1725159 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Chinese national, sought review of a decision not to grant him a protection visa. The dispute arose from the applicant's claims of persecution by Chinese government officials due to his protest against corruption related to land acquisition. The applicant failed to attend a scheduled telephone hearing with the Tribunal and did not provide any explanation for his absence.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, which requires a well-founded fear of persecution. A secondary issue was whether the Tribunal could proceed with the review without the applicant's attendance, pursuant to section 426A of the Act.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's written claims lacked specific details regarding the timing of alleged events and provided no supporting evidence, such as documentation related to the land dispute or compensation. The Tribunal noted that while country information indicated protests against land acquisition occur in China, there was no evidence that the applicant had been subjected to detention, travel restrictions, or harassment of family members. Furthermore, the issuance of a passport and the applicant's ability to travel to Australia suggested he was not of interest to Chinese authorities. Citing the principles from *MIEA v Guo*, the Tribunal emphasised that a mere claim of fear is insufficient; the applicant must satisfy the Tribunal that all statutory elements are met. Given the applicant's failure to attend the hearing and the lack of substantive evidence to support his claims, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2).

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.