1724731 (Refugee)

[2023] AATA 1289

1724731 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 1289 (29 March 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REPRESENTATIVE:  Ms Billie Wei Shi (MARN: 9792783)

CASE NUMBER:  1724731

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   China

MEMBER:L Symons

DATE:29 March 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 29 March 2023 at 9:02am

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – Protection visa – China – applicant failed to attend hearing – demolition of his house in China – not satisfied that he is of adverse interest to developers, the Police or any Chinese authority – applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 46, 91,499

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

CASES
MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559
Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 19 September 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of China, arrived in Australia on [date] June 2017 as the holder of a Visitor (subclass 600) visa. The visa was valid until [date] September 2017.

3. On 9 June 2017, the applicant applied to the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) for a Protection visa. On 20 July 2017, he was granted an associated Bridging visa. On 19 September 2017, the Department refused to grant him the visa on the basis that he is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. On 11 October 2017, he applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision.

4. On 21 February 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and advised him that it had considered the material before it but was unable to make a favourable decision on this information alone. The Tribunal invited him to appear before the Tribunal on 28 March 2023 at 9.00am to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in his case. The letter indicated that if he did not appear at the scheduled hearing the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking any further action to allow or enable him to appear before it or may dismiss his application for review without any further consideration of the application or the information before it. This letter was sent to his migration agent by email on 21 February 2023. This email was not returned to the Tribunal undelivered. The Tribunal did not receive a Response to Hearing Invitation as requested.

5. The applicant did not attend the hearing on 28 March 2023 at 9.00am. Neither the applicant nor his migration agent contacted the Tribunal to explain his non-attendance or to request a postponement of the hearing. He did not provide the Tribunal with a contact number.

6. The Tribunal notes that the applicant did not attend his interview with the Department on 14 September 2017 and did not provide any explanation for his failure to do so. In these circumstances, the Tribunal will proceed to make a decision on the review based on the documentary evidence before it.

7. The issues that arise on review are whether the applicant is owed Australia’s protection under the refugee criterion or under the complementary protection criterion.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

8. The criteria for a Protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a Protection visa of the same class.

9. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a Protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.

10. A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).

11. Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a  person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

12. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

    Mandatory considerations

13. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

    CONSIDERATION OF Claims and evidence and findings

14. The applicant’s claims in his application for a Protection visa are summarised as follows:

    ·He was born on [date] in Yantai City, Shandong Province, China and he is a citizen of China.

    ·He owns an old house in his hometown. One day, the government notified him that his house would be removed. However, the compensation they offered to him was only one third of the market value. Due to this, he and other residents refused to sign an agreement.

    ·While he was at work one day, he received a call from his mother who told him that a demolition team had come to his house to remove it. They smashed all the goods at his home and threatened them. He called the Police, but the Police left them waiting.

    ·A neighbour informed him that the developer was a relative of the officials and they colluded with each other. This is because the government is corrupt and colludes with Police because they only care about their own benefit.

    ·He and other residents wrote a complaint to the Yantai City government in the hope that they would provide a reasonable explanation. However, after the officials learned of this complaint, they sent the Police to catch them. He survived as he was not at home when this happened but other residents were caught by the Police.

    ·He was scared so he decided to escape China and fled to Australia.

    ·If he returns to China, he will suffer persecution by the Chinese government officials. Once he goes to jail, he will die. He will suffer mental and physical persecution.

    ·The authorities will not protect him because the Chinese government is corrupt, colludes with the Police and only care about their own benefits.

    ·He cannot relocate because the whole of China is the same as the government is corrupt, colludes with Police and only care about their own benefits.

15. The applicant provided the Department with a copy of his Chinese passport issued [in] 2016 which expires [in] 2026.

16. The applicant was invited to attend an interview with the Department on 14 September 2017 and failed to attend. He provided no explanation for his failure to do so. His application for a Protection visa was refused on 19 September 2017.

17. The applicant has filed with the Tribunal a copy of the Department’s Decision Record, dated 19 September 2017, a copy of his Chinese passport and a copy of his New South Wales photo card, which expired on [date] August 2022.

    Receiving Country

18. The applicant claims to be a citizen of China and has provided a copy of his Chinese passport to the Department. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal finds that he is a citizen of China. The Tribunal finds that China is the receiving country for the purpose of assessing his claims for protection under the refugee criterion and the complementary protection criterion.

    Third Country Protection

19. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is outside his country of nationality. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that he has the right to enter and reside in any country than his country of nationality.

    Assessment of Claims

20. The mere fact that a person claims a fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is for the reason claimed or that it is well founded. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant himself/herself in as much detail as is necessary to enable the decision maker to establish the relevant facts. A decision maker is not required to make the applicant's case for him/her. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all of the allegations made by an applicant. (MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169 70.)

21. In this case, the applicant's claims are made in the most general terms and they are unsubstantiated. He has not filed any documentary evidence with the Department or the Tribunal to support his claims. He did not attend the interview with the delegate on 14 September 2017 and provide oral evidence. As he did not attend the hearing before the Tribunal on 28 March 2023, the Tribunal was unable to obtain further details of his claims and to test their veracity.

22. If the applicant had attended the hearing, the Tribunal would have clarified with him whether the house he “owned” was his or his father’s considering that, according to his visa application, he had lived at one address since his birth [until] he left China to travel to Australia in June 2017. The Tribunal would have sought details about when the Notice in relation to the demolition of the house was served, how much notice was given to vacate the premises, when and why the proposed demolition was going to take place, how he was aware of the market value of the house and whether other residents in the village received similar Notices. The Tribunal would have asked him on what date the house was demolished and where he, his parents, wife and their two children lived thereafter.

23. If the applicant had attended the hearing, the Tribunal would have found out if and when he received a compensation payment and how much he received. The Tribunal would have discussed with him the details of the complaint including who the complaint was against, what relief they sought, how the complaint was submitted to the Yantai City government, when it was submitted and what response, if any, they received. The Tribunal would have asked him how many protesters were arrested by the Police and what happened to them. The Tribunal would also have ascertained how he avoided being arrested by the Police considering that, according to his visa application, he continued to live at the same address until he left China to travel to Australia.

24. If the applicant had attended the hearing, the Tribunal would have clarified how he was able to leave China lawfully if he was wanted by the Police. The Tribunal would have discussed relocation with him and why he now fears harm if he returns to China. The Tribunal would have asked him why he did not attend the interview with the Department. The Tribunal would have discussed relevant country information with him. 

25. On the limited evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was served with a Notice in relation to the demolition of his house in China. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept any of his claims that flow from that. The Tribunal is not satisfied that he is of adverse interest to developers, the village government, the Yantai City government, the Police or any other Chinese authority. The Tribunal is not satisfied that he left China for the reasons claimed or that he fears returning to China for the reasons claimed.

26. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm to the applicant, for the reasons claimed, if he returns to China now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. 

    Does Australia have protection obligations to the applicant under the refugee criterion?

27. On the limited evidence before it and in view of the above findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for any reason set out in s.5J(1)(a) of the Act, that there is a real chance that he would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of China. Therefore, he does not meet the definition of refugee as set out in s.5H of the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a) of the Act.

    Does Australia have protection obligations to the applicant under the complementary protection criterion?

28. As the Tribunal has found that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal has considered whether he may nevertheless meet the criterion for the grant of a Protection visa pursuant to the complementary protection criterion.

29. On the limited evidence before it and in view of the above findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.

    CONCLUSION

30. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.

31. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) of the Act on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act and who holds a Protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2) of the Act.

    DECISION

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

L. Symons

Member

Attachment  -  Extract from Migration Act 1958

5 (1) Interpretation

…

cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:

(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or

(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;

but does not include an act or omission:

(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

…

degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:

(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

…

torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:

(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or

(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or

(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or

(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or

(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;

but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

…

receiving country,  in relation to a non-citizen, means:

(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or

(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.

…

5H    Meaning of refugee

(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:

(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or

(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.

Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.

…

5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution

(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:

(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and

(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and

(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.

Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.

(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.

Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.

(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:

(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or

(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or

(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:

(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;

(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;

(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;

(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;

(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;

(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):

(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and

(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and

(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.

(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:

(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;

(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;

(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;

(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.

(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family

For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:

(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and

(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:

(i)the first person has ever experienced; or

(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.

Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family

For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:

(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and

(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and

(c)     any of the following apply:

(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;

(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;

(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

5LA Effective protection measures

(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:

(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:

(i)the relevant State; or

(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.

(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:

(a)     the person can access the protection; and

(b)     the protection is durable; and

(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.

…

36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act

…

(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:

(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or

(aa)  a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or

(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and

(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and

(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:

(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or

(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or

(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or

(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or

(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.

(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:

(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.

…