1724519 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the protection visa application of a woman from China. The applicant claimed a fear of harm from her son’s former business partner, who allegedly had criminal connections. This dispute stemmed from an alleged kidnapping of her son and threats made against her. The applicant had departed Australia prior to the Tribunal's decision and had not made further submissions or attended a hearing to test her claims.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and whether effective protection measures were available to her in China. The Tribunal was also required to consider the applicant's claims in light of Ministerial Direction No. 84, which mandates the consideration of country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The Tribunal reasoned that it had not had the opportunity to test the applicant's claims in a hearing, and that her submissions were largely unsubstantiated assertions made in 2016. It noted that the applicant herself had not been harmed or threatened, nor had her immediate family members. Furthermore, the applicant had voluntarily returned to China on two occasions since the alleged events without incident, and had not sought protection from state authorities. The Tribunal also found significant discrepancies between the applicant's account of her son's experiences and the information provided in her son's own protection visa application, which had been refused. The Tribunal applied the principles from High Court decisions regarding the reasonableness of relocation within a country of origin, and considered the definition of a refugee and well-founded fear of persecution under the Migration Act 1958.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for a protection visa, as there was no suggestion that she met the requirements of section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958, either as a refugee or as a member of the same family unit as a person who holds a protection visa.