1723940 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection visa by a citizen of China. The applicant claimed he left China because he felt the government was oppressive and that if he returned, he might be apprehended by the police. He also alleged that his parents had been mistreated by the police and that the authorities would not protect him due to government corruption. The applicant's application for a Protection visa was initially refused by the Department, and this decision was subsequently affirmed by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of a Protection visa, specifically under section 36(2)(a) of the Act (the refugee criterion) or section 36(2)(aa) (the complementary protection criterion). This required the Tribunal to assess the applicant's claims of fear of harm upon return to China, considering relevant guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims, noting that he had not experienced harm in China prior to his departure and that his primary fear was of being "caught by the Police" upon return. The Tribunal also noted the applicant's failure to attend an interview with the Department and his inability to provide supporting documentation, which he attributed to his family's home being "cleaned out" by authorities. The Tribunal applied the provisions of section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, which allows for the grant of a visa if there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, there is a real risk of significant harm. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the Act.

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