and towns of under one million permanent residents have already gradually lifted restrictions on household registration. In addition to loosening hukou restrictions, the plan directs local governments to promote basic public services for permanent residents and further develop urban infrastructure to handle increases in population.
5.37 According to media reports, it will be easier to apply for hukou in big, medium-sized, and small cities (some second-tier and all third and fourth tier cities). China has 13 cities with a population of more than five million in their urban areas, which will not see a relaxation of hukou restrictions under the new policy: Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Tianjin, Chongqing, Wuhan, Chengdu, Nanjing, Zhengzhou, Hangzhou, Shenyang and Changsha. Cities that may be affected by the new plan may include, but are not limited to: Xi’an, Harbin, Changchun, Taiyuan, Nanning, Dongguan, Suzhou, Hefei, Jinan, Qingdao, Dalian, Xiamen, Ningbo, Kunming, Shijiazhuang, Nanchang and Fuzhou.
National Identity Cards
5.51Citizens over the age of 16 are required to apply for identification cards while those under 16 years can voluntarily apply with the assistance of a guardian. The PSB issues and manages ID cards according to the Resident Identity Cards Law (2003). Cards are valid for five years for children under 16, ten years for individuals aged between 16 and 25 years, twenty years for individuals between 26 and 45 years and permanently for individuals aged 46 years or older.
5.52Use of China’s latest (second generation) resident identity cards (RICs) became mandatory in 2013. RICs include the cardholder's name, sex (male or female), ethnicity, date of birth, residential address, a unique 18-digit ID number and coloured photograph. Embedded digital microchips in each card contain the same identifying information, as well as work history, educational background, religion, police record, medical insurance status, landlord’s telephone number, and reproductive history. Cards issued in ethnic minority areas contain corresponding text in the minority language. Han Chinese in ethnic minority autonomous regions must have text listed only in Mandarin.
5.53Applicants must complete a Registration Form of Application for Resident Identity Card and present their hukou for examination by public security authorities. Costs of new or renewed cards vary according to location and the circumstances of the applicant. For example, the law exempts payment for urban residents on subsistence allowances and rural residents who live in ‘specially straitened’ circumstances. Breaches of the law can lead to disciplinary warnings, fines (ranging from RMB 200 to 1,000 – approximately AUD 40 to 200) and up to ten days detention. Forgery of cards is a criminal offence.
5.54Second-generation cards are reportedly difficult to counterfeit. Since 2013, the government has run trials to include fingerprints on the cards making it more difficult to forge. Places such as banks, train stations and airports have card readers. Valid ID cards are required for hukou, employment, opening bank accounts, obtaining passports and drivers’ licences, applications for tertiary study, travel by plane or train, marriages and legal cases. Internet cafes and some shops also require proof of identity.
5.55Sources report that the government has longer term plans to change the national identity card to an online identity card.
INTERNAL RELOCATION
5.31 There are many opportunities for internal relocation in China and movement of people is fundamental to China’s push for continued economic growth and urbanisation. While there are no legal impediments to internal migration, the hukou system presents the biggest administrative impediment to freedom of internal movement (see Hukou (household registration) system). Those who have otherwise come to the attention of the authorities may also face impediments to freedom of movement (see The Social Credit System and Security Situation).
5.32 Linguistic and cultural barriers are not an inhibiting factor for ethnically Han Chinese to move away from their place of hukou registration. Ethnic minorities may face varying degrees of difficulty or discrimination, depending on their ethnicity and their destination (see also Uighurs and Tibetans).
5.33 DFAT assesses internal relocation is possible unless a person has attracted adverse attention from authorities at the local or national level or has a low social credit score (see The Social Credit System, Religion, Political Opinion (actual or imputed) and Groups of Interest). People subject to adverse attention from authorities or with a low social credit score are unlikely to be able to re-locate internally, due to the Chinese state’s significant surveillance capability and ability to restrict finances and travel (see Security situation and The Social Credit System).
COUNTRY INFORMATION – CLAIMS SPECIFIC
RELIGION
Other groups, including ‘cults’
3.93The Criminal Law provides for prison sentences of up to seven years for individuals who use ‘superstitious sects, secret societies or evil religious organisations’ to undermine the state’s laws or administrative regulations. A 1999 judicial explanation refers to: ‘those illegal groups that have been found using religions, qigong [a traditional Chinese exercise discipline], or other things as a camouflage, deifying their leading members, recruiting and controlling their members, and deceiving people by moulding and spreading superstitious ideas, and endangering society.’ While the criminal provisions principally target Falun Gong, others who engage in practices deemed superstitious or cult-like can face harassment, detention and imprisonment.
3.94In September 2017, the government published a list of 20 banned groups on its official Anti-Cult website ‘xie jiao’(cult) and launched an anti-cult platform on social media called ‘Say No to Cult,’ which includes a function for reporting suspicious activity. Eleven banned groups were listed as ‘dangerous’ on the xie jiao website: Falun Gong, Eastern Lightning (also known as The Church of Almighty God), The Shouters, The Disciples Society (or Mentu Hui), Unification Church, Guanyin Method Sect (Guanyin Famen or the Way of the Goddess of Mercy), Bloody Holy Spirit, Full Scope Church, Three Grades of Servants (or San Ban Pu Ren), True Buddha School and Mainland China Administrative Deacon Station. The xie jiao website also warned the public to ‘be on guard against’ an additional nine groups: the Lingling Church, the Anointed King, the Children of God, Dami Mission, the New Testament Church, the World Elijah Gospel Mission Society, the Lord God Sect, the Yuandun Dharma Gate, and the South China Church.
3.95Local authorities interpret ‘cult’ in different ways. Chinese government sensitivities towards religious cults have historical roots: religious cults led significant rebellions during the 19th century. Mainstream Christians tend to deride cults as heretics, but government crackdowns on ‘cults’ can affect unregistered mainstream Christian churches, as local officials may have difficulty distinguishing unregistered mainstream churches from cults.
Falun Gong
3.96Falun Gong (also known as Falun Dafa) is a spiritual movement that blends aspects of Daoism, Buddhism, and Qigong (traditional breathing and meditation). Freedom House estimates seven to 20 million people currently practice Falun Gong in China. Falun Gong practitioners claim the movement has ancient origins, but it first appeared in its modern form in 1992, when founder Li Hongzhi began teaching the exercises in Changchun, Jilin province. Unlike other religions, Falun Gong focuses on private exercises and meditation.
3.97The government declared Falun Gong illegal and ‘an evil cult’ after a large protest by followers at the CCP headquarters in Beijing in 1999. The CCP maintains a Leading Small Group for Preventing and Dealing with the Problem of Heretical Cults to eliminate the Falun Gong movement and to address ‘evil cults’. An extrajudicial security apparatus known as the 6-10 Office (named after 10 June 1999 crackdown against Falun Gong) has the task of eradicating Falun Gong activities. The 6-10 office has reportedly created specialised facilities known as ‘transformation through re-education centres’ to force practitioners to relinquish their faith. Falun Gong reportedly remains active throughout China, but most prominently in Shandong and northeastern China, although Falun Gong’s illegal status makes this difficult to verify.
3.98Since the abolition of re-education through labour centres in late 2013, Falun Gong practitioners have reportedly been subjected to residential detention, criminal and other forms of administrative punishment (see Arbitrary Arrest and Detention), or have been released after receiving propaganda training. Freedom House states it independently verified 933 cases between 1 January 2013 and 1 June 2016 of Falun Gong adherents receiving prison sentences of up to 12 years for their beliefs.
3.99Falun Gong members do not openly proselytise in mainland China, although the movement is active in Hong Kong (where it remains legal) and abroad. Falun Gong practitioners identify potential new members and slowly introduce them to the practices and beliefs of Falun Gong. Falun Gong practitioners are generally able to practise privately in their homes. Once known to authorities, colleagues or neighbours, however, Falun Gong members face widespread official and societal discrimination.
3.100Lawyers representing Falun Gong practitioners claim a typical Falun Gong case involves: a period of initial investigation; the suspect having their personal belongings confiscated and being placed in custody for three to six months; trial by court; and then sentencing. Arrested Falun Gong practitioners (leaders and followers alike) commonly receive sentences of three to seven years’ imprisonment. Correctional officers will pressure Falun Gong practitioners to denounce their faith, and detainees may receive better treatment if they sign confessional statements. Falun Gong practitioners and their lawyers claim that judges and lawyers are actively discouraged from taking on Falun Gong cases, and that Falun Gong practitioners have suffered psychiatric experimentation and organ harvesting. DFAT is not able to verify these claims.
3.101On release from detention, Falun Gong members can be placed under surveillance and can experience difficulties finding employment beyond low-skilled jobs. Discrimination against Falun Gong practitioners can extend to family members and can result in the loss of employment, pensions or social relationships. Government officials, members of the police force and employees of state-owned enterprises are commonly required to sign a statement that they and their families are not Falun Gong members. A widespread and sustained government communications campaign against Falun Gong has effectively discredited it within mainstream Chinese society.
3.102Unlike other officially designated cults, the government regards Falun Gong practitioners as political opponents rather than victims, and treats them accordingly (see Political Opinion (actual or imputed)). Lawyers who defend Falun Gong practitioners are frequently denied access to their clients in detention or court, and are subjected to adverse treatment and physical and electronic surveillance by authorities (see Human Rights Defenders (including Lawyers)).
3.103Falun Gong practitioners known to the authorities would likely find it difficult to obtain a passport. Sources report some migration agents, particularly in transit countries, may have coached would-be asylum seekers on Falun Gong practices to facilitate their claims.
3.104DFAT assesses that Falun Gong practitioners, and their lawyers, are at high risk of official discrimination. Due to the government’s sustained public campaign against them, Falun Gong practitioners, if exposed, face a moderate risk of societal discrimination.
COUNTRY INFORMATION – SUMMARY

The Tribunal is informed by the country information, in summary, as follows:
a)As to security generally: gaining support for Chinese Communist Party (CCP) policies throughout the country and maintaining social stability are top priorities for the CCP. To achieve this, the government deploys a vast internal security apparatus.
b)As to the police: citizens can be arrested prior to being charged. Police and other security agencies have broad administrative detention powers and the ability to detain individuals for extended periods without formal arrest or criminal charge. The arrest procedures are not subject to judicial oversight.
c)As to State protection: Article 5 of the Constitution states that ‘no laws or administrative or local regulations may contravene the Constitution. All State organs, the armed forces, all political parties and public organisations and all enterprises and institutions must abide by the Constitution and other laws. All acts in violation of the Constitution or other laws must be investigated. No organisation or individual is privileged to be beyond the Constitution or other laws’.
d)As to the judiciary: China has explicitly rejected ‘Western notions’ of separation of powers and judicial independence. While China has undertaken significant reform to minimise officials’ interference in lower-level court cases and professionalise China’s judiciary, courts remain subject to a variety of internal and external controls that limit their engagement in independent decision-making. DFAT assesses that a lack of separation of powers creates structural vulnerabilities within the judicial system. Judicial autonomy is limited in cases that authorities consider politically sensitive or that involve vested economic or political interests. Public confidence in the ability of courts to enforce judgements, particularly in rural areas, remains low.
e)As to internal relocation: DFAT assesses internal relocation is possible unless a person has attracted adverse attention from authorities at the local or national level or has a low social credit score. People subject to adverse attention from authorities or with a low social credit score are unlikely to be able to re-locate internally, due to the Chinese state’s significant surveillance capability and ability to restrict finances and travel.
f)As to practitioners of Falun Gong: Falun Gong (also known as Falun Dafa) is a spiritual movement that blends aspects of Daoism, Buddhism, and Qigong (traditional breathing and meditation). Unlike other religions, Falun Gong focuses on private exercises and meditation. The government declared Falun Gong illegal and ‘an evil cult’ after a large protest by followers at the CCP headquarters in Beijing in 1999. An extrajudicial security apparatus known as the 6-10 Office (named after the 10 June 1999 crackdown against Falun Gong) has the task of eradicating Falun Gong activities. Since the abolition of re-education through labour centres in late 2013, Falun Gong practitioners have reportedly been subjected to residential detention, criminal and other forms of administrative punishment, or have been released after receiving propaganda training. Falun Gong practitioners are generally able to practise privately in their homes. DFAT assesses that Falun Gong practitioners, and their lawyers, are at high risk of official discrimination. Due to the government’s sustained public campaign against them, Falun Gong practitioners, if exposed, face a moderate risk of societal discrimination.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence of the applicant was often unresponsive to the question, vague, imprecise or discursive. Often the evidence of the applicant contained elements of all these issues. The Tribunal has rehearsed the evidence as a representative narrative, given in real time, which was often quite disjointed. The Tribunal’s rehearsal of the evidence is not intended to be a transcript of the evidence, rather the best recording as it transpired. It does give and is intended to give an appreciation of the nature and quality of the applicant’s evidence. The authorities make it clear it is for the applicant to make his or her own case.[4] The vague nature of the applicant’s evidence and her failure to refer to corroborative witnesses and documents is a matter which is taken into account by the Tribunal.
[4] Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169–70; SZBEL v MIMIA (2006) 228 CLR 152; at [40]; Re Ruddock; Ex parte Applicant S154/2002 [2003] HCA 60 at [57] and [1]; WAKK v MIMIA [2005] FCAFC 225 at [73]; MIMA v Lay Lat (2006) 151 FCR 214 at [76]; and Abebe v Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR 510 at [187]
The applicant asserted that she commenced practising FG in Australia. She said that she started practising at home in July 2012 but then said in April 2013 ‘she had been practising for a while’. The applicant said that [in] February 2014, while in China, she was approached by officers of the state security. They threatened her on the basis of the practice of FG at home and also threatened her father’s employment. They wanted the applicant to assist them to procure her aunt’s return to China. The Tribunal makes a number of observations as to this incident. First, the applicant’s recount was slightly different at the hearing. She said it occurred on her way home. Her written account suggests it occurred at her home. Secondly, the applicant had not returned to China for very long. She was apparently practising FG in private. It is unlikely that she came to the attention of the authorities. Thirdly, her aunt was not particularly prominent in FG in Australia. It is unlikely that the authorities would be concerned about such a person. Fourthly, the applicant did not agree to help. The authorities apparently knew she was practising FG, she did not agree to assist them, however they did not arrest her. This is an unlikely scenario. It is more likely that she would have been arrested and then would have been more cooperative. Next, the applicant did not immediately leave China. She left several months later. Lastly the applicant returned to China having left several weeks after the incident. This is inconsistent with a person who has fled China due to a fear of persecution. On balance, the Tribunal does not accept that the event occurred.
The applicant asserted that she became involved in FG in Australia in July 2012. This is different from the finding of the delegate in the decision record. However, she produced several witnesses. [Ms G] said she was aware of the applicant practising FG since July 2012 but produced no details. [Ms K] said she met the applicant at a FG event in May 2013 but could not recall the applicant’s involvement. [Ms L] said she met the applicant in 2014 when they were both working for the Epoch Times. A letter from [Ms C] asserts that he met her in a FG study group in 2016. [Mr D] stated that he met her in 2016 and that she joined a FG band in 2016. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has been involved in FG in Australia since May 2013 although the extent of the applicant’s involvement is unclear. Since 2016 she seems to have been more involved. The Tribunal does not accept that she was involved in FG prior to May 2013.
The applicant asserted that she practised FG in China when she returned. She produced no witness or document to corroborate that assertion. It is not accepted by the Tribunal.
She asserted that her uncle was detained in China due to his FG involvement. She gave no details of this. She produced no witness or document to corroborate this assertion. It is not accepted by the Tribunal.
The vague nature of the assertions, the failure to provide relevant details and documents and the failure to provide corroborative testimony compel the conclusion that the applicant’s assertions cannot be accepted. The Tribunal does not accept the matters asserted by the applicant as the basis for her claim for protection in Australia.
The applicant’s migration history is also relevant. The applicant arrived in Australia in 2002. She asserted that she became involved in FG in early 2012 and became more involved in early 2013. She did not apply for a protection visa until 18 September 2014. She returned to China [in] November 2013. She said that the incident with the government authorities occurred [in] February 2014. She returned to Australia [in] April 2014. She did not apply for a protection visa upon her return. She did not explain this omission to the Tribunal’s satisfaction. She returned to China again [in] June 2014. This is inconsistent with the actions of a person who feared persecution in China. She returned to Australia [in] June 2014 and did not apply for a protection visa until 18 September 2014. She did not explain the delay to the Tribunal’s satisfaction. She said that she was ignorant about Australian immigration policies. The Tribunal does not accept this assertion. She had contact with her aunt and her grandparents, all of whom had obtained protection visas. She also had contact with [Ms L] who had obtained such a visa. Further, she was involved in the FG Chinese community in Australia. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant was ignorant of the possibility of obtaining a protection visa prior to taking steps to apply. Delay in seeking a protection visa can support an adverse credibility finding as well as a finding that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of harm.[5] Even a three month delay in lodging a protection visa application has been held to be a legitimate matter to be taken into account when assessing the genuineness or depth of an applicant’s fear of persecution.[6] In Selvadurai v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 34 ALD 347, the Court observed in regard to a delay in lodgement of a protection application: ‘In my opinion, this was a legitimate factual argument and an obvious one to take into account in assessing the genuineness, or at least the depth of the applicant’s alleged fear of persecution. It is a rational consideration open on the material’. In the Tribunal’s view the applicant’s delay in lodging a protection visa application further suggests that the basis of the claim for protection should not be accepted.
[5] Zhang v RRT & Anor [1997] FCA 423; Kavun v MIMA [2000] FCA 370.
[6] Subramaniam v MIMA (1998) VG310 of 1997.
In determining whether a person has a well-founded fear of persecution, any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Tribunal they engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening their claim to be a refugee.[7] As discussed above, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was involved in FG in Australia prior to May 2013. Further, the Tribunal does not accept that the conduct of the applicant in Australia insofar as FG is concerned was other than for the purposes of strengthening her claim.
[7] Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.5J(6).
The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant feared persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion in accordance with s.5J(1)(a) of the Act.
Having regard to the evidence the Tribunal makes the following findings:
a)the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion;
b)the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that, if the applicant is returned to China, the applicant would be persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion;
c)the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance of persecution that relates to all areas of China;
d)the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution;
e)the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a refugee in accordance with s.5H(1) of the Act; and
f)the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations pursuant to s.36(2)(a) of the Act.
Complementary protection criteria assessment – s.36(2)(aa)
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal has considered whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm.
The mere fact that an applicant claims to face a real risk of significant harm does not establish that such a risk exists, or if that harm feared amounts to ‘significant harm’. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all the statutory elements are made out. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative enquiries and decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case must be provided by the applicant.
While the Tribunal is required to adopt a reasonable approach to such matters, the Tribunal is not required to make the applicant’s case out for the applicant. Neither is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all of the allegations made by the applicant. In respect of the Tribunal’s assessment in regard to complementary protection, the Tribunal adopts the findings stated above in relation to the refugee criterion assessment.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(b) or (c) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy any of the criteria in s.36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Peter Booth
Member

[2021] AATA 3825

26 July 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice