1725822 (Refugee)

1725822 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 3414 (24 July 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Ronnie He (MARN: 0963986)
CASE NUMBER:  1725822
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   China
MEMBER:Alan McMurran
DATE:24 July 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.

Statement made on 24 July 2023 at 5:01pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – religion – Christian Local Church – harassment and fellow-member sent to labour/reform camp – no serious harm and unhindered departure – unexplained delay in making application – no new information or submissions provided, first applicant husband departed Australia and no appearance at hearing by second applicant wife – applicants’ responsibility to establish claims – country information – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 5AAA, 5H(1), 5J, 36(2)(a), (aa), 65, 412(3), 424A

CASES
BZADA v MIAC and RRT [2013] FCA 1062
Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379
FCS17 v MHA (2020) 276 FCR 644
MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
SRBB v MIMIA (2003) 79 ALD 723
SZATV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 18
SZFDV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 51
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 dependants.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application lodged 23 October 2017 for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 28 September 2017 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicants, [ the primary applicant][1] , and his wife, [the secondary applicant], who claim to be citizens of China, applied for the visas on 30 September 2016. The primary applicant set out the reasons for their claim upon which the secondary applicant relies.
[1] Also referred to as ‘the applicant’, when referring to his statements, and upon which the secondary applicant also relies
The delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that the delegate found the provided information did not provide a sufficient basis to satisfy the claims of religious persecution and where the applicants claimed to be practicing Christians.
In this case, the applicants were sent an invitation to provide information under s424A on 25 May 2023. The Tribunal letter set out details of a previous contact attempt which was left unanswered and asked for information concerning the claims of religious persecution, and why the Department decision was wrong. The applicants were asked to respond by 8 June 2023.
On 5 June 2023 a Tribunal officer telephoned the representative, following which an extension of time to provide responses was given expiring on 12 June 2023. On 6 June 2023, the representative, acting only for the secondary applicant, emailed the Tribunal and advised that he had received instructions from the secondary applicant that “she could not provide me enough material to write a response”. The representative said he had informed her “I did not have adequate information” to write the response himself.
The applicants were invited to a re-scheduled in-person hearing in the Tribunal on 24 July 2023, at 10 am for 3 hours, with an interpreter in the Mandarin language. The Tribunal waited until 10.30 a.m. but neither applicant appeared. No contact was made with the Tribunal or reason given for the non-appearance.
A check of the Department movement records shows that the primary applicant departed Australia on 19 January 2020 and has not returned. The secondary applicant remains onshore. Both applicants were present in the migration zone when the application for review and the Department’s decision was made.[2]
[2] Section 412(3)
Section 426A provides that where an applicant is invited to a hearing but does not appear, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review or dismiss the proceedings. Where it makes a decision, the Tribunal must produce a written statement, and may do so without taking any further action to allow or enable the applicants to appear before it. The Tribunal has elected in this instance to provide a written statement setting out its reasons.
The secondary applicant was represented in relation to the review. The primary applicant was not represented.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Background to the applications – Claims made by both applicants
The Tribunal has extracted the following information from the material provided by the applicants to the Department.
The applicants are both Han Chinese citizens from the province of Jiangsu. They were married in China on [Date]. Both were born in [Year] and are currently aged [Number] years. The applicants arrived in Australia [in] July 2016, having applied for and been granted Subclass FA 600 visitor visas on 7 July 2016. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicants have been identified from their visas and the identity assessment completed by the Department from valid passport documents produced to the Department and the Tribunal accepts that information and assessment.
The applicants do not provide any prior history in Australia and only the primary applicant has returned to China since their arrival. There is no indication as to what assistance the applicants may have received either before leaving China or on arrival in Australia having freely departed China without any interference from local authorities or the MPS at the departure airport (Shanghai). They do not give details of any children. At the time of application the primary applicant had parents still living in Taizhou city in Jiangsu Province.
The primary applicant described his occupation as “[Occupation 1]” and stated he had education to middle school level in China. He stated is employment history commenced in April 1996 until July 2001, farming in his home [village]. From August 2001 until May 2016, he states he worked as [Occupation 1] in [Work sector] in Taizhou city.
Both applicants claim to be practising Christians. The primary applicant states in his application[3] that his parents converted to Christianity in [1980]. He states that his parents were part of a Local Church group and he had “followed my parents and become a member of this ‘local church’”.
[3] question 89
The primary applicant claims that after the church was banned in the late 1980s, as not being part of the sanctioned State church, his family was “constantly harassed by authorities including by the police”. He claims that a member of their church “openly confronted state sanctioned church and police”, as a consequence of which “he was sent to the labour camp for so-called ‘reform’ 3 years” with hard labour. The applicant further claims that he has been “warned by the authorities to leave my church”.
The primary applicant makes further generalised claims that because of the Communist regime in power in China, “there is no religious freedom”. He states that he fears being persecuted because of his Christian faith which is not aligned with the State sanctioned churches. He further states that he has been constantly threatened and warned not to take part in church activities and that he has been questioned “a couple of times” by local police. He claims to have been discriminated in both his education and employment due to his Christian faith and because the Communist authorities control everything.
The primary applicant claims the State is the agent which will persecute them if they return to China and will cause harm and because of its centralised policy targeting Christians, nowhere in the country is safe for them. He anticipates he will experience “all sorts of harm and mistreatment including possibility of going to jail or labour camp” as well as “discrimination in social life, jobs, education, welfare etc”. The applicant claims they would not be protected by the State because of the current religious policy of the CCP.
The secondary applicant for her part, repeats the claims made by her husband as the primary applicant. She makes no other claims of her own. She states that prior to coming to Australia she worked farming in her home village from July 1995 until October 2001 and then as [Occupation 2] for a [Work sector] in Taizhou city from November 2001 until May 2016.
No new claims have been made by either party since lodgement of the applications with the Department on 30 September 2016. No new information has been provided to the Tribunal since lodgement of the claim in the Tribunal on 23 October 2017, and as set out above, despite the Tribunal’s recent invitation in May 2023 to the parties to do so.
Issues on review
The issues arising from the relevant provisions that are required to be determined by the Tribunal are as follows:
(a)Is the applicant a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion?, that is:
(i)Is the applicant outside his country of nationality?;
(ii)Does the applicant have a well-founded fear of persecution (s.5J)?; and
(iii)Does the real chance of persecution relate to all areas of China, being the applicant’s country of origin (s.5J(2))?
and, if not,
(b)Is the applicant a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations on complementary protection grounds, that is:
(i)Are there substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm?
and, if so,
(ii)Would it be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of China where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm?
or,
(iii)Could the applicant obtain from an appropriate authority in China, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm?
or,
(iv)Is the ‘real risk’ one faced by the population of China generally, and not faced by the applicant personally?
and if none of the above applies,
(c)Is the applicant a member of the same family unit as a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations, as a refugee, or on complementary protection grounds, and does that person hold a protection visa of the same class?
In considering these issues, the Tribunal notes that the fact that a person claims fear of persecution and consequent ‘serious harm’ for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is ‘well-founded’ and therefore is a ‘real chance’ of arising, or that it is for the reason claimed.
Similarly, that an applicant claims to face a real risk of ‘significant harm’ does not establish that such a risk exists, or that the harm feared amounts to ‘significant harm’. 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 or herself, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the decision-maker to establish the relevant facts. Reliable fact-finding creates an objective basis for decision-making as opposed to unsubstantiated statements, speculation, or assumption, all of which carry little or no weight.
A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for him or her. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant: MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70. Section 5AAA of the Act makes it clear that it is an applicant’s responsibility to specify all the particulars of the protection claim(s), and in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and to provide sufficient evidence to establish and support the claim(s).
The Tribunal notes and has regard to the decision of the Federal Court in BZADA v MICand RRT [2013] FCA 1062, where Rangiah J held at [21]:
“The relevant statutory scheme (ss 65 and 36(2) of the Migration Act) requires the Tribunal to reach a requisite level of satisfaction as to the criterion set out in s 36(2). Satisfaction of the criteria for the grant of a protection visa depends not on a particular matter being established but on the Minister (or the Tribunal standing in the shoes of the Minister) attaining a state of satisfaction as to a number of matters which have to exist for Australia to owe protection obligations to an applicant.”
Whether the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future. This is done in this instance in the absence of any supporting oral evidence or corroboration.
The decision-maker is also informed by resources such as available country information and refugee guidelines but is not obliged on the basis of those inquiries to make a case for the applicant. In determining the basis of a claimed ‘well-founded’ fear, the Tribunal is mindful of the need to have an objective basis for doing so. The High Court has noted that:
“The use of the adjectival expression ‘well-founded’ must be taken as qualifying in some way the ‘fear of persecution’. It is hard to conceive of a fear which has no objective foundation at all as well-founded, no matter how genuine the fear might be. If the test were entirely subjective, the expression ‘well-founded’ would serve no useful purpose.” [4]
[4] Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379 per Toohey J at [21] (Chan’s case)
In this instance, in considering the issues and in the search for a reliable ‘objective foundation’ to draw its conclusions, the Tribunal has available the Department file which includes only the primary applicant’s statements in the written application form.
The applicants did not attend an interview with a Department officer offered on 25 September 2017, and so lost an opportunity then to put forward arguments and explanation and to further their claims on that occasion. The applicants have not explained their failure to accept that interview invitation and to attend the interview.
The Tribunal has reviewed the file and the available information considered in its reasons for this decision set out below. The legislative framework is explained as follows.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
Legislative framework - Refugee
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.
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).
Well-founded fear and ‘real chance’ of persecution
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.
The criterion in s 5J(1)(a) contains a subjective requirement, that an applicant must in fact hold a fear of being persecuted, while s 5J(1)(b) imposes an objective standard, that there be a real chance the person would be persecuted. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.[5]
[5] Ibid - Chan’s case
Furthermore, the decision-maker in considering the application of the ‘real chance’ test, as it is referred to, needs to pay regard to the “reality not the appearance” [6] of a real chance, meaning careful consideration of the factual material available and the individual circumstances and context.
[6] Per Mansfield J in SRBB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 79 ALD 723 at [30]; see also BEQ19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 621 per Farrell J.
Under s 5J(1)(c), the real chance of persecution must relate to all areas of the receiving country. The Full Federal Court has held that the reference to ‘all areas of a receiving country’ means all areas ‘where there is safe human habitation and to which safe access is lawfully possible’, and that ‘areas which are unsafe or physically uninhabitable or so inhospitable that a person would be exposed to a likely inability to find food, shelter or work are not included within the areas of a receiving country’.[7]
[7] FCS17 v MHA (2020) 276 FCR 644 at [80]–[81].
If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in s 5J(1)(a) (race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion), that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution: s 5J(4)(a). Further, the persecution must involve serious harm to the person and systematic and discriminatory conduct: ss 5J(4)(b),(c).
Serious harm
For the purposes of s 5J(4) of the Act, s 5J(5) provides that the following are instances of serious harm: (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.
Modification of behaviour
Section 5J(3) provides that a person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if he or she could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country.
However, this does not apply to a modification that would conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience, or that would conceal an innate or immutable characteristic. It does not apply to a modification that would require the person to alter his or her religious beliefs (including by renouncing a religious conversion), conceal his or her true religious beliefs, cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith, conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin, and alter or conceal his or her true political beliefs.
It would not apply to an applicant having to conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability, enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, accept the forced marriage of a child, alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity, or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
If not a refugee-Complementary protection

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.
Significant harm
‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s.36(2A) of the Act: s.5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s.5(1) of the Act.
There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where:
a.it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm;
b.where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or
c.where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s.36(2B) of the Act.
Section 36(2)(aa) refers to a ‘real risk’ of an applicant suffering significant harm. In MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505, the ‘real risk’ test was held to impose the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in the Refugee Convention definition, and that reasoning appears equally applicable to the refugee criterion in s. 5J(1)(b) of the Act.[8]
Relocation
[8] (see Explanatory Memorandum, Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Caseload Legacy) Bill 2014 (Cth), pp.170-1 at [1169], [1180])
Under s. 36(2B)(a) of the Act, there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country if the Tribunal is satisfied that it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm.
The Tribunal draws guidance from the judgments of the High Court in SZATV v MIAC[9] and SZFDV v MIAC[10] which held that whether relocation is reasonable, in the sense of ‘practicable’, must depend upon the particular circumstances of the applicant, and the impact upon that person of relocation within his or her country.
[9] SZATV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 18;
[10] SZFDV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 51, per Gummow, Hayne & Crennan JJ, Callinan J agreeing.
Mandatory considerations
Subsection 499(1) of the Act provides that the Minister may give written directions to a person or body (e.g. the AAT) having functions or powers under the Act, if the directions are about the performance of those functions, or the exercise of those powers. Sub-paragraph 2A of section 499 requires that a person or body must comply with a direction.
Ministerial Direction Number 84 of 24 June 2019, issued under s 499 of the Migration Act 1958, states that:
Where the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has prepared country information assessment expressly for protection status determination purposes, and that assessment is available to the decision maker, the decision maker must take into account that assessment, where relevant, in making their decision. The decision maker is not precluded from considering other relevant information about the country.
Reports take into account relevant and credible open source reports, as well as information obtained on the ground.
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, 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 and to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
In that regard, the Department Guidelines on Refugee Law notes as follows:
“For the purposes of assessing s5J(1)(b) (and potentially s5J(1)(c) where relevant), whether an applicant has a real chance of persecution due to religion may depend on how the religion is practised. If the religion is practised in small groups or individually and considered a private affair, it may not be apparent to the alleged persecutors that the person holds the religion and therefore potentially the real chance threshold may not be met. If the religion is practised openly in a like-minded community there may be a higher risk of being identified.”
And further:
“Where it is claimed that the applicant practises the same religion as a registered church but chooses to be unregistered and fears harm in the form of prosecution as a result, that will not usually be considered persecution as the elements of s5J(4)(a) will unlikely be met.”
In the present case, there is no evidence aside from the primary applicant’s written statement as to “how the religion is practised”. Nor is there evidence whether the applicants practice either at all, privately, or in an unregistered church or an underground church environment. As set out in the Tribunal’s own guidelines, the Tribunal on review does not have any responsibility or obligation to specify or assist in specifying any particulars of the claim, or to establish or assist in establishing the claim.[11]
Country information
[11] S 5AAA inserted by item 1 of sch 1 to the Migration Amendment (Protection and Other Measures) Act 2015 (Cth) with effect from 14 April 2015
From its most recent report[12] DOHA comments as follows:
[12] DFAT COUNTRY   INFORMATION REPORT PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA - 22 DECEMBER 2021
“Religion
1.1     China officially recognises five religions: Buddhism, Daoism (Taoism), Catholicism, Islam and Protestantism. Daoism, Buddhism and Confucianism (which while not an official religion has had significant influence on Chinese culture) have an ancient presence that has long shaped Chinese culture. The 2020 US Department of State International Religious Freedom Report on China estimates that 52.2 per cent of the population are unaffiliated with any religion, 21.9 per cent practice traditional folk religion, 18.2 per cent are Buddhist, 5.1 per cent are Christian and 1.8 per cent are Muslim.
1.2     Religion in China is traditionally not as separate from everyday life as in the West. Chinese people, especially those of traditional Chinese faiths like Buddhism, Confucianism and Daoism integrate religious practice into their everyday life and lifestyles, including perhaps with home shrines and/or cultural festivities and events. Buddhist, Daoist and Confucian practices are not mutually exclusive; it is common to practice more than one these faiths. Some religious figures might be seen as better at answering prayers than others and some traditions might suit certain life events (for example, weddings and funerals) more than others. Adherents of non-Chinese religions like Christianity, Islam and new religious movements are more likely to separate their faith from their everyday lives and may label other beliefs as ‘superstition’. By extension, many Western religions and new religious movements require exclusivity and loyalty to that particular faith.
1.3     Under Xi Jinping, China has introduced a renewed campaign to ‘sinicise’ religion. This work, undertaken through the Party’s United Front Work Department and carried out through registered, state sanctioned religious organisations, aims to ensure that a ‘correct’ version of religion is practised by adherents in China, with principles like patriotism, party leadership, and loyalty to the Party emphasised, and doctrine deemed inconsistent with Party supremacy de-emphasised or forbidden. This may involve changing elements of worship such as hymns, clerical attire or architecture to better align with Chinese cultural, aesthetic or political traditions. New religious regulations and implementation organisations aim to enhance government control over the appointment of religious leadership, increase transparency over sources of funding, limit religious practice to venues authorised by the government, reduce links with foreign religious organisations, and give the Party greater say over religious doctrine taught in China. Religious groups that refuse to bring themselves under the authority of state-sanctioned religious organisations face being shut down. Some religious leaders have faced charges like subversion of state power. The 2018 Regulations on Religious Affairs contain broadly worded prohibitions against the use of religion to ‘split the country’, ‘undermine ethnic unity’ or ‘engage in terrorist activities’. Although centrally organised, the situation for religions varies from place to place and is influenced by the actions and motivations of local authorities.
1.4     Professor Fenggang Yang of Purdue University describes religious groups as operating in a ‘red’, ‘grey’ or ‘black’ market. The red market groups are the officially sanctioned churches, such as the ‘patriotic associations’, the name used for officially sanctioned organisations that represent the five recognised religions. Grey markets include unofficial but tolerated (to a degree) religious gatherings. Black markets include underground movements and xie jiao. Some home congregations were originally in the black market but moved to the grey market with increased tolerance over decades. But the recent crackdown to ‘sinicise’ religions is reversing this trend. Those groups that are allowed to exist are subject to close monitoring. CCTV cameras may be installed in religious buildings to monitor congregations and virtual platforms used by religious groups to meet may be monitored or censored.
1.5     Regulations prohibiting proselytising are generally enforced across China and religious education for those under 18 years is not permitted, but according to the 2020 US Department of State International Religious Freedom report on China enforcement of this rule varies from place to place. In recent years, the number of foreign religious workers and foreign NGOs working in areas with a rights and religious focus appears to have decreased significantly.
1.6     Overall, an individual’s ability to practise religion depends on whether the individual worships in registered or unregistered institutions, whether they practise openly or privately, and whether an individual’s religious expression or the religion itself is perceived by the CCP to be closely tied to other ethnic, political and security issues. Adherents of Buddhism (except Tibetan Buddhism), Confucianism, Daoism, folk religions, and syncretic combinations of these that do not have influences from ‘foreign religions’ and that are not associated with other foreign influences, are unlikely to experience significant restrictions.
Christians
1.7     Christianity is growing rapidly in China. Estimates of the number of Christians vary and official figures only count those Christians worshipping at officially registered churches. The Chinese Government reports there are 38 million Christians. The 2020 US Department of State International Religious Freedom Report estimates there are 70 million Christians throughout China; higher estimates also exist.
1.8     Authorities have regulated Christianity to make it more ‘China-orientated’. Bibles are increasingly difficult to obtain and Bible references are censored online. Plans for authorities to ‘re-translate’ the Bible or issue state commentary have been reported by media, but have not been implemented at the time of writing. Sacred images in churches, such as those of the Virgin Mary, have been replaced with portraits of Xi Jinping in some churches.
1.9     Consistent with Yang’s theory of the three markets, many ‘grey-market’ churches have operated relatively openly for many years. Since about 2015, and to some degree earlier, the government engaged in a campaign to remove visible symbols of Christianity from church buildings. Both Catholic and Protestant churches have been affected. Christian media reports the removal of crosses on buildings consistently between 2015 and 2021, and across a wide geographic spread of provinces.
1.10    In a 2018 report, the Pew Research Centre ranked social hostility to people of different religions as low in mainland China, much lower than in Australia. Similarly low scores on hostility are found in other parts of East Asia. DFAT does not rule out the possibility of isolated societal discrimination. For example, a Christian may miss out on job opportunities based on fear that they will proselytise to clients and attract adverse government attention, but DFAT is not aware of incidents.
Protestants
1.11    The Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM), established in 1949, is the official governing body for Protestant churches in China. ‘Three-Self’ is a Chinese abbreviation for the church’s three principles of self-administration, self-financing and self-evangelisation taken from 19^th century missionary philosophies. It does not refer to the Trinity. The Three-Self Church comes under the authority of the CCP’s United Front Work Department and is the single state-sanctioned Protestant church in mainland China.
1.12    Most Protestants worship in unofficial ‘house’ churches. These ‘underground’ churches may literally be in a house, or can be large gatherings in, for example, commercial office space. During COVID-19, some services moved online, which in some cases increased the size of congregations. In recent years the government has increased efforts to force them to submit to the authority of the TSPM, teach Party-aligned doctrine, cut off association with foreign churches, and subject the appointment of leaders to rules set out by the TSPM. Churches refusing to align with the TSPM have been closed or threatened with closure. DFAT is aware of reports of authorities pressuring house churches by cutting off electricity, forcing landlords to evict members, or using procedural grounds to shut house churches. Larger churches are most likely to receive government attention; the larger the congregation, the greater the chance of such attention. This in practice means that small groups may be able to meet in private for unauthorised religious discussions.
1.13    The situation for Protestants differs from place to place and community to community. DFAT is aware of Protestant communities that have been largely unaffected by increased government oversight and where usual worship activities and practices have continued largely without any interference. The nature of Protestant Christianity is that smaller churches not linked to any central hierarchy or authority are harder to control by either the state or the religious authority but conversely are also less likely to be seen as a threat to the state and thus less likely to be targeted.
1.14    DFAT assesses that Protestant Christians face a moderate risk of official discrimination and are unable to practise their faith freely. Members and particularly leaders of large underground churches are most susceptible to such discrimination, and anyone who has linked their faith to politically sensitive subjects faces a higher risk. DFAT assesses that Protestant Christians face a low risk of societal discrimination.
Catholics
1.15    The Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CCPA) represents the official Chinese Catholic Church. Globally, matters of Catholic doctrine, ecclesiastical law and the appointment of leaders (bishops) are usually controlled by the Catholic hierarchy, headquartered in the Vatican. The CCPA does not recognise the authority of the Vatican. In the past, the Vatican has had some input into the selection of bishops but a number of Vatican-approved bishops also operate ‘underground’, separate from the CCPA. For some Chinese Catholics, allegiance to the Vatican Catholic Church hierarchy is an important part of faith because of their belief in a succession of authority that can be traced back to St Peter, a contemporary of Jesus. For those Catholics, Party-appointed priests and bishops are unable to validly confer sacraments that are central to their beliefs. On this basis they refuse to participate in religious activities associated with the CCPA.
1.16    In 2018, the Vatican and Beijing signed an agreement that would regularise the status of some Chinese-appointed bishops so they would be viewed as valid by the Vatican. In return, those ‘underground’ Catholic churches would join the CCPA. Most of the details of the deal are not known. The deal was extended in October 2020 for a further two years, allowing for more bishops to be recognised.
1.17    In spite of the deal, reports of a crackdown on Catholics as part of a wider campaign to sinicise religion continue. Underground priests who were demoted from the position of bishop as part of the deal are pressured to join the CCPA, according to various media reports. Some media reports say that underground priests had experienced torture and disappearance if they resisted. Fujian, a traditional stronghold for Catholicism and underground Catholicism in particular, has seen particular efforts to convert underground bishops.
1.18    The numbers of CCPA versus underground Catholics are not clear. Cardinal Zen, formerly Archbishop of Hong Kong and a vocal critic of the Chinese Government, has claimed in media reports the ‘underground community’ has ‘practically disappeared’ because of pressure on underground bishops. DFAT is unable to verify this claim.
1.19    DFAT assesses that some underground Catholics loyal to the Vatican are only able to practise their religion discreetly and some may face severe restrictions. Most Catholics will follow their local leadership, whether it is Party or Vatican controlled, and so leaders are more likely than congregants to face government attention, but the situation differs from place to place and community to community and many Catholics live in rural areas where local conditions may prevail. DFAT assesses Catholics, both underground and CCPA members, are subject to low levels of societal discrimination.”
A recent COISS report[13] on the PRC notes as follows:
[13] effective from 14 April 2023
“ China has five officially recognised religions: Buddhism, Daoism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism. Each of these religions is associated with a ‘patriotic association’, or government sanctioned church. Daoism and Buddhism (along with Confucianism) are seen as Chinese indigenous religions and may include less formal or organised cultural manifestations, which are often tolerated by the government.124 Article 26 of the Chinese constitution recognises freedom of religion but its terms are vague.
While many religions are not recognised by the government, they are able to operate in China providing that the only worshippers are foreign citizens.
Religious organisations that are not part of the state-approved movements may be targeted for closure or surveillance. The government emphasises the need for party control over religions, which is sometimes expressed as a desire to ‘sinicise’ religions.
Scholars have identified three types of religious institutions in China that they have named as ‘red’, ‘grey’ and ‘black’. Red organisations include the officially sanctioned churches, black organisations include so-called ‘evil cults’ (including Falun Gong and the Church of Almighty God) and grey organisations operate somewhere in between, with some level of tolerance.
Local authorities have substantial power to deal with religious groups and the situation may differ from place to place. Local authorities may prevent illegal religious behaviour that could include alleged undue influence from foreign organisations and donations of funds from foreign NGOs to Chinese religious organisations, and some have reportedly offered financial incentives for civilians informing on such activities.
The central government restricts the activities of religious adherents when it perceives these as threatening state or CCP interests. The United Front Work Department has overall supervision of religious affairs. Since 2018, there has been a ban on under 18’s from any religious activity. Recent regulations have restricted religious expression further.
New rules that came into effect in February 2020 require religious groups to ‘cooperate’ with the government and must teach and spread its ideology. On 1 May 2021, a new decree was introduced that requires all religious leaders to follow and support the CCP and that the preaching and teaching by religious professionals must in no way endanger national security, promote extremism or divide the country.
China is home to one of the largest populations of religious prisoners which is estimated to be in thousands. In December 2021, the government introduced new regulations banning organisations and individuals from disseminating religious information online in China unless they have a license issued by the regulator. The measures came into effect on 1 March 2022, and also applies to overseas organisations and individuals.
A government crackdown targeting Christians continues. Churches have been closed, crosses on buildings removed or defaced, religious materials have been removed145 and house churches have been targeted. There are reports of video cameras being installed in and around churches to record everyone that participates. Churches that refuse to install cameras for ‘security reasons’ were either fined or raided. There are reports of authorities pressuring Christians and members of house churches to sign documents renouncing their Christian faith. There are also reports of hundreds of Christians being arrested and charged with various offences. Christians may experience difficulty in obtaining government employment or in career progression because of their religion. n October 2022, the government and the Vatican renewed a two year agreement for the second time on the appointment of bishops. The Vatican-Beijing deal is controversial. Some Catholics think that party-appointed officials lack the moral authority or the ability to validly confer sacraments that are central to the faith. Six bishops have been appointed since the agreement was signed in 2018 and many dioceses remain vacant. Some Catholics claim that harassment increased after the deal between the Vatican and the Chinese government.
A 2021 source reports that ‘officially’ the situation of Catholics has improved with the Holy See ‘emphatically encouraging’ registration and cooperation with the government. In 2022, regarding renewal of the agreement, the Vatican stated it was committed to ‘respectful and constructive dialogue’ on its implementation. Despite the deal, state official interference is reported.”

The Tribunal finds on this available country information that the CCP has embarked on a formal process of sanitizing all religious activity to bring it under the control of the Communist Party.
Churches practising outside government control, risk being sanctioned and members harassed and discriminated against. The focus of the government as a State perpetrator of persecution against Christians appears to be primarily aimed at Christian Church leaders and those openly defying State control of religious practice. That “control” will vary markedly from location to location within the country and is influenced by local authorities and their willingness or otherwise to tolerate local Christian practices.
Findings on material facts
The Tribunal has had regard to the limited available information. Without the benefit of a hearing and opportunity to discuss the applicants’ claims and to ask questions, and to see and hear their responses, it is not possible to form a view about the applicants’ credibility, which is itself an important ingredient in assessing the correctness, accuracy, and truthfulness of the written claims as stated.
The Tribunal has set out the claims as framed by the primary applicant at paragraphs 11-19 above. If the applicants had been available for a hearing, the Tribunal would have asked questions about how they practiced their Christian faith in China for approximately 36 years (from 1980 until 2016). The Tribunal would have sought information about claimed harassment, police warnings and interviews, and discrimination in both education and employment in that period. The Tribunal would have asked questions about when, where, how often and by whom the claimed harassment and discrimination occurred. The Tribunal would have sought information about any harm that might have been suffered by either applicant. The Tribunal would have asked questions about how they came to arrive in Australia, what assistance they may have received and why they both have not returned to China. Questions would have been asked about the applicant’s subjective fear of future harassment upon their return to China and the likelihood or foreseeability of any future harm occurring. The Tribunal would also have raised the issue of relocation and whether that was a reasonable alternative that the applicants may not have considered.
It is difficult in the absence of a hearing and any oral claims and evidence provided to form a conclusion about past events and likely future events. On the information as currently provided, the Tribunal finds that:
a.the applicants are citizens of the People’s Republic of China;
b.the applicants claim to practice the Christian religion with a Local Church;
c.details of how they practice, where, when and with whom are not available;
d.there is no information with particulars of any harassment on any particular dates times or places;
e.both applicants are relying upon the same information and claims as set out in the primary applicant’s application;
f.the secondary applicant makes no separate claims for herself;
g.there is no evidence or information that either applicant or members of their respective families have been arrested or harmed by the State as a result of practising their religion at any particular time over 36 years in total;
h.the applicants have a declared subjective fear upon their return, but which in the absence of objective information providing details of their history practising as Christians in China, does not appear well-founded or factually based;
i.there is no information as to what may have happened to the primary applicant since his voluntary return to China in 2020;
j.the Tribunal accepts the CCP does not tolerate the free practice of Christianity other than in State sanctioned churches and as legislated by the State;
k.there is significant participation and growth of Christianity in China and Local Churches which practice outside State-controlled churches; there is no evidence available in this instance to determine where and how the applicants practice their Christianity and to what extent their practice is tolerated or persecuted through harassment, or other measures in their local area and by whom;
l.There is no evidence that the applicants have practiced or continue to practice their faith in Australia, how, when, where, and with whom.
The Tribunal concludes on the limited information available that:
a.Firstly, the applicants may wish to practice their religious faith as Christians. The Tribunal is not satisfied however on the available information that the applicants have either practiced the religion in China or continue as adherents of the faith in Australia without any relevant details as to when and how or with whom they may practice or have practiced.
b.Secondly, there is no information on which the Tribunal can reasonably conclude that the applicants’ fear of returning to China where they may continue to practice Christianity is anything other than subjective and is not well-founded; they have not said where and how such religious practice might continue and why they believe persecution of them individually or together will necessarily follow. Many millions of Chinese currently practice the religion outside State-sanctioned churches and everywhere in China. Persecution, resulting in serious harm, and arrests, or harm which may follow, does not appear on the available country information to be widespread and may vary from location to location.
c.Thirdly, State action against Christians is targeted primarily at Church leaders and those who are outspoken against the government by refusing to obey the laws in place forbidding certain practices such as proselytization, preaching publicly and holding religious services clandestinely in ‘house churches’. There is no evidence the applicants are involved in any such activity whether in church leadership roles or as publicly critical of the State. It appears at its highest that they may be members of some congregation, which is not identified.
d.Fourthly, on the available information, the applicants have practiced Christianity with their family since birth and for over 36 years, without recording any serious harm or consequent discrimination or harassment, the particulars of which have not been disclosed or revealed. It is reasonable to conclude that on returning, they would continue to be able to do so; in that regard, the primary applicant has returned and no information is provided that he has been harmed or harassed;
e.Fifthly, the applicants arrived in Australia [in] July 2016, but did not lodge their application for refugee status and for protection until two months’ later on 30 September 2016. There is no explanation for this delay. It could have been because their visitor visas were expiring, but no information is provided or submission made to that effect.
f.Sixthly, the applicants have elected not to attend either a Department interview, or Tribunal hearing when invited and where their claims to fear harm from the local authorities or from the State as perpetrators could be explored and discussed and to determine whether any harm had occurred and any fears were well-founded because serious harm may occur in the foreseeable future following their return.
g.Finally, the secondary applicant relies entirely upon her husband’s shared experience and has not revealed or expressed any concerns of her own.
Conclusion
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicants’ fears cannot be established and on a foreseeability test are not properly described as “well-founded”. The applicants themselves speculate what will happen on their return but have not laid the factual foundation to give such speculation a realistic basis for determining the likelihood of serious harm arising to either or both of them personally. The Tribunal attaches very little weight to unsubstantiated written statements in an application form which it has had no opportunity to test orally.
The Tribunal has carefully considered the applicants’ claims as detailed in the application for the protection visas, both individually and cumulatively and from the limited details provided. These have also been considered in light of the available country information and refugee guidelines.
The Tribunal finds on the facts available that the claims are speculative and unsubstantiated and not plausible on the history outlined and barely touched upon by the applicants themselves. It is not possible on any reasonably objective basis and otherwise than speculating to conclude from the available information that the applicants or either of them are at risk of serious harm from the State in the guise of local authorities or police, for practicing as Christians. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicants have not established a well-founded fear of persecution in China in the foreseeable future, so as to meet the refugee criterion.
Furthermore, the relocation evidence reveals the applicants could safely and without hindrance travel to any part of China they may prefer to live in order to remain safe. The primary applicant appears to have done so and returned to China and has not reported any harm.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicants do not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa), as set out above. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicants satisfy s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicants do not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.
Alan McMurran
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.
…

[2023] AATA 3414

24 July 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Standing

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice