1724699 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by two applicants, who were a mother and her adult daughter. The applicants sought protection on the basis of their alleged fear of persecution in China due to religious activities and family planning policies. The primary applicant claimed membership and activity in a house church, harassment by local authorities, her husband's arrest and forced sterilisation, and outstanding social compensation fees related to their children. The secondary applicant, her daughter, had three children born in Australia and her partner had his own protection visa application. The delegate had refused the applications, citing credibility issues, inconsistencies in evidence, and delays in applying for protection.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This required the Tribunal to determine if Australia had protection obligations towards the applicants, either under the Refugee Convention (as defined in Article 1A(2)) or under the complementary protection criterion (section 36(2)(aa)), which involves a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the secondary applicant qualified as a member of the same family unit as the primary applicant for the purposes of the visa application.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on assessing the credibility of the applicants' claims in light of the evidence presented and country information. The Tribunal noted significant inconsistencies and a lack of detail in the first applicant's evidence regarding her religious beliefs and activities, her alleged arrest, and the harassment she claimed to have suffered. Her limited understanding of Mandarin and Christian doctrine, coupled with her inability to recall key events, cast doubt on her claims of active participation in evangelising or leading gatherings. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the secondary applicant did not satisfy the dependency requirements to be considered part of the primary applicant's family unit, as she was an adult who had worked to support herself since arriving in Australia. The Tribunal also considered the delay in the applicants lodging their protection visa applications.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that either applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either under the refugee or complementary protection grounds. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the protection visas.