1723484 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a male citizen of China, who claimed to be a Jehovah's Witness. The applicant had a complex migration history in Australia, including arriving on a student visa, being granted a partner visa, and having a subsequent permanent partner visa application refused. He applied for a protection visa in April 2016. The applicant did not attend a scheduled interview with the Department, and his claims for protection were submitted in writing.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This involved determining if there was a real risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm if returned to China, and whether any such risk was faced by the population generally or by the applicant personally, as per s 36(2B)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of the 'Refugee Law Guidelines', 'Complementary Protection Guidelines', and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, concluding that the applicant had not established his claims for protection. A key factor in this determination was the applicant's failure to provide any documentary or witness evidence to corroborate his assertions regarding his religious beliefs and alleged persecution in China. The Tribunal noted that it is the applicant's responsibility to specify all particulars of their claim and provide sufficient evidence, and that the Tribunal is not obliged to assist in establishing such a claim. The Tribunal found the lack of corroboration particularly surprising given the applicant's apparent concern for his situation and the time available to prepare his application. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the applicant's delay in applying for a protection visa after returning to Australia in January 2016, following a period of involvement with the Jehovah's Witness faith in Australia, as conduct inconsistent with a well-founded fear of persecution. The Tribunal concluded that the vague nature of the applicant's assertions, coupled with the failure to provide relevant details, documents, and corroborative testimony, meant his claims could not be accepted.