1725137 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration's decision to refuse protection visas to two Chinese nationals. The applicants claimed they faced persecution upon return to China due to their participation in a protest against unfair housing demolition and alleged corruption. They asserted that police had ransacked homes of protesters and that they feared arrest and torture.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under s.36 of the Migration Act 1958. This required determining if they were refugees, as defined by s.5H and s.5J, possessing a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and if there was a real chance of such persecution in all areas of China. Alternatively, the Tribunal considered whether the applicants met the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa), which involves a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia.

The Tribunal found significant inconsistencies in the oral evidence provided by the applicants regarding their travels, residential addresses, family composition, employment, property ownership, and experiences of harm. These discrepancies led the Tribunal to conclude that the applicants were not credible witnesses. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under s.36(2)(a) or (aa), nor the alternative criteria under s.36(2)(b) or (c).

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.