1723318 (Refugee)

This case concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of China. The applicant claimed she feared persecution upon return to China due to her involvement in a petition against government corruption related to land resumption without compensation. She alleged that demolition teams damaged her property, police ignored her complaint, and authorities subsequently sought to arrest her and other residents involved in the petition. The applicant arrived in Australia in February 2017, briefly returned to China in April 2017, and then re-entered Australia in May 2017, applying for a protection visa shortly thereafter. The delegate refused the application, and the applicant sought review by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This required determining if she was a refugee, defined as someone outside their country of nationality with a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country. Alternatively, the Tribunal had to consider if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her removal from Australia, she would face a real risk of significant harm.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa. It found that while the applicant was a citizen of China and had no right to reside elsewhere, her claims did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. Specifically, the Tribunal concluded that the alleged actions of the demolition team and the police's initial inaction, while concerning, did not amount to persecution for a Convention reason. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the Chinese authorities were unable or unwilling to protect her, nor that she could not reasonably relocate within China to avoid any potential risk. Consequently, the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.