1721516 (Refugee)

This case concerned an application for a protection visa by a woman from China. The applicant claimed she was forced to relocate due to the Three Gorges Dam project, was promised but received no compensation or support, and subsequently faced harassment from a village leader after complaining to authorities. This harassment allegedly led to repeated moves and job losses between 2002 and her departure for Australia in 2017. The applicant also presented a separate claim regarding threats and police inaction after investing in a company that became involved in illegal activities. The decision was made by Member Roslyn Smidt.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958. This involved determining if she was a refugee under section 36(2)(a) due to a well-founded fear of persecution, or if she faced a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to China, thus meeting the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). The court also considered the applicant's credibility, given inconsistencies in her claims and evidence regarding her residence, work history, and travel.

The court found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa. While acknowledging the applicant's claims of forced relocation and subsequent harassment, the court ultimately affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the visa. The reasoning focused on the applicant's failure to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. The court noted the inconsistencies in the applicant's statements and evidence, which impacted her credibility. The decision also implicitly considered the provisions of Ministerial Direction No. 84 and relevant guidelines concerning refugee and complementary protection.

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