1725894 (Refugee)

The applicants, citizens of China, sought protection visas. The delegate refused their applications, finding that Australia did not owe them protection obligations. The first applicant claimed to be a member of a Christian home church in China, alleging persecution including physical assault and detention of her parents, which led to financial hardship and warnings not to return to China. She arrived in Australia in 2007 on a student visa, which was later cancelled, and she became an unlawful non-citizen before applying for a protection visa in 2016. The second applicant, born in Australia, did not raise his own protection claims.

The court was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether they were refugees within the meaning of the Migration Act 1958, or if there were substantial grounds for believing they would suffer significant harm if removed from Australia. This involved assessing whether the first applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, and whether effective protection measures were available to her in China. The court also considered the definition of serious harm and the circumstances under which a person might be expected to relocate within their country of origin.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicants did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the first applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, nor that she would suffer significant harm upon return to China. The Tribunal considered that the alleged persecution was not systematic or discriminatory, and that effective protection measures were available in China, including the possibility of relocation to areas where she would not face such risks. The Tribunal concluded that Australia did not have protection obligations towards the applicants.