1719593 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of China. The applicant claimed to be a Christian who had been involved with an outlawed house church in China, and that he feared persecution if returned to his home country. The applicant had requested that the Tribunal make a decision on his application without a hearing, and this request was confirmed via telephone and email. Consequently, the Tribunal considered the matter based solely on the written evidence provided.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations. This required determining whether the applicant met the criteria for being a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), or the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

The Tribunal reasoned that it was not satisfied that the applicant's claims were reliable or that he faced harm due to his claimed Christian religious practices, or for any other reason, if returned to China. This lack of satisfaction stemmed from the applicant's decision not to attend a hearing, which prevented the Tribunal from testing his claims. The Tribunal found the applicant's claims to be lacking in sufficient detail and substance, particularly regarding the timing of his conversion to Christianity, what attracted him to the faith, the nature of his beliefs, and the specifics of his religious practice in China. As a result, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was a Christian, and therefore could not be satisfied of his claims flowing from that assertion.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.