1718466 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of a female applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant, born in Australia to Chinese parents, claimed she would face persecution if returned to China. Her claims were based on her parents' alleged practice of Falun Gong, the fact that she was the fourth child in her family and thus in breach of China's one-child policy, and the potential for her to be treated as a "black child" or abandoned due to her gender.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution as a refugee, or alternatively, whether she met the criteria for complementary protection. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to China, the applicant would suffer significant harm. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims regarding her parents' Falun Gong practice, the implications of China's family planning laws, and the risks associated with being an unregistered child or a female infant in China.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not provided further evidence or appeared to give testimony, despite being invited to do so. The Tribunal considered the country information and guidelines relevant to protection claims. It found that the applicant's parents' Falun Gong claims had previously been assessed as not credible and upheld on review. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered recent changes to Chinese family planning policies and household registration laws, which suggested that the applicant would not face discrimination as a "black child" or be unable to obtain registration due to social compensation fees. The Tribunal also found the claims of abandonment or harm due to her gender to be unsubstantiated, particularly in light of her mother's assurance that she would protect her.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution or that she would face significant harm upon return to China, based on the limited and uncorroborated information before it.