1718281 (Refugee) - [2020] AATA 6181

1718281 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 6181 (20 September 2020)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1718281
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   China
MEMBER:Damian Creedon
DATE:20 September 2020
PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 20 September 2020 at 3:36pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – religion – membership and activity in unsanctioned sect – family members’ houses searched by security police – consent to decision without hearing – credibility – vague, unsubstantiated and unpersuasive claims – country information – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65, 425
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
MIEA v Guo Wei Rong and Pam Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
SZSPT v MIBP [2014] FCA 1245
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 on 24 July 2017 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 2 March 2017. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant is not a refugee as defined by s5H(1) of the Act and there were not substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed to his receiving country, there was a real risk he would suffer significant harm.
The applicant appealed that decision to the Tribunal, annexing a copy of the delegate’s decision to his application for review.
On 27 August 2020 the applicant was invited by the Tribunal in writing to attend a hearing in person on 18 September 2020.
On 7 September 2020 the applicant responded to the Tribunal’s correspondence stating that, ‘due to the COVID-19’ he has decided not to attend the hearing for his ‘safety’. He went on to state that he ‘agreed’ to the tribunal to deciding the review based on his ‘existing paper information’.
On 7 September 2020 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising, inter alia, that:
…the advice of the Western Australian Government is that there is currently no evidence of undetected cases of COVID-19 in the WA community. Further information in this regard is available at the Western Australian Government’s website here: [link omitted]
Further, we wish to advise that the Tribunal has adopted all relevant COVID-19 Safety Guidelines for the health, safety and wellbeing of applicants, witnesses…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading 1718281 (Refugee)

Details

AGLC: 1718281 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 6181
Case: [2020] AATA 6181
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, a national of the People's Republic of China, sought a protection visa, claiming he was a follower of I-Kuan-Tao and feared persecution in his home country. He arrived in Australia in December 2012 and lodged his protection visa application in February 2017. The applicant's claims centred on his religious conversion and the subsequent actions of the authorities against his family and fellow practitioners in his hometown of Hebei Province, including the searching and closure of altars and the penalisation of his family.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), and if not, whether he was entitled to complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's well-founded fear of persecution based on his religious beliefs and the real risk of suffering significant harm upon removal from Australia.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. While acknowledging the applicant's stated adherence to I-Kuan-Tao and the reported incidents of authorities searching and closing altars in his hometown, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion for being a refugee. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the complementary protection criterion, as there were no substantial grounds to believe that he would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia. The Tribunal's decision was based on its assessment of the evidence presented in light of the relevant legislative provisions and guidelines.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the refugee criterion, and if not, whether he is entitled to complementary protection. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.Background: The applicant is a [age]-year-old man from the People’s Republic of China. He states his ‘relationship status’ as married and he has one son.[1] [1] See Department File, folios 36 and 39 respectively. The applicant arrived in Australia [in] December 2012 holding a Tourist (subclass 676) visa granted on 13 December 2012 and valid until 25 March 2013. He lodged an application for a Protection Visa on 27 February 2017. Claims: In support of his application to the Department the applicant provided a written statement (written statement);[2] the written statement can be summarised as follows:[2] See Departmental file, folios 40 – 44. a.The applicant states that he is a pursuer and follower of I-Kuan-Tao and is from Hebei Province. b.The applicant states that his family members use to be atheist and none of them had any religious faith. c.The applicant states that:…about three years before my arrival in Australia I met with some pursuers of I-Kuan-Tao, who were so kind and moral that I had learned a lot from them.d.The applicant states that he first started to practice Tao at his friends’ homes but later he set up a ‘house alter’ at his own home every first and fifteen day of the lunar month and that he would gather his fellow pursuers to worship, ‘but sometimes [they] would attend other alters instead’. e.The applicant states that since converting to I-Kuan-Tao his life has changed greatly. He states that, whereas he had been ‘indulging’ in ‘worldly enjoyments, such as wealth, fame or luxuries’, and ‘keeping up with [the] Joneses’; after he took up his ‘Tao-pursuit’ he had changed his outlook on life. He states:I began to be after inner peace and personal joys instead of paying too much attention to wealth or success. In the past few years, I hadn’t reaped an extravagant profit from my business, but I contented myself with a sufficient and steady income I was earning honestly.f.He states that, after observing the difficulties and challenges faced by his peers:It suddenly dawned on me why Mingmingshangdi meant people to abandon obstinacy and accumulate credits of virtues in order to evade from possible disasters and find the way to reach Litian.g.The applicant states that after he was initiated into Tao, he preached to his family members and friends with ‘great enthusiasm’. He states that his older brother was a village [Occupation 1] and his second elder brother was a ‘professional [Occupation 2]’. He states that his brothers were tormented by various troubles in the past, but after their conversion to I-Kuan-Tao, they started to change their outlook on life and their ‘fates’ and businesses changed for the better. He states:In short, the Tao-pursuit had made me and many famil8ies around me take on a new look.h.The applicant states that his eldest son came to Australia on a student visa in August 2012 and that, as his son had ‘some difficulty’ in adapting, he decided to come to ‘see him’ in December 2012 with the ‘hope’ of accompanying him through his studies.i.He states that he had a lot of conflicts with his son; he states:Once, we fell out over some disagreement, and my son ended up running away from home. I never expected lie should have changed his telephone number in order that I could not trace him. He stopped contacting me or his family, so I had lost touch with him from that time on.j.He states that he decided to remain in Australia to wait for his son to come back. The applicant states that he had been expecting his son to ‘wake up’ and reunite with his family. He states that his wife and family in China were enquiring with him about his son and that to support himself he worked as a ‘temporary [Occupation 3]’.k.The applicant states that he did not contact the Australian police because he was told that he would be sent back to China if he did as his visa had expired. l.The applicant states that he had ‘no alternative’ but to survive and that his ‘sole spiritual pillar” was his I-Kuan-Tao faith. He states:Every time I worshipped before Lord with my acupoint between my brows opened widely, I would invariably hear a voice claiming me as His son and pointing out that my day had not come yet but I was under the protection of Wujilaomu in the heaven and God Maitreya on the earth, so it was not necessary for me to lose faith in myself.m.The applicant states that on 1 June 2016, an incident happened in his hometown in Herbei province that motivated him to lodge an application for a protection visa. n.He states that during this incident, both altars in his brothers’ homes were searched and closed down by the ‘security police’. He states that his family were summoned for enquiries and were subsequently penalised. o.The applicant states that his wife told him that his house was also searched by the ‘security police’ because the police received a tip-off that there was a house alter in his home. p.The applicant states that he has lodged a protection visa so he is not persecuted based on his religion in China. He states:My family members cautioned me that nowadays the government had registered all the Tao pursuing families and the officials would have a regular inspection on every registered family, and more inspections on some particular families. Their Tao books were all, confiscated and the preachers were arrested. A Taiwanese preacher was said to have been arrested and then deported from this country.Evidence:

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

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, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 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 refugee criterion, and if not, whether he is entitled to complementary protection. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.Background: The applicant is a [age]-year-old man from the People’s Republic of China. He states his ‘relationship status’ as married and he has one son.[1] [1] See Department File, folios 36 and 39 respectively. The applicant arrived in Australia [in] December 2012 holding a Tourist (subclass 676) visa granted on 13 December 2012 and valid until 25 March 2013. He lodged an application for a Protection Visa on 27 February 2017. Claims: In support of his application to the Department the applicant provided a written statement (written statement);[2] the written statement can be summarised as follows:[2] See Departmental file, folios 40 – 44. a.The applicant states that he is a pursuer and follower of I-Kuan-Tao and is from Hebei Province. b.The applicant states that his family members use to be atheist and none of them had any religious faith. c.The applicant states that:…about three years before my arrival in Australia I met with some pursuers of I-Kuan-Tao, who were so kind and moral that I had learned a lot from them.d.The applicant states that he first started to practice Tao at his friends’ homes but later he set up a ‘house alter’ at his own home every first and fifteen day of the lunar month and that he would gather his fellow pursuers to worship, ‘but sometimes [they] would attend other alters instead’. e.The applicant states that since converting to I-Kuan-Tao his life has changed greatly. He states that, whereas he had been ‘indulging’ in ‘worldly enjoyments, such as wealth, fame or luxuries’, and ‘keeping up with [the] Joneses’; after he took up his ‘Tao-pursuit’ he had changed his outlook on life. He states:I began to be after inner peace and personal joys instead of paying too much attention to wealth or success. In the past few years, I hadn’t reaped an extravagant profit from my business, but I contented myself with a sufficient and steady income I was earning honestly.f.He states that, after observing the difficulties and challenges faced by his peers:It suddenly dawned on me why Mingmingshangdi meant people to abandon obstinacy and accumulate credits of virtues in order to evade from possible disasters and find the way to reach Litian.g.The applicant states that after he was initiated into Tao, he preached to his family members and friends with ‘great enthusiasm’. He states that his older brother was a village [Occupation 1] and his second elder brother was a ‘professional [Occupation 2]’. He states that his brothers were tormented by various troubles in the past, but after their conversion to I-Kuan-Tao, they started to change their outlook on life and their ‘fates’ and businesses changed for the better. He states:In short, the Tao-pursuit had made me and many famil8ies around me take on a new look.h.The applicant states that his eldest son came to Australia on a student visa in August 2012 and that, as his son had ‘some difficulty’ in adapting, he decided to come to ‘see him’ in December 2012 with the ‘hope’ of accompanying him through his studies.i.He states that he had a lot of conflicts with his son; he states:Once, we fell out over some disagreement, and my son ended up running away from home. I never expected lie should have changed his telephone number in order that I could not trace him. He stopped contacting me or his family, so I had lost touch with him from that time on.j.He states that he decided to remain in Australia to wait for his son to come back. The applicant states that he had been expecting his son to ‘wake up’ and reunite with his family. He states that his wife and family in China were enquiring with him about his son and that to support himself he worked as a ‘temporary [Occupation 3]’.k.The applicant states that he did not contact the Australian police because he was told that he would be sent back to China if he did as his visa had expired. l.The applicant states that he had ‘no alternative’ but to survive and that his ‘sole spiritual pillar” was his I-Kuan-Tao faith. He states:Every time I worshipped before Lord with my acupoint between my brows opened widely, I would invariably hear a voice claiming me as His son and pointing out that my day had not come yet but I was under the protection of Wujilaomu in the heaven and God Maitreya on the earth, so it was not necessary for me to lose faith in myself.m.The applicant states that on 1 June 2016, an incident happened in his hometown in Herbei province that motivated him to lodge an application for a protection visa. n.He states that during this incident, both altars in his brothers’ homes were searched and closed down by the ‘security police’. He states that his family were summoned for enquiries and were subsequently penalised. o.The applicant states that his wife told him that his house was also searched by the ‘security police’ because the police received a tip-off that there was a house alter in his home. p.The applicant states that he has lodged a protection visa so he is not persecuted based on his religion in China. He states:My family members cautioned me that nowadays the government had registered all the Tao pursuing families and the officials would have a regular inspection on every registered family, and more inspections on some particular families. Their Tao books were all, confiscated and the preachers were arrested. A Taiwanese preacher was said to have been arrested and then deported from this country.Evidence:

Decision

Reasons for decision

There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) 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 the criterion in s.36(2).DECISION The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.Damian CreedonMemberATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 19585 (1) Interpretation…cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:(a) severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or(b) pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;but does not include an act or omission:(c) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or(d) arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.…degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:(a) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or(b) that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.…torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:(a) for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or(b) for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or(c) for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or(d) for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or(e) for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.…receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:(a) a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or(b) if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.…5H Meaning of refugee(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:(a) in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or(b) in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.Note: For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.…5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:(a) the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and(b) there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and(c) the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.Note: For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.Note: For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:(a) conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or(b) conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or(c) without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):(a) that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and(b) the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and(c) the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:(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.(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.5K Membership of a particular social group consisting of familyFor the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:(a) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and(b) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:(i)the first person has ever experienced; or(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever 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 paragraph (a) had never existed.Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.5L Membership of a particular social group other than familyFor the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:(a) a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and(b) the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and(c) any of the following apply:(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and(d) the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.5LA Effective protection measures(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:(i)the relevant State; or(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and(b) the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:(a) the person can access the protection; and(b) the protection is durable; and(c) in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.…36 Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act…(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:(a) a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) 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 non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or(b) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or(c) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:(a) the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or(b) the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or(c) the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or(d) the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or(e) the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:(a) it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or(b) the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or(c) the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.…

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

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 the 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 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’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.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, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 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 refugee criterion, and if not, whether he is entitled to complementary protection. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.Background: The applicant is a [age]-year-old man from the People’s Republic of China. He states his ‘relationship status’ as married and he has one son.[1] [1] See Department File, folios 36 and 39 respectively. The applicant arrived in Australia [in] December 2012 holding a Tourist (subclass 676) visa granted on 13 December 2012 and valid until 25 March 2013. He lodged an application for a Protection Visa on 27 February 2017. Claims: In support of his application to the Department the applicant provided a written statement (written statement);[2] the written statement can be summarised as follows:[2] See Departmental file, folios 40 – 44. a.The applicant states that he is a pursuer and follower of I-Kuan-Tao and is from Hebei Province. b.The applicant states that his family members use to be atheist and none of them had any religious faith. c.The applicant states that:…about three years before my arrival in Australia I met with some pursuers of I-Kuan-Tao, who were so kind and moral that I had learned a lot from them.d.The applicant states that he first started to practice Tao at his friends’ homes but later he set up a ‘house alter’ at his own home every first and fifteen day of the lunar month and that he would gather his fellow pursuers to worship, ‘but sometimes [they] would attend other alters instead’. e.The applicant states that since converting to I-Kuan-Tao his life has changed greatly. He states that, whereas he had been ‘indulging’ in ‘worldly enjoyments, such as wealth, fame or luxuries’, and ‘keeping up with [the] Joneses’; after he took up his ‘Tao-pursuit’ he had changed his outlook on life. He states:I began to be after inner peace and personal joys instead of paying too much attention to wealth or success. In the past few years, I hadn’t reaped an extravagant profit from my business, but I contented myself with a sufficient and steady income I was earning honestly.f.He states that, after observing the difficulties and challenges faced by his peers:It suddenly dawned on me why Mingmingshangdi meant people to abandon obstinacy and accumulate credits of virtues in order to evade from possible disasters and find the way to reach Litian.g.The applicant states that after he was initiated into Tao, he preached to his family members and friends with ‘great enthusiasm’. He states that his older brother was a village [Occupation 1] and his second elder brother was a ‘professional [Occupation 2]’. He states that his brothers were tormented by various troubles in the past, but after their conversion to I-Kuan-Tao, they started to change their outlook on life and their ‘fates’ and businesses changed for the better. He states:In short, the Tao-pursuit had made me and many famil8ies around me take on a new look.h.The applicant states that his eldest son came to Australia on a student visa in August 2012 and that, as his son had ‘some difficulty’ in adapting, he decided to come to ‘see him’ in December 2012 with the ‘hope’ of accompanying him through his studies.i.He states that he had a lot of conflicts with his son; he states:Once, we fell out over some disagreement, and my son ended up running away from home. I never expected lie should have changed his telephone number in order that I could not trace him. He stopped contacting me or his family, so I had lost touch with him from that time on.j.He states that he decided to remain in Australia to wait for his son to come back. The applicant states that he had been expecting his son to ‘wake up’ and reunite with his family. He states that his wife and family in China were enquiring with him about his son and that to support himself he worked as a ‘temporary [Occupation 3]’.k.The applicant states that he did not contact the Australian police because he was told that he would be sent back to China if he did as his visa had expired. l.The applicant states that he had ‘no alternative’ but to survive and that his ‘sole spiritual pillar” was his I-Kuan-Tao faith. He states:Every time I worshipped before Lord with my acupoint between my brows opened widely, I would invariably hear a voice claiming me as His son and pointing out that my day had not come yet but I was under the protection of Wujilaomu in the heaven and God Maitreya on the earth, so it was not necessary for me to lose faith in myself.m.The applicant states that on 1 June 2016, an incident happened in his hometown in Herbei province that motivated him to lodge an application for a protection visa. n.He states that during this incident, both altars in his brothers’ homes were searched and closed down by the ‘security police’. He states that his family were summoned for enquiries and were subsequently penalised. o.The applicant states that his wife told him that his house was also searched by the ‘security police’ because the police received a tip-off that there was a house alter in his home. p.The applicant states that he has lodged a protection visa so he is not persecuted based on his religion in China. He states:My family members cautioned me that nowadays the government had registered all the Tao pursuing families and the officials would have a regular inspection on every registered family, and more inspections on some particular families. Their Tao books were all, confiscated and the preachers were arrested. A Taiwanese preacher was said to have been arrested and then deported from this country.Evidence: