1719587 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision to affirm the refusal of a protection visa. The applicant's claims for protection were based on the alleged fears of his parents, who claimed to be an "underground" Christian and an adherent of Falun Gong, respectively, and who asserted they would face arrest upon return to China. The applicant's case was predicated on the implication that he would suffer harm as a consequence of his parents' potential detention.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant was entitled to Australia's protection as a refugee, or alternatively, on complementary protection grounds. Specifically, the Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to China, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm.

The Tribunal reasoned that the onus was on the applicant to establish all statutory elements of his claim and that a decision-maker was not obliged to construct the applicant's case. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's claims relied entirely on the unsuccessful claims of his parents, which had been rejected as unreliable by previous decision-makers. Applying the principles that mere assertion of fear does not establish its genuineness or well-foundedness, and that the applicant must satisfy the Tribunal that all statutory elements are met, the Tribunal found insufficient information to make a favourable decision.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or that there was a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.