1725822 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the protection visa applications of two Han Chinese citizens from Jiangsu province. The applicants claimed they were Christians and feared persecution in China due to their religious beliefs, citing past harassment of their family and the imprisonment of a fellow church member. They arrived in Australia in July 2016 and lodged their protection visa applications in September 2016.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, specifically religion, and whether they would suffer serious harm if returned to China. The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of the applicants' claims, consider the available country information, and determine if relocation within China would be a reasonable option. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicants' unexplained delay in lodging their applications and their failure to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal drew guidance from High Court judgments regarding the reasonableness of relocation and applied Ministerial Direction Number 84, which mandates consideration of country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Tribunal noted that the risk of persecution for religious practice often depends on how the religion is practised, with private or individual practice posing a lower risk than open or community-based practice. The Tribunal found no evidence that the applicants practised their faith in a manner that would attract persecution, nor that they were involved in church leadership or outspoken criticism of the government. The Tribunal also noted that the primary applicant had previously returned to China without incident and that the applicants had not provided particulars of any past serious harm or discrimination.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. It concluded that the applicants had not established that their fear of persecution was well-founded, as they provided insufficient detail about their religious practice and the specific circumstances that would lead to persecution. The Tribunal also found the delay in lodging their application and their failure to attend the hearing significant, as these prevented a fuller exploration of their claims. The secondary applicant's case was also found to be entirely reliant on her husband's unsubstantiated claims.