1725830 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of the People's Republic of China, sought protection visas for himself and his spouse. The dispute arose from the applicant's claims that his home was demolished, his father was injured and persecuted during a land dispute involving a government official, and that he and his wife fled China due to fear of police pursuit and government corruption. The matter was before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) as a refugee, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) on complementary protection grounds. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and if such persecution related to all areas of China. If not, it had to consider if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to China, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm, and whether it would be reasonable for him to relocate within China or if he could obtain protection there.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the relevant legislative provisions and Ministerial Direction No. 84. It noted that the applicant's claims were vaguely expressed and that the onus was on the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that the statutory elements were made out with reliable, detailed facts. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm that was not faced by the population generally, or that could not be mitigated by relocation or state protection. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's ability to communicate with his family in China via WeChat, suggesting a degree of ongoing connection and potential for information gathering.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, finding that they did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, nor the criteria for family members under section 36(2)(b) or (c).