1718618 (Refugee)

The applicant, a female from China, sought a protection visa, claiming a well-founded fear of persecution due to her adherence to underground Catholicism. The dispute before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either as a refugee or under complementary protection provisions, or as a member of a family unit with someone who met those criteria.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were to determine if the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically if she had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion. If not, the Tribunal was required to consider whether she met the criteria for complementary protection, meaning there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal to China. Finally, the Tribunal needed to assess if the applicant was a member of the same family unit as a person who met either of these criteria.

The Tribunal reasoned that simply claiming a real risk of harm was insufficient; the applicant bore the onus of providing sufficient detail to enable the decision-maker to make relevant factual findings. The applicant's claims regarding persecution by the Chinese government for practicing underground Catholicism lacked the necessary specificity and detail to establish a well-founded fear. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not experienced previous harm in China and that her claims about the situation being the same throughout China, and the government being corrupt and colluding with police, were general assertions. Furthermore, the applicant failed to attend her Tribunal hearing, which would have provided an opportunity for further examination of her claims.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that she did not satisfy the criteria for being a refugee or for complementary protection, nor was she a member of a family unit with someone who did.