1715467 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse the applicant a protection visa. The applicant, a woman from China, sought protection on the grounds that she feared persecution due to her alleged practice of I-Kuan Dao religion, experiences of domestic and family violence, and fear of unemployment upon return to China. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether she was a refugee or qualified for complementary protection.

The Tribunal considered whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, domestic and family violence, or unemployment. Regarding her religious claims, the Tribunal found significant inconsistencies in her evidence about practising I-Kuan Dao, noting she frequently referred to practising Jiliu Buddhism and attending Fo Guang Shan temples. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was at most an occasional practitioner of I-Kuan Dao and primarily practised other forms of Buddhism, and that country information did not support a real chance of serious harm for such practitioners. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had suffered domestic and family violence up until 2012, but found no real chance of serious harm from her former husband, as they had been separated since 2012 with no contact. Similarly, the Tribunal accepted she had a difficult childhood but found no real chance of serious harm from her mother due to her mother's age and health. Finally, the Tribunal was not satisfied that any potential financial difficulties upon return would constitute persecution for a reason specified in the legislation.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Furthermore, the Tribunal found no substantial grounds to believe that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her removal to China, there was a real risk of significant harm, thus not meeting the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa.