1715136 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear serious harm if returned to China due to her religious beliefs as a Christian and her membership in a local church. The AAT was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically whether she was a refugee due to a well-founded fear of persecution.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on assessing the applicant's claim of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion. It acknowledged the difficulties applicants may face in presenting their claims and the need for a reasonable approach to credibility assessment. The AAT considered the applicant's detailed evidence of her active involvement in her local church in China and in Australia, as well as her detention by Chinese authorities following a church meeting. This evidence, supported by documentation and her husband's testimony, led the Tribunal to accept that the applicant is a Christian and a member of a local church.

Applying the principles from *Chan v MIEA* and *MIEA v Guo*, the Tribunal found that the applicant possessed both a subjective and an objective well-founded fear of persecution. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant's fear was genuine and that there was a real chance of persecution based on her religious activities and membership in an unofficial church, which is subject to the Chinese government's policy of "sinicization." The Tribunal concluded that there was no effective state protection available to the applicant and that her religion was the essential and significant reason for the feared persecution, which involved systematic and discriminatory conduct. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant satisfied the criterion in section 36(2)(a) of the Act.

The Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant satisfies section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Tribunal also found that the applicant was a member of the same family unit as her husband, who also satisfied the criterion, and was therefore entitled to a protection visa.