1728081 (Refugee)

1728081 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 4371 (17 August 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1728081
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   China
MEMBER:Peter Booth
DATE:17 August 2021
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 17 August 2021 at 11:43am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – religion – Christian – member of the Church of Almighty God – failure to provide corroborative testimony – land disputes – delay in lodging the visa application – vague and inconsistent evidence –credibility concerns – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5J, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
MIAC v MZYYL [2012] FCAFC 147
Selvadurai v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 34 ALD 347
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 dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 24 October 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of China, applied for the visa on 11 November 2016. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not meet the criteria in s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
The applicant attended a hearing by video conference with her legal representative on 21 June 2021. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b) or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
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).
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–5LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
When a person claims to fear being persecuted for reasons of their membership of a particular social group, the existence of such a group and the person’s membership of it is to be determined in accordance with s 5L. It provides that a person is to be a treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if a characteristic, other than a fear of persecution, is shared by each member of the group and the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, that characteristic. Further, that characteristic must be innate or immutable, or must be so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience that the member should not be forced to renounce it, or must distinguish the group from society.
Subject to s 5J(6) of the Act, a person may be a refugee in circumstances where the well-founded fear of persecution is a consequence of events that have occurred since arriving in Australia. Subsection 5J(6) provides that any conduct engaged in by a person in Australia must be disregarded in determining whether the person has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, unless the person satisfies the decision maker that he or she engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the claim to be a refugee.
A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country: s 5J(2). Section 5LA(1) provides that effective protection measures are available if protection against persecution could be provided to the person by either the relevant State, or a party or organisation (including an international organisation) that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of its territory, and that State, party or organisation is willing and able to offer such protection.
A relevant State, party or organisation is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if the person can access the protection, and the protection is durable and, in the case of protection by the relevant State, the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system: s 5LA(2).
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’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s 36(2A): 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 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; 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 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.
Pursuant to 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 judgements of the High Court in SZATV v MIAC and SZFDV v MIAC 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: SZATV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 18 and SZFDV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 51, per Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ, Callinan J agreeing.
Pursuant to s 36(2B)(b) 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 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. That is, the level of protection must be such to reduce the risk of the applicant being significantly harmed to something less than a ‘real risk’: MIAC v MZYYL [2012] FCAFC 147.
Pursuant to s 36(2B)(c) of the Act there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm if the Tribunal is satisfied that the real risk is one faced by the population generally and is not faced by the applicant personally.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, 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 (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the criteria set out in either s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa). For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
The facts are taken from the applicant’s protection visa application as follows.
BACKGROUND
Applicant summary
This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 24 October 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) Subclass 866 visa under s 65 of the Act.
The applicant applied for the visa on 11 November 2016.
Identity and country of reference
The applicant is a [age]-year-old female, born on [date] in Huozhou City, Shan Xi Province, China.
The applicant can speak, read and write Mandarin.
The applicant stated she is of the Han ethnicity and Church of Almighty God faith.
The applicant claims to have Chinese citizenship by birth and a copy of her passport, held upon the Department file, confirms that she is a citizen of China.
The applicant claims to have never married or been in a de facto relationship.
The applicant recorded volunteering at the Church of Almighty God in China and completing junior school in China.
In summary, the applicant claims that she left China due to persecution on the basis of her faith.
Migration history
The applicant arrived in Australia on [date] August 2016 on an FA-600 Tourist visa.
CLAIMS
866 visa application
The applicant’s claims for protection are contained in the applicant’s Protection visa application and attached statement. A Department interview was conducted on 3 October 2017. The claims submitted were as follows:
I am seeking protection in Australia so that I do not have to return to:
China
Why did you leave that country(s)?
Please see attachment
What do you think will happen to you if you return to that country(s)?
Please see attachment
Did you experience harm in that country(s)?
Applicant selected ‘yes’.
Give details:
Please see attachment
Did you seek help within the country(s) after the harm?
Applicant selected ‘yes’.
Give details:
Please see attachment
Did you move, or try to move, to another part of that country(s) to seek safety?
Applicant selected ‘yes’.
Give details:
Please see attachment
Do you think you will be harmed or mistreated if you return to that country(s)?
Applicant selected ‘yes’.
Give Details:
Please see attachment
Do you think the authorities of that country(s) can and will protect you if you go back?
Applicant selected ‘no’
Give details about why you think the authorities could not, or would not, protect you:
Please see attachment
Do you think you would be able to relocate within that country(s)?
Applicant selected ‘no’.
Give details about why you are unable to relocate:
Please see attachment
EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
The applicant provided the following to the Tribunal:
a)Submissions of the applicant’s representative dated 15 June 2021.
b)17-page statutory declaration of the applicant dated 15 June 2021 in the following terms:
1.I [the applicant], church name sister [deleted], make this statutory declaration in support of my application for a protection visa and to set out my fears of return to China.
2.I would like to state that when I become stressed or anxious. I find it incredibly difficult to answer questions and express my self clearly. I ask that this be taken into consideration in any interview situation.
Family and background
3.I was born in [a] Village of the city of Huo zhou in Shan Xi Province in China on [date]. I am of Han nationality. I am a Christian and a devout member of the Church of Almighty God.
4.I grew up in Shan Xi Province with my parents and my older sister and brother. I am the youngest in my family. My father worked as [an occupation] and my mother was a housewife.
5.My sister [is] married and she has one child. She continues to live in the same area where we were born. My elder brother [is] single. He left to find work and I believe he works in the city of Tai Yuan in Shan Xi Province.
6.All the me members of my family are practicing members of the Church of Almighty God. I have not had any contact with them since I left China on [date] August 2016 because I fear that any communication will be intercepted by the Chinese authorities and I do not wish to put them at risk.
My Conversion and practice in China
7.My parents became practicing members of the Church of Almighty God when I was about 6 years old. At this time, we were very poor. When my parents became followers, other members started to bring gifts of food to us and I remember being very grateful because they helped us and made our lives easier. Although I didn't really understand anything about religion at that age. I do remember being surprised and impressed by these acts of kindness by the people from the Church. This was my first impression of the Church of the Almighty God and my respect and appreciation grew as I learnt more about the religion over time.
8.I heard from my mother that in early 1993 we ran up huge debts and were in financial hardship after my father's business failed. Relatives and friends stayed away from us and no one helped us. My father ran up against wall after wall. After going through many setbacks. he became taciturn and depressed. After years of hard toil. our economic conditions hadn't improved. so he started to have suicidal thoughts. In 1999. [a named person] living in the same village preached the gospel of Almighty God to my parents. After finding God, not only did my father abandon the thoughts of suicide, but also had a positive attitude to life and became more talkative.
9.From then on, our house was full of laughter and joy. My father said God saved him and took him out of suffering when it was most painful and he felt helpless. I le thanked God for saving him. He had gatherings and prayed to God with church brothers and sisters, and he became very happy. I also felt happy for that. and thanked God for bringing joy to our family.
10.As I was growing up, I observed my parents become more involved with the Church and I noticed that this changed the way they behaved. For example they started helping other members of the Church community and also passing on the word of God. I remember how my mother would take vegetables that she had grown in her own vegetable garden and donate them to people who were short of food. Even though I wasn't involved in the religion directly at the time. I saw how becoming members of the Church of Almighty God was making a positive impact on my family. My siblings also noted the change in my parents and we would talk about the differences we saw in them. I remember we were very happy about this. This was a good time in my childhood.
11.My own understanding of God developed as I was growing up. My mother gradually told the basic teachings (tenets) of the Church of Almighty God over time. She told me that God had created heaven and earth, and that human beings were created by God. As I got older she told me more and more details of these stories. She also told me that God controlled the fate of all human beings and that God is the origin of all life in this world.
12.My mother also told me not to talk to my friends about what she and my father were involved in. I remember one occasion when other members of the church came to our house and my mother asked me to tell her if any strangers were approaching. She told me that if people found out about the meeting, we could be arrested. I learnt from a young age that Christians were very afraid of the Chinese government and that the authorities persecute Christians.
13.I began to learn more about my religion when I started going to the Church with my parents regularly on the weekends. I was about 17 years old at that time. Before that I only went a few times because I was focused on my school studies. While I was at school, I believed that God existed, but I didn't actively practice the religion.
14.My paternal grandparents didn't believe God's existence and were against our belief. After knowing my parents performed the duty of hosting, they were worried that once it was detected by the CCP, the benefit (China's minimum living allowance benefit) they received would be cancelled, so they asked my parents to stop having gatherings and hosting church brothers and sisters for gathering. My parents refused. In 2002, our family were kicked out by my paternal grandfather who wanted to sever ties with us. Later, church brothers and sisters helped us rent a house in [the] Village. At that moment, when my parents had gatherings with church brothers and sisters. I just occasionally listened to their fellowship.
15.After I stopped my studies I left home and moved to another area called [Area 1] to find work. I began working as [an Occupation 1], but I also had a small amount of time to start studying God's word, which is called "The Word Appears in the Flesh". Our bible contains quotes from the parts of New Testament; however it is a different book to the new testament.
16.As I said before, when my father's business failed in 1993, relatives treated us with indifference and stayed away from us. When our family most needed help, none of them helped us. At that time, church brothers and sisters often came to our house to help my mother do housework. Because of our financial hardship, they brought daily necessities to us, such as flour and oil. Church brothers and sisters always help each other and never seek rewards, they see our difficulties as their own. They never laughed at us, but helped us. I never felt such warmth before, and preferred to keep in touch with them. My mother often said that it is because of believing in God that church brothers and sisters have such love.
17.Our bible has different content from other Christian religions but we believe in the same God. I learnt that according to our faith, God first created the world and then after creation, humankind was corrupted by Satan. God then divined 3 steps to save humankind. The first step is known as the Age of the Law, the second step is the Age of Grace and the third step is the Age of Kingdom. In each of these steps. God had a different name; in the first step God is known as Jehovah, then as Jesus and then as Almighty God. In our faith, we live in the Age of Kingdom.
18.In June (in my original Form 866 it says July. but the correct month is June) 2010 I left school, and began to work as [an Occupation 1] in Huozhou City. As I grew older. I wanted to learn more about Almighty God. I started to attend the meetings once a week and investigate A lmighty God's work in the last days. Through reading God's word from The Word Appears in the Flesh. I accepted all that Almighty God expresses is true and He is the return of the Lord Jesus and the only true God who created heaven and earth and all things. I understood that God does three stages of work to save mankind since the creation of the world, they are the Age of Law, the Age of Grace, and the Age of Kingdom. In the Age of Kingdom, God expresses truth, judges man's sins and cleanses and saves man.
19.I studied the religion in my spare time for two years before I became a full member of the Church of Almighty God at age 19. In order to become a full member. I had to submit a written application to my local Church leader. In or around [date], I wrote an application and joined the church voluntarily. The church leader gave me a spiritual name [and] the books of God’s word. I also gave myself a pseudonym called "[Name 1]". I attended church meetings twice a week. I had to show that I was applying of my own free will without any external influence. After my membership was approved, I felt happy because I had the opportunity to learn more about the religion and to share my thoughts and experiences with other members.
Practicing my faith in China
20.I practiced my religion at home in the following ways:
a)    I would practice at home by myself by praying once or twice a day. I prayed first and then I would sing hymns and read the Kingdom of the Holy Bible. I also would write down some notes about my understanding of what I had read in the bible.
b)    I would also pray, sing and read the Kingdom of the Holy Bible with other members of my faith. We would also share our understanding of what we had read and discuss things. I did this at home with my parents but I also went to the homes of other members to do this as well.
c)     I tried to attend group meetings at least twice a week but it would depend on whether or not it was safe.
d)    I also carried out my religious duties, one of which was to guide another new member of the Church and second. I was also tasked with the duty of exchanging religious objects. It was my duty to move these objects so that other members could use them in different locations.
21.The more I became involved in the Church of Almighty God, the more I realised I would have to hide my beliefs from the community and the Chinese government. All the members of my faith in China have to use false names or pseudonyms to hide their real identity. I never knew the real names of my brothers and sisters in China and we still use pseudonyms in Australia because we believe there may be spies who will inform the Chinese government where we are.
22.When I attended church meetings at the home of another member, we always had to talk in whispers, keep the curtains down and keep the doors locked. We had to hide our "Holy Bible of the Kingdom Age" with covers to that no one could see them. We always had to check to see if people were watching us coming and going from the meetings. I often felt afraid when I went to the meetings because I was worried about being arrested. I personally knew a member of my faith who was arrested and I have also been told by other members of it happening to other people from our Church.
23.My Church makes films in which people re-enact torture that has happened to other members in the past who had been arrested by the police. They make these films to tell us what might happen if we are arrested. I watched one of these films in secret on my iPad and in this film I saw Christians being arrested and physically harmed by the Chinese police.
24.The police deprived the Christians of food and sleep and hit them with electronic batons if someone fell asleep. They also hit them with their shoes, and a book, anything to make sure they would not sleep. They also strung people up by handcuffing them to the windows so that their feet were not touching the ground. I also saw a person who was made to sit on what the Chinese police call a tiger chair, which is made of cold hard metal. The person's arms were stretched out with ropes and their legs were tied together whilst the police beat them. Another person was tied with ropes to a cold bed and beaten with a belt until the belt broke, and they continued with another belt.
25.Watching this film made me terrified that I might also be arrested and that my life would be in danger if the Chinese authorities knew I was a Christian.
26.I also saw many banners and community bulletins pasted up in my local area which had been put up by the authorities. They threatened punishment to any person practicing Christianity. These messages were also painted on walls in my village and in many other villages all over China.
27.There were also local village committee members in the area where I was living who wore red arm bands that I was very afraid of. They patrolled every day. Once they saw strangers, they would investigate them; once they found believers they would report them. Another member of my Church warned me that these people would report me to the police if they found out I was a member of the Church.
28.Ever since I became a member of the Church of Almighty God, I have lived in fear because of the CCP's treatment of my religion and those who have those beliefs. I was forced to leave my home for hiding on multiple occasions because I had come to the attention of the police.
29.In or around May 2014, I performed the duty of watering new believers. I was responsible for having gatherings with those who had just joined the church, leading them to read God's word and fellowship about God’s word, sharing our experiences of practicing God·s word in daily life with each other, to give them a better understanding of God's sovereignty and authority. and root themselves in the true way.
30.Sister [A] (over [age] years old) living in the same village with me was a new believer. I had gatherings with her every week. She had a son, over [age] years old, who was against her belief because of the CCP's propaganda. He threatened to report me to the authorities if I came to see his mother again. I went back at a time when I thought he would not be there but he came home earlier than I expected and tried to drag me to the police station. His mother freed me but I knew then her son would report me to the police and I had to leave my home village.
Details of May 2014 incident - leaving my home
31.One day in May 2014, I went to Sister [A]'s house to have the gathering. When we were having the gathering. her son suddenly opened the door and came in. seeing us holding books of God's word. He aggressively said the government was hunting believers; just practice the belief if you like, but don't talk to my mother: if we were not in the same village, I would report you directly. Then, he drove me out. He also said that if he saw me again in her mother's house, he would hand me over to the police and ask them to arrest me. Hearing these words. I was very afraid and felt a bitter grief. If there were not the CCP's persecution, he would not treat me like that. Recalling the scenes of the persecution church brothers and sisters had suffered, I felt a little weak.
32.God’s word said: "Are you aware of the burden on your shoulders, your commission. and your responsibility? Where is your sense of historic mission? ...... when all is said and done, how would you interpret being used by God to live your extraordinary life? Do you really have the resolve and confidence to live the meaningful life of a pious. God-serving person?"
(from "How Should You Attend to Your Future Mission'" of The Word Appears in the Flesh).
33.Knowing those words of God, and thinking that Sister [A] was a new believer who would be weak encountering such an incident, I could not cower because of the CCP’s persecution. I understood God's will and knew God's mission to me through reading God's word. I had to go to her home again, but I decided that I would be more careful.
34.At about 2 pm one day when it was very hot and villagers were having a midday nap. there was nobody outside, 1 went into sister's home. After about one hour. her son came back and saw me there again. He said why did you come back, I had warned you last time. come with me to the police station. While he was saying this, he took out his phone to make a call. Sister [A] took the opportunity to snatch her son's cell phone. Her son was particularly angry. Sister [A] grabbed him. While they argued, I ran out.
35.After going back home. I told my parents about that. I did not dare to live at home. I was afraid that Sister [A]'s son would come to look for me. On that day. I packed up my things and hid in Sister [B]"s house ([Area 1], Huozhou City. Shanxi Province) who I knew from before. I did not dare to go back home from then on and could not get reunited with my family. Several days later, I heard from my mother that Sister [A]’s neighbour told her son that I went to sister [A]'s house, and that her son also went to my home to warn my mother to not let him see me again, if he saw me again. he would call the police to arrest me. My mother asked me not to go back home again. I could only live in Sister [B]'s house and continued watering new believers.
Leaving [Area 1]
36.I moved to [Area 1] in 2014 to hide, but was then forced to leave in 2015 because the police came to my house and confiscated my phone and my computer. They told me that if they found any religious material they would come back and arrest me. The police told me I had come to their attention after they had been watching a gambling den near to where I was living, and noticed that my sister (of faith) [Sister C] and I left the house at odd hours of the day. We were doing this to perform our religious duties. I did have religious material on my phone and computer and I was terrified of being arrested so both me and my sister (of faith) left [Area 1] straight away and moved to village called [Village 1] .
CCP crackdown on believers
37.On 28 May 2014. The CC P concocted the Shandong Zhaoyuan case. Shifted the blame onto our church. mobilized various armed police to severely crack down on all house churches. The police then arrested Christians publicly instead of secretly. Hearing that many church brothers and sisters were caught, I also lived in fear.
38.In November 2014. I went to a new believer's home for gathering. I knew her daughter had come back from the US. While chatting I learned that there were many churches overseas and there was religious freedom. An idea of going abroad came into my mind. so I applied for a passport, but after getting the passport and finding an agent. I knew it was not easy to go abroad. It required a lot of money and I needed to produce a lot of documents like proof of employment. but I wasn't working I was hiding. Because of how difficult it was I realised I was unable to go abroad, so I had no choice but to let go of the idea of going abroad for a while.
39.In May 2015, while living in [Area 1] I was undertaking the duty of watering new believers with several church sisters ([B] . [D], [C]). At that time. there was a gambling house which was monitored by the police for over a month next to the house we rented. Because we lived close by the police mistakenly thought that we were also gambling and started to investigate us.
40.One night in May 2015. I was washing my feet in the yard. I heard a very loud and rapid knock on the door. I was very scared. We hurriedly hid the books of God's word and computers. The books of God's word were put in the shoe box at the comer of the bed, and the computers were hidden under the bed (It was a hollow bed which could be opened to put clothes in). We were so scared that we had to hide in the quilt to pray. Meanwhile, we also could not help shaking. Then I heard the sound of someone jumping over the high wall surrounding the house to the ground. and then another the knock on the door. We didn't dare to open the door. Then the door flung open. I saw two policemen. One of them was about 1.75 meters tall and had a darker complexion and was fat. He was about 30 years old and dressed in uniform. The other one was about 1.7 meters tall and was a little thin with a slender face. He was about forty years old. Seeing us. they said: "you all stand in a row, facing the wall with your hands on your head." They asked what we were doing, what our names were. whether we were gambling. They also said they had monitored us for one month. We said nothing. I only heard the sound of rummaging through the cabinet and the policemen in the room banging about.
41.After that, the police called Sister [C] and Sister [D] to another room, I was very scared in my heart, and kept praying, asking God to keep them from betraying the church . About 10 minutes later, [Sister C] and [Sister D] came back, the fat policeman said to me: "they have already told us everything and confessed, you can tell me what you were doing?" I turned around and said nothing. I saw that the fat policeman had found the computers and the mobile phones we hid. He also found out a memory card in the bath towel in the bathroom. There were some contents related to our belief in these electronic products, so we usually keep them encrypted. The police saw me not speaking. and then they intimidated me. One of the policemen said that there was nothing about gambling. and asked whether we believed in God? At this time. the fat policeman answered a phone call and seemed to be anxious. They discussed with each other. and then told us that if they found evidence about our belief in God. we would be arrested immediately. They left with our computers. a memory card, and a few hundred RMB. They also said that they would soon come again. Although they left. we could not calm down. because there were books of God’s word of e-edition in my memory card. We were so worried that if they found the information in our computers and the memory card. they would know we were believers in God, so we packed up the books of God’s word and left hurriedly. We walked around in the street for a while. and then went to Sister [C]'s house in [Village 1] Village in the early morning. Next day, [Sister C] and I moved to the old house of [Sister C].
42.I moved into a house with [Sister C] which she owned. We stayed there for approximately nine months before local officials with red arm bands became suspicious of us. They came to [Sister C] 's house to register the information of residents. They came to the house and questioned asked me for ID card. I told them that my bag was left in the dormitory of my colleague. My ID card was in that bag. but I gave them false information about my name and where I was from because I was too scared to tell the truth. If my real information was registered and I was detected as a believer. they would find me and arrest me easily. They told me they would come again to check whether the name was the same as the name on the ID card on the register and would come back if I had not told the truth. The sister and I knew we would be found out so we left [Village 1] village and moved to [Chang Zhi] City in February 2016. There I began to do the duty as a liaison. I often did the duty together with [Mr E]. We often met.
43.The sister and I knew we would be found out so we left [Village 1] and moved to Chang Zhi city in February 2016. I had only been living in Chang Zhi City for about 20 days before one of the members of my Church, [Mr E], was arrested and taken away by the police. His mother wrote a letter to all the members of our church. warning us that the police knew there were followers of my faith in the village and they were looking for them. [Mr E] and I used to carry out religious duties together and I knew that the police would interrogate him and that he would be forced to name me as a follower of the Church of Almighty God.
44.One day in late February 2016, I made an appointment with [Mr E] to meet in [Changzhi] City, but he didn't come up at the appointment time. It was very strange. I was worried that [Mr E] was arrested by the police, but I also thought that maybe he was doing something important, so he was late. Next day, I was waiting for him near the same place. But I still didn't see him. I was worried and panicked. I could only pray for him. Then I wrote to my church leader sister [F] to tell her about that. About two days later. I heard from Sister [F] that [Mr E] was arrested by the police of [the] Public Security Bureau. The police also asked [Mr E]'s mother who was often in contact with [Mr E], and to assist them to arrest believers in God. Thinking of [Mr E]'s arrest, I was worried that I would be in danger of being arrested at any time. because [Mr E] knew where I lived. I quickly moved to sister [G]'s house in [Changzhi] City. Thinking that I would be arrested sooner or later. I decided that I should go overseas.
45.Due to my situation, I was worried that I would attract the attention of the police when I went through the procedures to go abroad. However, I had to try, I had no other choice. Then, in late March 2016, I found an agent and began to apply for the visa to go overseas. In April, the visa to [Country 1] was refused. The agent told me that if I wanted to continue to apply for a visa, I had to get a new passport. I had no choice but to apply for a passport again, but I didn't dare to go myself. After deep consideration, I asked my cousin to help me. He worked at our local household registration office. In May, I applied for a new passport with his help. Then, I continued applying for a visa. but during the process, the agent lost my passport. In June, I was forced to apply for a new passport to continue applying for a visa. During that that time. I did not stop my duties to almighty god.
46.One night in mid-June. when I was having a meal, a woman from the neighbourhood committee came to my rented place and asked me if I was the landlord. While she was talking. she took out a pen and a notebook to record something. She asked how many people lived in the house and what they were doing. At the time, she also asked for my mobile phone number. but I didn't tell her, saying that my mobile phone was had fallen in the toilet. She asked for my ID card number, and I didn't tell her that either. She asked for my name, but I gave her a false name. I did not dare to give her my real name. I asked her why she recorded this information? She said that she had to investigate believers in God from house to house. Once they found believers in God, they would search the names they recorded on the Internet. After that, she left.
47.I knew that I was in great danger. so I immediately moved to Sister [H]'s house near to the railway station of Changzhi City. I felt that there was nowhere in China that I would be safe. I moved immediately to another house In June, I met a brother (of faith) named [Brother I] at one of our gatherings whilst I planned my escape from the country. When he heard that I was planning to leave the country. he asked me if he could go with me. We contacted several agencies until we found one that helped us get a tourist visa to Australia. I contacted my previous agent. I paid for the visa with my own money and he paid for his. I didn't know anything about applying for protection at that stage. I just knew that I had to escape China.
Leaving China and my religious practice in Australia
48.I left China because my life was in danger and I could never practice my religion freely there without fear of being arrested and tortured by the Government.
49.I travelled to Australia with Brother [I]. When we landed in [City 1], he called a telephone hotline for the Church of Almighty God. He spoke to a person who sent local members of the Church to collect us at the airport. The Church helped us find accommodation. They arranged for me to stay with sisters of the Church in [Suburb 1] and the brother went to [another suburb]. I stayed in [Suburb 1] for one month and while I was there, the sisters helped me to find my way around the local area. I then moved to another house in [Suburb 2], again to live with other members of the Church.
50.Every day in Australia I listened to recordings of the God·s word or religious poems on my phone. I also downloaded an app of the Church of Almighty God. This app has religious books, religious music, songs, and videos. I used the religious activities on the app when I was by myself but also with other members of the Church that I was staying with. I did not have access to this app in China I really enjoyed using it here in Australia, it is a big part of religious practice now.
51.I also attended religious gatherings with other members that I was staying with. I recall visiting the home of a sister called [name deleted]. There were about seven or eight other members there. We prayed, read God's word and sang together. Then we shared our experience of God's word with each other. For example, after reading God’s words. we would take turns to talk about what we had learnt from different parts of God’s word.
52.Everyone spoke in Mandarin and they went to great effort to make me fee l welcome. I really enjoyed these gatherings and I started to feel safe. It was a huge relief to be away from the Chinese authorities. I finally felt as though I could sing loudly, discuss my thoughts and my beliefs in an open way and watch footage on my iPad in a public space without worrying about being discovered. I had never felt as free as I did at this time and I felt even more connected to my faith because I didn't have to hide it.
53.This was an amazing experience for me and I still feel very emotional when I think that I can openly say 'I believe in God" without fear.
54.I had this exciting feeling as though I had been a caged bird who could finally fly out. I feel free here and I really appreciate how special it is to be able to express my beliefs openly.
55.On [date] March 2017. I came to [City 2, Australia] with seven other me members of my Church. I came with the desire to spread the word of God to others. I lived with these fellow church members in a house in [Suburb 3] and we all prayed and practiced our faith together twice a week. I continued to practice on my own every day using the app as well as using my bible of the Kingdom Age. I was so happy that I didn't need to cover my bible of the Kingdom Age any more. I worked one day a week as a [Occupation 2] and I just managed to cover my living costs.
56.After living in [City 2] for a few months I started going to gatherings at the homes of other members registered with the [City 2] church. Sometimes I went with other members from the house and sometimes I went on my own.
57.In March 2018, I moved to a house in [Suburb 3] with some sisters from the Church. There were seven of us living together and we continued to practice our religion together at home as well as visiting the two houses of other members. I then moved to [Suburb 4] in June 2018.
58.The religious community - Church brothers and sisters of The Church of Almighty God - that I have met since coming to Australia have become like a family to me. I feel blessed to be surrounded by other members with whom I can share my faith without fearing persecution by the authorities.
59.I continue to practice my religion in [City 3]. I wake up and I pray, I read God's words, I sing hymns, sometimes alone or with other members. Also, we gather together at other peoples’ houses. And also we congregate together online with other members in Australia.
Why my religion is important to me
60.By reading the Kingdom of the Holy Bible I became enlightened and I learnt about how God created the world and I learnt about the three stages of God's work. The Church of Almighty God showed me to communicate in a simple and honest way. My religion showed me the importance of being an honest person and I value that very much.
61.My religion helped my father, and church members showed kindness to me and any family. This is all a result of them accepting my religion.
62.My religion is also important to me because it taught me the value of doing things to help and benefit others. Thro ugh my faith I came to understand the value of kindness. And through reading the bible of the Kingdom Age I came to know God's will.
Fears on return
63.If I was returned to China I fear that the following would happen to me:
a)    I fear that I would be detained as soon as I enter the airport in China by the authorities. I know this will happen because I saw some reports on the website, a Church member also told me that the Chinese immigration officials have a list of people who spend more than three months overseas which they use to screen returnees. Anyone who had been away from China for more than three months is questioned, and sometimes arrested in the airport when they fly back into the county. The whereabouts of some people who returned are unknown. I have a copy of a document. some reports that proves this. The following links to pages describing what happens to people on return: https//bitterwinter org/fleemq-chnst1ans-become-pol1ce-targets/ ; ; https :/ /b1tterwin ter. org/tortured-1mpnsoned-back-111-ch ina/
b)    I believe that the Chinese government has spies who monitor the activities of the Church of Almighty God in Australia. and that my active involvement in this faith since arriving in Australia will have been reported back to the Chinese authorities. I fear that when I am questioned at the airport, I will be identified both as a Christian and a member of the Church of Almighty God.
c)     If I am identified as a member of the Church. I fear that I would then be arrested. as has happened to other members of my faith who have gone back to China. For example, in June of 2018 a female member of our Church was in Canada and made a phone call to the Gospel hotline using her Chinese phone. This phone was being tapped by Chinese government and she was arrested as soon as she landed in China. This story can easily be found on the internet. The story can be found at the following web address: https; //en.adhrrf.org/ beijing-christian-illegallyarrested-upon-arri va 1-hac k-i n-ch i na-for-contact l in g-thc-c h u rchabroad.html
d)    I also believe that I would be beaten and tortured by the authorities in China and perhaps even killed.,! know this because I have read stories online about this happening to members of my Church and I have also been told this by my brothers and sisters in the Church.
64.Even if I was not arrested immediately, I know that I would not be able to practice my religion freely and continue being a member of the church without putting my life at risk. Followers of the Church of Almighty God are frequently targeted by Chinese authorities. The CCP also encourages the public to report believers. For this reason there is a great danger that any attempt to practice my faith would be reported to the authorities. I would never be able to practice my religion in a free and open manner in China. I would have to go back to hiding everything and pretend that it was not the most important part of my life. Even with these precautions, there is a danger of being caught at any time.
65.In china, there is no way to openly and freely practice these religious activities. Even when gathering, we have to talk in a very low voice, because we are afraid someone will hear us. We certainly could not sing hymns freely and openly. We also could not go online to Church website, without being monitored. As a consequence, you might be arrested. Also, it is impossible to use the "The Church of Almighty God" app in China. In China. there is no way to download this app. In [City 3], we can do all these things without any worry - we feel free.
66.In addition, if I was forced to return to my country as a failed asylum seeker, I would be targeted for trying to flee from the Chinese authorities.
67.I would never be able to seek protection from Chinese authorities in any way as they are the ones who are persecuting members of my faith. The Chinese government's repression of the Church of Almighty God is the reason that I have been forced to leave my country and my family. They therefore could not provide me with any protection if l returned to China.
68.There is nowhere in China that I can relocate to and live safely and continue to practice my religion freely as I have been doing in Australia. As already outlined in this statement. I been forced to move many times in order to find safety but members of my faith are persecuted throughout the country.
69.For these reasons I cannot return to China and I can only seek protection in Australia.
Issues raised by the case officer
70.I provide the following clarifications and responses to the concerns raised by the case officer during my interview:
a)    I attend a church regularly in [City 2]. There was a registered house church in Victoria located in [Suburb 5] and now moved to [Suburb 6]. When I used to visit the [Suburb 5] church, I take [public transport] to [Suburb 5]. I visit there approximately once per month. During my interview, I did not know how to say the suburb name in English.
b)    I also felt concerned about telling the Mandarin interpreter the exact location of our house church. I do not mind telling a case officer or a lawyer but I did not feel comfortable telling the interpreter at that time. The case officer tried to reassure me that the interview was confidential. but because I was new to this setting and the interpreter was a Chinese national, I was still apprehensive about the whole process. I was afraid the interpreter would report my information to the Chinese government.
c) There is also a registered house church in [City 1]. I arrived in [City 1] on [date] August 2016, and then came to [City 2] [in] March 2017 from [City 1]. The church house was registered in [2016]. I never attended the meetings in the registered church house in [City 1]. This is because after the [City 1] church house was registered, it took time to get everything ready, such as preparing books. Church members were busy organizing during this time. I therefore practiced at home with other church members. I cannot recall the exact location in [City 1], but I believe it sounded something like '[Suburb 7x]'.
d)    I know the term 'Eastern Lightening'. The bible states: "For as the lightning comes out of the east, and shines even to the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be'' (Mat 24:27)" that lighting came from the east. Church brothers and sisters who bear witness to God's work generally mention it, so religious people call our church the alias "Eastern Lightning". They generally know this name because it is mentioned in the bible. It symbolizes that God works very fast. Christians calls us ‘Eastern Lightening'. but our church’s real name is the Church of Almighty God', not "Eastern Lightening'.
e)    Almighty God originally did not have a gender. However, when God came in human form this time around, God came as a woman. The name of God is 'the Almighty God.
f)   I know about the ·Great Red Dragon·. The Great Red Dragon is a bad entity. It is spoke n about in the bible Book of Revelation: And the great dragon was cast out. that old serpent. called the DeviI. and Satan, which deceives the whole world" (Revelation 12:9) and features in bible verses. I believe the Great Red Dra gon is an evil force that opposes God and defies and destroys God's work - an entity that seeks to persecute the children of God, as well as to devour the believers.
g)    I was able to leave China with a passport and not get arrested because I was probably not listed as wanted in China when I left - I was known to a small degree. Departments, such as the Public Security Bureau and Exit and Entry Administration. do not share my information with each other because I was probably not on a national wanted list at that time. Issuing me a passport does not mean I am safe in China. It certainly does not mean that I can practice my religion openly.
Issues during the interview
71.I also felt there were a number of things that happened during the interview that affected my ability to provide detailed answers:
a)    During the interview, I felt extremely nervous and I know this definitely affected my ability to answer the case officer's questions. I was new to that type of setting. I had never attended an interview like this before. I felt afraid of fully disclosing all my information. I was worried that information that I disclose may be spread or let out into the public, or become known to the CCP authority, because I did not know the interpreter, who was a Chinese national.
b)    On one occasion during the interview, the case officer asked me to sing a hymn from church. When I had finished singing two lines of the hymn, the interpreter started to interpret. At this point I felt really awkward and anxious to continue singing. The case officer also did not ask me to continue singing and therefore I stopped singing at this point
c)     I also felt that the case officer did not leave enough time for me to answer the questions fully. Sometimes I had only partially provided an answer and the case officer would quickly move to the next question. For example. sometimes after I gave a short answer and it was interpreted. the case officer would move onto the next question without giving me another opportunity to continue explaining my answer.
d)    I could understand most of the things the interpreter said to me. l However, I think the interpreter was not able to understand what I was saying sometimes. That is why the interpreter kept asking me to repeat myself and I kept trying to explain what I meant. Eventually. I could see that the interpreter became a bit impatient. Interpreters find it very difficult to interpret our religious language.
c)Statutory declaration of [Ms J], dated 15 June 2021 in the following terms:
How I Know Sister [Name 1] ([the applicant])
1.The name they call me at church is '[Ms J’s other name]'. We all have a church name and a passport name. I am [age] years old.
2.I have known Sister [Name 1] for three years. I first met Sister [Name 1] at an online church congregation. This was approximately in 2017 December. I was in [City 1] at that time and sister [Name 1] was in [another state].
3.We meet at online congregations and share our experiences and religious enlightenment with each other. Sister [Name 1] shares quite often.
4.I attend congregations with her on [specified days] at about 1.00pm. Sister [Name 1] attends these online congregations often.
5.In March 2021, I moved to [City 3]. It was only after moving to [City 3] that I met sister [Name 1] for the first time in person. We have now been living in the same house for over two months.
6.At this address there are six sisters of the Church of Almighty God.
Sister [Name 1] Practicing Her Religion
7.We live in the same house. Every day I see her pray, read God's words, and sometimes sing hymns. We also fellowship together when we are in a bad situation or encounter difficulties in our duties. Sometimes we also meet together since we started living together in March.
8.I know that she attends online congregations [as] well.
What she has told me of the harm she faced in China
9.One time when we talked together, she said she moved many times in China, and that the neighbourhood committee checked household register, and that her duty partner [Mr E], was arrested. She said that she had to leave China because she could be arrested at any time and her life would be threatened in China.
10.This statement was prepared with the aid of an interpreter from TIS National interpreters and translators TIS number [deleted]
d)Submissions of the applicant’s representative dated 28 June 2021.
e)Statutory declaration of [Mr I], dated 25 June 2021 in the following terms:
I, [Mr I] (Church name: [Brother I]), of [address] make the following declaration under the Statutory Declarations Act 1959:
THAT:
Why I decided to leave China before I met Sister [Name 1] ([the applicant])
1.In about April 2016, two months before I met [the applicant] (Church name: [Name 1]), I had already decided that I had to leave China. I felt I had to leave China because the Chinese Communist Party was persecuting followers of the Church of Almighty God all the time. As a leader of the Church of Almighty God in Changzhi City, Shan Xi province, I did not feel safe to practice my religion.
2.Sister [Name 1]'s lawyer asked me whether I attended one of the state-sanctioned Christian churches in China. To this I responded, I did not. He then asked why I didn't attend the mainstream Christian churches. I explained that these churches are set up by the government and it i-s an atheist government. The Three-Self Patriotic Movement just read from their bible when they worship, they do not read from our bible. We worship from a book called 'The Word Appears in the Flesh'.
How I know Sister [Name 1] ([the applicant])
3.In I first met Sister [Name 1] in June 2016. At that time, I was the leader of the local house-church congregation of the Church of Almighty God in Changzhi City, Shan Xi province.
4.I met Sister [Name 1] in person for the first time at a receiving home soon after she arrived in Changzhi.
How I observed Sister [Name 1] practice her religion in China
5.Sister [Name 1] was in Changzhi for about two months, before we fled China together. During that time, I observed her practice her religion in various ways. When we gathered together, we would sing hymns quietly, we would pray together, we would read religious texts and exchange our ideas and understandings about what we had read.
How We Left China and Arrived in Australia
6.We both left China together from Beijing Airport on [date] of August 2016. We arrived together in [City 1] on [date] of August.
7.When we arrived at [City 1] airport, with Sister [Name 1] beside me I telephoned the number for the gospel hotline. When I dialed the hotline, a person answered the phone and I told them where I came from. Then the person asked me the question: 'what is the latest God's words?' They also asked me, 'what is the latest recorded sermon?' They asked me these questions to verify that I was a true follower of the Church of Almighty God. Soon after, two brothers from the Church arrived at the airport. They asked us some questions about our belief in God, and how we expressed our belief in God.
8.After the questions, they drove us both to an address in [Suburb 1]. I cannot recall the exact address now. I stayed at the address with Sister [Name 1] for about an hour, then I was driven to a separate address [where] I would stay. Sister [Name 1] remained at the address in [Suburb 1].
How I Observed Sister [Name 1] Practice her Beliefs in Australia
9.Though we lived separately in Australia, Sister [Name 1] and I stayed in contact. We would talk to each other about how to live, how to find a job and about our belief. We would talk about the teaching of God to share our understanding. Sometimes these conversations were on the phone, sometimes on [social media].
10.In Australia, we would both congregate online for religious gatherings with other members. But we were in separate groups, so we would not be online together. I have also seen her post the words of God on [social media]. I would hear from the other sisters who lived with her that she was very devout in her religious practices in [Suburb 1]. I heard from them that when brothers or sisters were in a low mood, Sister [Name 1] would go to them and would comfort them with the word of God.
My Opinions on Sister [Name 1] 's Religious Beliefs
11.I believe that Sister [Name 1] is a person who truly believes in God. I believe this because when someone believes in Almighty God in China, it is dangerous and they are persecuted. But despite the danger and the difficulties, Sister [Name 1] continued believing in God and continued her practice.
12.Also, from what I hear from the sisters who lived with her in [Suburb 1], and my own experiences, I believe she is a true believer in God with a warm heart.
13.This statutory declaration was prepared with the aid of an interpreter from TIS National interpreters and read back to me. The translator's TIS number is [deleted].
f)Statutory declaration of [Ms K], dated 26 June 2021 in the following terms:
I, [Ms K] (Church name: [Ms K’s church name]), of [address], make the following declaration under the Statutory Declarations Act 1959:
THAT:
1.My church name is [Ms K’s church name]. I am in the same church group as [the applicant], or Sister [Name 1] as we meet at [time] on [specified days] online. I am member of the Church of Almighty God as is Sister [Name 1].
2.I first met Sister [Name 1] in August 2016 in a house in [Suburb 1] when she arrived there from China. I lived about 20 minutes' walk away from that house where she lived.
3.All the people at that house belonged to the Church of Almighty God, as did everyone who lived at my house.
4.I remember sister [Name 1] arrived straight from the airport to the house in [Suburb 1], I was visiting that house when she arrived.
5.While we were in [City 1] together I observed her practicing her religions, she did this by singing hymns, attending gatherings and sharing her knowledge of God. Sister [Name 1] and I spread the words of God to people that we met. For example I met a woman in her forties while I was working as a [Occupation 2] and learned that she was interested in God. I organised sister [Name 1] and I to meet her at a library to share our knowledge of God with her.
6.I left [City 1] and went to [City 2] in June 2017, sister [Name 1] came to [City 2] a few months before I arrived in [City 2], I can't remember the exact month or date when she arrived.
7.She continues attending gatherings, singing hymns, doing her readings and performing church duties.
8.I have seen her explain her beliefs to others many times.
9.I have known her doing all of these things consistently for many years now, since 2016.
10.I know Sister [Name 1] is a true believer.
11.This statutory declaration was prepared with the aid of refugee legal and an interpreter in the mandarin [language], this has been read back to me by the same interpreter.
g)Letter from [Ms K], church member of the Church of Almighty God ([City 2]) dated 28 June 2021 in the following terms:
1.My church The Church of Almighty God is a registered association in [Suburb 6].
2.The Church of Almighty God has the majority of its members in China. However, due to the severe persecution by the government our Church experiences there, we do not keep national registers of members in China, which would expose them to further dangers. However, our branches abroad are able to maintain certain contacts with our branches in China and to receive information from there, including about members.
3.The Church of Almighty God believes that the sacred history of humanity consists of three ages: Age of Law (of God-Jehovah and the Old Testament); Age of Grace (of Jesus Christ and the New Testament); and Age of Kingdom (where Almighty God appears in the present form as a person living and speaking today and expressing words collected in the book The Word Appears in the Flesh).
4.There is no baptism in The Church of Almighty God. We believe that baptism was a request made by God for Christians in the Age of Grace. We believe that it is now the Age of Kingdom. One becomes a member of The Church of Almighty God by:
a.     confessing in our Church a belief that Almighty God is the second coming of the Lord Jesus and the appearance of the only one true God in the last days;
b.     being willing to pray in the name of Almighty God;
c.     being able to understand and accept the truths expressed by Almighty God; and
d.     being recognized by a local community of our Church as a person sincere and of good humanity. His or her name is known to local leaders.
5.Upon information and belief, I hereby declare and certify that Sister [Name 1] (Birth name: [the applicant], DOB: [date]) returned to Almighty God (this is our preferred or technical expression to indicate conversion or becoming a member of our Church) in the province of Shanxi, China.
6.From the information recorded, I know Sister [Name 1] and a church brother came to Australia in [August] 2016 and contacted the Church in Australia through gospel hotline. She met with members of the Church. After the relevant information was duly checked, such as what recent sermons she listened to, what recent God's words she read and fellowshipped during the meetings, what's her understanding of God's words and what kind of duties and experiences she performed and had in China. Her answers were accepted. We believe that only a genuine member can answer these questions with sufficient level of detail. In addition, we have our own special way to verify her membership in China.
7.There are the specific technicians in the Church in Australia who can contact the Church in China. We have to be very careful about how this is conducted to protect the safety of our church members both here in Australia and in China. Those checks were conducted, and it was confirmed that Sister [Name 1] was a longstanding member of the Church in China.
8.I moved to [City 2] in September 2018 and lived in [Suburb 4] with Sister [Name 1] and other church sisters. I was elected as a church leader in June 2018. When we lived in the same house, I knew that she was willing to talk about her experiences to help other sisters in the same house when they had difficulties. At meetings, she prays, reads God's Word, sings hymns, and shares her knowledge and experiences of God's Word. I also know that she spreads the gospel actively in Australia. Sometimes, I heard she talked about our belief with her colleagues and read Almighty God's words for them to help them on the phone when they have difficulties. When she was unable to solve their problems, she would pray to Almighty God and seek the truth from God's words. Sometimes, she would discuss them with me or with brothers and sisters who attended gatherings with her during the meetings. We regard Sister [Name 1] as a member of The Church of Almighty God.
9.I was also persecuted in China for my belief in Almighty God and forced to flee to Australia. As is known, the Chinese Communist Party is an atheist revolutionary party. It has been trying to thoroughly ban all religious beliefs to make China a godless land. Many Christians are arrested, tortured, imprisoned and even persecuted to death, resulting in numerous of Christians being homeless and fleeing overseas. I believe that if [the applicant] returned to China and continued to believe in Almighty God and practice our core beliefs and tenets, including sharing Almighty God's word with non-believers, that she would be at grave risk of being arrested and tortured.

In summary the applicant’s claims are:
a)The applicant was born in Shan Xi Province in [date]. All her family are practising members of COAG. Her parents were introduced to the Church in 1999 by ‘[a named person]’.
b)The applicant started going to church regularly when she was 17 and became a full member at 19.
c)In 2002 the applicant’s grandparents forced the applicant and their parents to leave, due to their religious practice.
d)The applicant practised religion by praying and singing hymns and studying holy books at home, in groups with other members of the faith, and undertook tasks for the church.
e)In 2014, the son of a fellow believer attempted to report her to the police and she left her village to live with another believer in Huozhou City.
f)In 2014 the applicant moved to [Area 1] where she stayed with other believers near a gambling house. In May 2015, police who had been investigating the gambling house broke into the applicant’s residence. Two police officers interviewed the applicant and a fellow believer she lived with. They seized the applicant’s computers telling her if they found evidence of a belief in god they would arrest them.
g)The applicant held religious material on her phone and the applicant and the fellow believer escaped to another believer’s house in [Village 1] before the police could return.
h)The applicant then moved to another believer’s residence and stayed there for nine months. Local officials came to register her information and she gave them false information. The officials said they would check and return if the information was not correct. The applicant and the fellow believer left and moved to Changzhi City in February 2016.
i)The applicant moved to Changzhi City after she heard that one of her fellow believers who she had carried out church tasks with was arrested.
j)The applicant applied for a visa to [Country 1], but it was refused. She asked a cousin who worked at the local household registration office to help her apply for a new passport as she was worried about attracting the attention of police.
k)In mid-June 2016 a woman from the neighbourhood committee visited the applicant saying she had been asked to investigate believers in god. After the visit, the applicant moved to Changzhi City and then another house.
l)She applied for a tourist visa to Australia along with another fellow believer using an agent.
m)When they landed in [City 1] they contacted a telephone hotline for COAG members where the applicant was able to find accommodation. She was able to continue practising her religion both at home and in gatherings. On [date] March 2017 she moved to [City 2] with other members and continued to practise her faith.
n)She fears if she is returned to China, she would be detained at the airport as she has heard Chinese authorities detain anyone who has been away for more than three months. She also fears that her public COAG activities mean she is known to Chinese authorities. She fears being tortured and killed by authorities and being unable to practise her religion.
The applicant provided the following to the Department:
a)Document titled Attachment of Part C Question 89–96 [the applicant], in the following terms:
89 Why did you leave that country(s)? Provide specific details
I am a devote Christian in the Church of Almighty God. In May 2014, when we gathered at [A] sister’s home I got a warning from [A] sister’s son, he said that if we were not from the same village he would took me to the Public Security Bureau and let me to be arrested.
We I went to [A] sister’s house again, her neighbor saw me, and her neighbor told [A] siter’s son, and her son was going to take me to the Public Security Bureau, Because of [A] siter’s help I had escaped. In February 2016, My partner [Mr E] brother were arrested. From the CCTV, the police knew I had [Mr E] brother passed in and out together, this thing directly involved me. I was so fear to be arrested, I dare not return to the church. In China, if you believe in God, you may be arrested at any time,so I left China.
90 What do you think will happen to you if you return to that country(s)?
If I go back to China , I will be arrested by the police and take in to jail because of my religion.
91 Did you experience harm in that country(s)?
No Go to Question 93
Yes Give details (including the type of harm you experienced, the person/people responsible for the harm and why they harmed you)
Yes, because of my parents believe in God when I was young, our family was out of the house by my grandfather, and he did not want to keep relationship with us. In May 2015, when we were prearing for sleeping at a receptionist’s house, the police broke in and confiscated our computers, but did not find anything about our religion, and the police threatened us ,they said :if we find the evidence of your faith in God,we will arrest you soon.At two o’clock early in the morning ,we were forced to leave the receptionist’s house and wandered outside.
92 Did you seek help within the country(s) after the harm?
No Give reasons for why you did not try to seek help
Yes Give details (including the name of the person/organisation/authorities you asked for help and if they helped you, what they did)
Yes, because my grandfather and my other family do not support our believe in God, so we can only ask brothers and sisters for help to find a accommodation.
93 Did you move, or try to move, to another part of that country(s) to seek safety?
No Give reasons for why you did not try to move to another part of the country(s)
Yes Give details (including where you tried to move, why you were unable to move or where you moved to and what happened)
Yes, in May 2014 I was forced to move to [Area 1], Huozhou City, Shanxi Province. In May 2015 I moved to [Village 1], Huzhou City. In February 2016 I move to Changzhi City, Shanxi Province to do my duty. Although we often move, but the Chinese government will still search around to arrest us, there is no place for us is safe.
94 Do you think you will be harmed or mistreated if you return to that country(s)? No
Yes Give details (including the type of harm or mistreatment you are likely to experience, the person/people who would be responsible for the harm or mistreatment, why they would harm or mistreat you)
Yes.Many brothers and sisters were arrested and tortured by the Chinese government. If I go back to China, I would be imprisoned and tortured.
95 Do you think the authorities of that country(s) can and will protect you if you go back? No Give details about why you think the authorities could not, or would not, protect you
Yes Give details as to which authorities you think would protect you
No, that is, the Chinese government issued a document to arrest people who is believe in God, they will not protect us.
96 Do you think you would be able to relocate within that country(s)?
No Give details about why you are unable to relocate
Yes Give details as to where you could relocate
No, China is an atheistic state.The Chinese Communist attempts to abolish the existence of the Church of Almighty God completely ,so if we are in China, no matter where we move we will be arrested.
In summary the applicant’s claims are:
a)She is a devotee of the Church of Almighty God. Her parents also ‘believe in God’ and were forced to leave the applicant’s grandfather’s house because of this.
b)In May 2014 when the applicant and others were at [A]’s sister’s home, [A]’s sister’s son warned them that he would have reported them to the authorities if they were not from the same village.
c)The applicant went to [A]’s sister’s house again and was seen by a neighbour who notified [A]’s sister’s son who was going to take the applicant to the authorities but she escaped with the help of [A]’s sister.
d)In May 2014 the applicant moved to “[Area 1] ”, Huozhou City, Shan Xi Province.
e)In May 2015 the applicant and her family were preparing for sleeping at the receptionist’s house. The police broke in and confiscated their computers but did not find anything. They were threatened with arrest by police and forced to leave the receptionist’s house at 2am.
f)In May 2015 the applicant moved to [Village 1], Huozhou City.
g)In February 2016 the applicant’s ‘partner [Mr E] brother’ was arrested. The police knew from the CCTV footage that the applicant passed in and out of the same venue with this person. The applicant left China as she was afraid of also being arrested.
h)In February 2016, the applicant moved to Changzhi City, Shan Xi Province ‘to do her duty’.
The applicant provided the following further evidence:
a)Letter of Attestation from [a person named L] dated [in] September 2017, attesting to the applicant’s involvement in the Church of Almighty God, [Suburb 5] (df p. 25).
b)A document titled ‘Launching a programme of “Awareness Campaign in 100 Days” about Anti-Cult Education’, dated 1 December 2015. The document purports to present a programme by authorities to promote anti-cult communication. The document is unsigned and a Chinese original has not been provided.
c)A document titled ‘Raoliang Town’s Leading Group for Prevention and Handling of Cult Issues’, undated. The document purports to present a plan for investigating the key personnel of cults, including members of the Church of Almighty God. The document is unsigned and a Chinese original has not been provided.
d)Photographs including the applicant sitting with others, appearing to pray and read from books.
The applicant gave evidence at the hearing, with the assistance of a translator, the substance of which was as follows.
The applicant confirmed that, in summary, the basis for her claim for protection in Australia was that she left China due to her religious beliefs. She also confirmed that she did not make any claim for protection in Australia on any other basis.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why she left China and now claimed protection in Australia. The applicant responded as follows: “I am fearful for returning China, I think I will be arrested if I return”. She did not elaborate. When asked whether she had anything further to add she said “no”.
The Tribunal proceeded to ask the applicant some questions. The substance of those questions and her answers was as follows.
The applicant confirmed that she had a copy of her statutory declaration dated 15 June 2021. When asked whether she wrote it she said “all these were, I told the story, then my lawyer helped me to write them down”. When asked whether she read English she said “no”. When asked how the contents of the declaration were verified by her she said “each time that were interpreters present to translate”. She was asked whether it was translated into Chinese after it was written and then authorised by her. She said “yes”.
When asked whether she identified as a Christian she said “yes”. The Tribunal asked whether the applicant had attended authorised Christian churches in China. She said “no”. She was asked why she had not done so. She replied “because there is no religious freedom in China, the church we can’t go”. The Tribunal observed that country information suggested that there are many authorised Christian churches in China and asked whether she disagreed with that. She replied “I was about to clarify, in China we have the authorise church but they don’t study Bible in there”. The Tribunal asked whether she was contending that authorised Christian churches in China did not study the Bible. She said “yes correct all the people working there are government officials and they don’t discuss the words”.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why she had no witness or document from China to corroborate her assertion of being involved in the particular church. She said “it is impossible because Chinese government persecute Christians”. When invited to explain her response she said “impossible to obtain evidence in China”. She was asked to explain again. She said “because in China all our gatherings are confidential we can’t tell others we are Christians we can’t speak out loud and study Bible”. The Tribunal asked the applicant again why she had no witness or document to corroborate her assertion of being involved in the particular religion when in China. She said “I don’t understand”. She was asked whether she was involved in the Christian church in China with many others and her family. She said “yes”. She was asked why she had not one witness or document to corroborate that assertion. She said “because in China we have to hide our belief and faith impossible to obtain evidence, people who around me to attend me to attend the events are all in China”.
When asked whether she practised her religion secretly or in public she said “secretly practise in China”.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she was fearful of being persecuted because of her religious beliefs when she was in China. She said “yes”. She was asked whether that fear of persecution persisted up to and until she left China. She replied “yes”.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she was threatened because of her religious beliefs when she was in China. She said “yes”. She was asked to explain her response. She said “as I believed in God I was fearful hence a lot of harm I had to move house quite frequently because can’t have religion, I don’t have stable accommodation because of fear of arrest, I lived in fear”.
The Tribunal observed that in paragraph 36 of the declaration she stated that she moved to [Area 1] in 2014 “to hide”. She said “yes”. The Tribunal observed that she stated that the police came to her house in 2015. She was asked how the police were able to locate her. She was unresponsive. The Tribunal observed that she stated that the police were questioning her about gambling and asked why they began discussing religious material with her. She replied “I want to clarify that police believe our place was hub for gambling”. The Tribunal asked whether she could explain why the police changed the focus of the investigation quite suddenly. She said “they went to our room and tried to find evidence, they thought we were gambler”. She was asked to explain why the police were questioning her about religious material. She said “they went to my books, computer and hard drive and I was quite concerned they would find religious material”. When invited to respond directly to the question she said “yes how the police try work for government not only do they are scandalous but also religious people”.
The Tribunal observed in paragraph 40 of the declaration she stated that in May 2015 the police raided her then home and told her that she had been monitored for approximately one month. She was asked how the police would know anything about her at this location. She replied “they mistake us as gambling as well”. The Tribunal asked why the police would ask her if she believed in God if they suspected her as being some type of illegal gambler. She said “because the police and staff relating gambling and religion, they questioned if we were religious people”. She was asked to state the religious material which the police had located. She replied “they found my hard drive and in their device I have content of my religious belief”. She was asked to confirm that she asserted the police had found evidence of her religious beliefs on the hard drive of her computer. She replied “it is not hard drive, is memory card”. The Tribunal observed that in the declaration she had stated that the contents of electronic devices were encrypted. She replied “yes”. She was asked how the police would know what was on the memory card if it was encrypted. She replied “because I was concerned they would find something”. When the question was repeated she said “memory card was encrypted, I don’t think they were suspicious”. The Tribunal pointed out that she was changing the evidence and that it was inconsistent. She was invited to respond again. She said “they were taking my memory card and computer in my device I have religious belief materials, but they were encrypted, I was worried they would be able to open the documents”.
The Tribunal observed that the applicant stated in paragraph 45 of the declaration that she applied for a visa to travel to [Country 1]. When asked whether she had any proof of this application she said “no”. She was asked why she wanted to travel to [Country 1]. She responded “because I know there is religious freedom overseas so I want to go to country where can practise my religion”.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether at about this time, April 2016, she believed that government authorities were monitoring her or otherwise looking for her. She said “not sure”. She was asked whether she believed that to be the case. She replied “not sure because of my belief fearful I would be arrested”.
She was asked how many times she applied for a passport and responded “three times”. She was asked when she did this. She responded “first time November 2014”. When asked whether the application was successful she said “yes”. She was asked as to the second time and she responded “May 2016”. She was asked whether the application was successful and she responded “yes”. When asked to identify the third occasion she said “June 2016”. When asked to identify whether that was successful or not she said “yes”.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she was prevented from leaving China. She said “yes I was concerned to be arrested”. She was asked again to respond to the question. She said “I was concerned and fearful when I arrived it and let me out”. The Tribunal observed that she was being evasive and again asked to answer the question. She responded “answering”. The Tribunal asked whether she was hindered in any way from leaving China. She said “yes, at airport”. When invited to explain she said “when at airport I was were married they did not let me out”.
The Tribunal observed that she left China together with another person identified as [Mr I]. She was asked whether he was alive and well in Australia. She said “yes”.
She was asked whether she believed that she would be harmed or threatened with harm if she returned to China. She said “yes”. She did not elaborate. The Tribunal observed that she had not been harmed whilst in China and was able to practise her religious beliefs. She was asked why she believes that situation would change if she were to return to China. She replied “I was worried I would be arrested”. She did not elaborate.
She was asked whether she was afraid of being persecuted when she left China. She responded “yes”. She was asked why she did not apply for a protection visa until 11 November 2016. She responded “not correct”. When asked when she asserted that she applied she said “started applying in November 2014”. When invited to explain her response she said “I obtained password in November 2014, when I apply for a visa, agent said I had no evidence for tourist visa such as my home”. The Tribunal observed that the applicant had misunderstood the question and informed her that she did not apply for a protection visa until 11 November 2016. She replied “yes”. The Tribunal observed that she arrived in Australia on [date] August 2016 and asked her why she waited to apply for a protection visa. She said “I just arrived I didn’t know”. She added “also I don’t read English and I had to download a form and fill out”.
In answer to a question from the Tribunal she stated that her involvement with the church in Australia commenced “in August 2016”. She was asked whether she went directly to the church upon arrival. She said “yes”. She added “I rang the gospel hotline”. When asked to explain she said “after I landed”. She was asked to explain when she commenced her involvement with the church in August 2016 and reminded her that there were only 31 days in August. She said “contact them on [date] August”. She was asked whether she has continued to attend the church and if so how often she did. She said “we are normally at home or online, also on the ground, face-to-face”. She was asked how often she attended church. She replied “usually we twice a month”. The Tribunal asked how often she attended church between August 2016 and the date of the protection visa application. She said “every week”. She was asked whether she asserted that during this term she did not meet anyone who told her that she could apply for a protection visa. She replied “I asked the agent, they told me”.

She was asked whether she met other practitioners of her religion in Australia between her arrival and the date of the protection visa application. She said “yes”. She was asked where she attended to practise her religion during that period. She said “the place I stayed”. When asked to provide details she said “I don’t know how to pronounce”. She was asked how many people practised religion with during that period. She replied “I don’t know how many people”. The Tribunal observed her answers were vague and invited her to give details. She said “I have said I don’t know how to pronounce but can spell”. When invited to continue the applicant attempted to spell a location which appeared to be “[an address in Suburb 1]”. She was asked why she had no witness to corroborate her assertion of her involvement in her religion in Australia between the date of arrival and the date of the protection visa application. She said “someone provided”. She was asked to identify that person. She said “someone [Ms J’s other name]”. The Tribunal asked whether she had a statement from the person. She said “yes”. When the applicant’s migration agent was invited to clarify this point he said “it is [a named person]”. The Tribunal observed that the statement from that person did not discuss the applicant’s involvement in her religion during the period in question and again asked the applicant whether there was any reason why she had no corroborative witness. She said “I have other who can provide evidence”. She added “she provided as well, but agent hasn’t been successful in contacting her”.
When invited to add anything further to her application for review the applicant said “I know some time I cannot express clearly, all is true, fearful of return to China, and also in the member of this church, member can ring the gospel hotline, and check they will find me”.
The Tribunal invited the migration agent to make any submissions and pointed out that it had read the submissions dated 15 June 2021 which had been filed. The migration agent asked whether he could provide further written submissions and it was agreed that he would do so.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant:
a)is a [age]-year-old female, born on [date] in Huozhou City, Shan Xi Province, China.
b)can speak, read and write Mandarin.
c)is of the Han ethnicity.
d)is a citizen of China.
e)arrived in Australia on [date] August 2016 on an FA-600 Tourist visa
f)applied for an XA-866 Protection visa on 11 November 2016.
COUNTRY INFORMATION
In accordance with Direction No.84 made pursuant to s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal also had regard to country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). The DFAT report titled ‘People’s Republic of China’ dated 3 October 2019 relevantly stated as follows (footnotes omitted):
SECURITY SITUATION
2.55Gaining support for CCP policies throughout the country and maintaining social stability are top priorities for the CCP. To achieve this, the government deploys a vast internal security apparatus. China’s internal security agencies include: the Ministry of Public Security, which is responsible, inter alia, for the police, border security and household registration (hukou, see Hukou (household registration) system, Health and Children)); the Ministry of State Security, the main intelligence agency; the People’s Armed Police (PAP), a paramilitary force responsible for internal security; and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), China’s military (see also Military and Police). In November 2013, President Xi established a new National Security Commission to strengthen coordination of both international and domestic security issues.
2.56Security personnel and surveillance technology are ubiquitous throughout China. Increased artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities serve China’s economic and military modernisation interests, while simultaneously enhancing Party stability through increased power to surveil and control the population (see The Social Credit System).
2.57Some reports estimate 170 million surveillance cameras have been installed in cities and towns across the country in the past decade. Everyday street crime and violence in China’s major cities is generally low. Sensitive social groups, including religious organisations, Uighur and Tibetan ethnic groups, Falun Gong practitioners and human rights activists, have alleged that the government uses a range of surveillance methods to monitor their activities. Since 2016, media have reported that Chinese police and security agencies have begun combining photo databases, artificial intelligence and facial recognition technology installed in surveillance cameras to track down criminal suspects and ‘destabilising agents’ in society.
2.58 Since 2010, China’s expenditure on internal security agencies such as the police, the PAP, the courts and the prison system has outstripped spending on the military. In 2016, the gap between domestic security and defence expenditure reportedly reached a record high of 13 per cent, with domestic security expenditure increasing by 17.6 per cent compared to the previous year, to exceed RMB 1 trillion (AUD 209.4 billion), while defence expenditure only increased by 7.5 per cent. However, the actual amount China spends on its military and domestic security is widely debated. Most foreign experts, governments and relevant publications concur that Chinese statistics on security spending do not include some outlays that are standard reporting for most other countries, and note there is no way to verify the accuracy of official figures reported by China.
2.59 Domestic security expenditure across all provinces and regions increased by 215 per cent between 2007 and 2016, and continued to grow in 2018 - particularly in sensitive minority regions such as Xinjiang and Tibet, where security remains volatile due to heightened ethnic tensions and government attempts to curb perceived threats to social stability (see Ethnic Uighurs and Ethnic Tibetans). Over the same 10 year period, security expenditure increased by 411 per cent in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR, Xinjiang), by 404 per cent in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) and 316 per cent in Qinghai (where the population is approximately 25 per cent Tibetan). In February 2018, Xinjiang reported a 92.8 per cent increase in its domestic security spending, from RMB 30.05 billion (AUD 6.3 billion) in 2016 to RMB 57.95 billion (AUD 12.9 billion) in 2017. The increase in security spending in TAR is estimated at 9.3 per cent, although TAR maintains its position as the region with the highest per capita domestic security expenditure of all provinces and regions since 2008, ahead of Xinjiang. Analysts of Chinese security expenditure suggest that per capita domestic security spending in sensitive minority regions is now higher than per capita domestic security spending in the US or Russia (PP adjusted by wage levels).
2.60 In June 2017, China’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee also passed a new National Intelligence Law (2017; amended 2018) which forms part of a national security legal architecture introduced in 2014 which includes the Counter-Espionage Law (2014), Criminal Law (1979; Amended 2015), National Security Law (2015), Anti-Terrorism Law (2015) and Cyber Security Law (2017). The National Intelligence Law calls upon all elements of Chinese society, including individuals, to contribute to national intelligence work. The law inter alia empowers security agencies: to launch intelligence operations in China and abroad; to collect intelligence on foreign bodies ‘engaged in activities that may harm China’s national security or its interests’; to monitor suspects, raid premises or seize vehicles during the investigation of domestic or foreign individuals or groups; to gain priority use of transportation or telecommunications equipment, buildings or enterprises; and to employ ‘technical reconnaissance’ measures with permission. The law explicitly requires security agencies to act in strict compliance with laws relating to the protection of human rights, and states agencies should not exceed their authority or abuse their powers. DFAT is aware of reports of kindergarten children being given homework instructing how they should assist state security officers.
TORTURE
4.14China ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Inhuman and Degrading Treatments in 1988. Chinese law prohibits the physical abuse of detainees and forbids prison guards from extracting confessions by torture, insulting prisoners’ dignity, and beating or encouraging others to beat prisoners. Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law that exclude evidence, including confessions, obtained through illegal means, including under torture, took effect on 1 January 2013.
4.15In 2015, the UN Committee against Torture expressed serious concern over consistent reports indicating torture and ill-treatment were still deeply entrenched in China’s criminal justice system (see Torture). In 2016, in its concluding observations on the Fifth Periodic Report of China in January 2016, the UN Committee against Torture also expressed concern over a number of continuing practices that it assessed increased the risk of torture of detainees. These practices include: lengthy pre-trial detention; denial of access to a private lawyer; withholding of information from the detainee’s family in cases deemed ‘endangering state security’, ‘terrorism’ or serious ‘bribery’; ‘residential surveillance’ (see Arbitrary Arrest and Detention); the lack of independence of medical practitioners examining detainees; revisions to laws that prohibit (undefined) ‘conduct that disrupts court order’; lack of judicial or procuratorial oversight of criminal investigations; lack of information on past investigations of allegations of torture by security officials; unexplained deaths in custody; solitary confinement and use of restraints; a lack of information on inspection of detention facilities; exclusion of matters relating to ‘State secrets’ from the government’s reporting on torture; and the broad definition of many offences, including ‘endangering State security’, ‘picking quarrels and provoking troubles’, and ‘gathering a crowd to disturb social order’.
4.16Family members of the ‘709 lawyers’ (see Human Rights Defenders (including Lawyers)) wrote an open letter to world leaders on 1 March 2017 detailing allegations of mistreatment of their family members while in detention. The allegations included: forced consumption of drugs; marathon interrogation sessions and sleep deprivation; beatings; the application of heavy weights on legs; being almost entirely submerged in water for several days at a time; and threats and detention of family members. Individual lawyers detained during the ‘709’ crackdown have also detailed allegations of mistreatment at the hands of the authorities.
4.17Falun Gong practitioners have reported mistreatment in custody including sleep deprivation, enforced standing and kneeling for extended hours, nasal feeding (forced feeding through a tube inserted into the nostril), being forced to drink dirty or salty water, shackling and beatings (see Falun Gong). International human rights reporting continues to document use of psychological pressure against Falun Gong practitioners. Media, human rights groups, members of the international community, and Uighurs have also reported the use of violence and torture of Uighurs in re-education centres in Xinjiang (see Ethnic Uighurs, Muslims).
4.18Media and Uighurs’ reports of physical and psychological maltreatment have included, but are not limited to, interrogation, inappropriate clothing for climate, sleep deprivation, administration of electric shocks, having weights tied to feet, indefinite confinement, forced administration of medication, psychiatric drugs, injections, blood tests, DNA sampling, and medication to stop menstruation, as well as intrusive medical examinations.
4.19DFAT considers allegations of torture, particularly those detailed in cases deemed politically sensitive, to be credible.
Arbitrary Arrest and Detention
4.20The Ministry of Public Security manages pre-trial detention facilities and procedures. Authorities with the power to authorise the detention of a criminal suspect include (but are not limited to) the Public Security Bureau (PSB), Ministry of State Security, and the Anti-Smuggling Bureau.
4.21Under the Criminal Procedure Law, the term ‘arrest’ refers to the stage of the criminal prosecution process when authorities determine there is sufficient evidence to proceed with prosecution. A suspect can be, though is not necessarily, detained prior to being formally arrested. A detention warrant must be issued to a suspect’s family within 24 hours of their detention. The formal arrest of a detainee must be approved by the Procuratorate, which can take up to 37 days. Unless released on bail, criminal suspects will generally remain detained until the conclusion of the judicial process, including appeals. In practice, the rate of release on bail is extremely low. Bail is not considered a right; under the Criminal Procedure law bail ‘is not an individual right designed to minimize restraints on freedom, but an alternative pre-trial coercive measure. When bail is granted, it is usually on the initiative and for the convenience of the police.’
4.22These procedures are not subject to judicial oversight. The post-arrest investigation period can be up to seven months, and preparation of indictment can take up to six and a half months. The total time required to hear a case and issue a verdict in standard cases ranges from twenty months to an indefinite period. Security agencies can hold individuals for years while they progress through the charge, arrest, investigation, court hearing and sentencing processes. Individuals convicted of an offence do not move into the prison system until their case is finalised, including any appeal processes. Time served in a detention centre is deducted from their custodial sentence.
4.23Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law (1979; amended 2012, 2018) require the prompt delivery of suspects to detention facilities following arrest. The law stipulates that interrogations must take place in the detention facility, and must be recorded in audio and video. The revised law also requires judicial officials to investigate cases of extraction of confessions under torture.
4.24Police and other security agencies have broad administrative detention powers and the ability to detain individuals for extended periods without formal arrest or criminal charge. Police can hold individuals for up to 30 days in criminal detention before deciding whether to pass the case to prosecutors, and for an additional seven days prior to formal arrest. Police detention beyond 37 days requires prosecutorial approval of a formal arrest and notification of family members within 24 hours of detention. The law permits officials not to provide notification if doing so would ‘hinder the investigation’ or for cases pertaining to ‘national security, terrorism, and major bribery’. During periods and anniversaries considered politically sensitive, authorities often detain activists without charge for the full 37-day period.
4.25Administrative detention is regulated under the law on Penalties for Administration of Public Security (2006). Administrative detention is imposed for crimes of a minor nature, and which are not serious enough to warrant criminal prosecution and punishment under the Criminal Procedure Law or Criminal Law. It is imposed by public security organs at the local (county) government level. While there are various forms of administrative detention in China with different procedures and time-limits, the maximum period of administrative detention for any one act is 15 days, and where multiple periods of administrative detention are imposed concurrently for several acts, the maximum period of detention is 20 days.
4.26Under the Criminal Procedure Law, police may also detain individuals in ‘residential surveillance at a designated location’ (RSDL) away from their home for up to six months before formal arrest or release. RSDL can be used to detain individuals suspected of crimes endangering national security, involving terrorist activity, or involving serious corruption (see Corruption), or where the suspect or defendant does not have a fixed residence. Authorities must notify relatives of individuals placed under formal arrest or residential surveillance in a designated location within 24 hours, unless notification is impossible. The notification does not need to specify the reason for or location of detention. Suspects do not have the right to meet defence lawyers in these categories of cases. In cases involving national security or terrorism, police are authorised to detain a suspect after arrest for up to an additional seven months while investigating the case. Following investigation, the procuratorate has an additional 45 days to determine whether to file criminal charges of detention, during which time detention can continue. The law explicitly allows detainees to meet with defence counsel before criminal charges are filed but this rarely happens where cases are considered politically sensitive. After filing charges, authorities can detain a suspect for an additional 45 days before beginning judicial proceedings.
4.27RSDL has been criticised for exposing detainees to risk of mistreatment (see Torture) and for enabling conditions of detention that produce forced confessions. While evidence obtained while in RSDL should be able to be excluded in court, rarely is this the case. Human rights groups report RDSL has been increasingly used to detain activists, human rights lawyers and government critics in recent years, and claim police training dormitory facilities have been repurposed for RSDL.
4.28Locations used to enforce RSDL are often referred to as ‘black jail,’ however the term ‘black jail’ more correctly describes short-term detention in rented/owned, run down hotel rooms or similar, often used for petitioners, criminals and those under suspicion of less sensitive allegations, as a coercive measure. The primary distinction between RSDL and ‘black jail’ is that RSDL is a formal feature of the Chinese legal system. RSDL also reportedly often entails treatment more severe than in ‘black jails,’ and occurs in government-run, custom fit for purpose facilities, whereas black jails are quasi-administrative holding centres for petitioners and criminals.
4.29Public security authorities continue to use other forms of administrative detention to suppress political and religious dissidents, sex workers, drug users and petitioners. Authorities also detain family members of dissidents: poet Liu Xia, widow of Nobel Peace laureate Liu Xiaobo, was released in July 2018 after being under house arrest for nearly eight years following her husband’s nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010 (see Deaths in Custody). Authorities have also curtailed the freedom of family members of ‘709’ lawyers (see Human Rights Defenders (including Lawyers) and Uighur and Tibetan activists (see Ethnic Uighurs and Ethnic Tibetans). The law does not provide for house arrest. Individuals facing this type of detention do not have the right to legal counsel or due process. The Chinese government abolished its ‘re-education through labour’ policy in December 2013, although media and human rights groups claim re-education through labour (including in prisons and linked to Xinjiang-based re-education centres) continued in 2018 and supported production in factories for overseas markets (see Detention and Prison and Ethnic Uighurs).
4.30DFAT assesses that reports that security authorities use extra-legal detention for politically sensitive investigations are credible.
STATE PROTECTION
5.1 Article 5 of the Constitution states that ‘no laws or administrative or local regulations may contravene the Constitution. All State organs, the armed forces, all political parties and public organisations and all enterprises and institutions must abide by the Constitution and other laws. All acts in violation of the Constitution or other laws must be investigated. No organisation or individual is privileged to be beyond the Constitution or other laws’.
5.2 There is no organisation in China tasked with enforcement of the Constitution and courts do not have the general power of judicial review which would allow them to invalidate laws on the grounds they violate the Constitution. The Constitution states the National People’s Congress and its Standing Committee have the power to review laws that violate the Constitution, but, in practice, these powers are rarely exercised, with only one instance of regulations being rescinded.
5.3 Crimes are investigated by public security organs, generally the PSB, but also including other organs such as the Anti-smuggling Bureau, Ministry of State Security and National Supervision Commission, prosecuted by the People’s Procuratorate, and tried in the People’s Courts. All lawyers must be registered with, and operate in compliance with, regulations issued by the All China Lawyer’s Association, which is directly supervised by the Ministry of Justice (see Human Rights Defenders (including Lawyers)).
5.4 The Criminal Procedure Law and Criminal Law regulate arrest and detention. The Criminal Procedure Law sets out the procedures to be followed in the criminal process. It applies prior to a verdict being issued by a court and the Criminal Law is applied after a verdict has been issued. Criminal prosecution can be lengthy, and it can take in excess of one year for a case to progress from initial detention to verdict and sentencing.
Police
5.6 The Ministry of Public Security oversees the police force, which is organised into specialised police agencies and local, county, and provincial jurisdictions. The government no longer publicises the size of its police force, but media estimates place the number at around two million. The People’s Armed Police, a paramilitary force responsible for internal security issues such as riots, terrorist attacks, natural disasters and other emergencies, has an estimated 660,000 members. Police undertake four-year training programs that include courses in procedural law and public order, as well as extensive physical training. Performance is statistics-driven and a national ranking system provides incentives for compliance. Local-level police are generally entitled to receive housing and food allowances as part of their monthly salaries, which are calculated according to local conditions rather than a national standard.
5.7 Maintaining public order and social stability – defined as defending CCP rule – are the key priorities of the police force in China, and outweigh protection of the public from criminal activity. Regular police do not generally carry firearms but can do so in areas of heightened security (such as in Xinjiang and Tibet). Reflecting the power held by the Ministry of Public Security, procuratorate oversight of the police is limited, localised and ad-hoc.
5.8 Chinese citizens have the right to lodge complaints against the police in their city of residence through a telephone hotline, or online complaints website, in person, or in writing to the Public Security Bureau Complaints Office. Local authorities have targeted petitioners (including those with complaints against police) with punishments including arrest and detention (see Protesters/petitioners). Complaints against police rarely lead to disciplinary action and, where investigations are announced, their outcomes are not publicly released (see also Deaths in Custody).
5.9 Police are unable to open a case until the prosecutor is confident there is a high chance of conviction. Police are required to send a brief to the prosecutor seeking formal permission to arrest, and only very clear- cut cases are generally approved, accounting for the 99 per cent conviction rate. When the procuratorate deems there is not enough evidence to justify arrest, it sends the case back for further investigation. Sources report that police are under pressure to obtain confessions prior to trial, and to ensure success in all police investigations. However, China has taken some positive steps to protect individual rights through amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law prohibiting the use of confessions obtained under torture as evidence, and requiring interrogations in major criminal cases to be audio and video recorded. However, these protections do not apply in cases involving national security, which are investigated outside of China’s criminal justice system. In practice, the number of cases in which evidence is not accepted at trial because it was obtained through torture or other coercive means is still very low, and only very few cases of this nature have been reported.
5.10 DFAT has no additional information on the quality of local policing or responsiveness of the PSB to local crime.
INTERNAL RELOCATION
5.31 There are many opportunities for internal relocation in China and movement of people is fundamental to China’s push for continued economic growth and urbanisation. While there are no legal impediments to internal migration, the hukou system presents the biggest administrative impediment to freedom of internal movement (see Hukou (household registration) system). Those who have otherwise come to the attention of the authorities may also face impediments to freedom of movement (see The Social Credit System and Security Situation).
5.32 Linguistic and cultural barriers are not an inhibiting factor for ethnically Han Chinese to move away from their place of hukou registration. Ethnic minorities may face varying degrees of difficulty or discrimination, depending on their ethnicity and their destination (see also Uighurs and Tibetans).
5.33 DFAT assesses internal relocation is possible unless a person has attracted adverse attention from authorities at the local or national level or has a low social credit score (see The Social Credit System, Religion, Political Opinion (actual or imputed) and Groups of Interest). People subject to adverse attention from authorities or with a low social credit score are unlikely to be able to re-locate internally, due to the Chinese state’s significant surveillance capability and ability to restrict finances and travel (see Security situation and The Social Credit System).
Hukou (household registration) system
5.34 The hukou system ties access to government services, such as education above a certain level and health, to a citizen’s place of birth, or even their parents' place of birth, rather than their place of residence. Only an estimated 35 per cent of urban residents have an urban hukou. Chinese migrant workers (estimated at 282 million) who move away from rural areas for better employment opportunities, are unable to access key services and in some cases, face institutionalised discrimination. An estimated 60 to 100 million children have been ‘left behind’, either in their grandparents' care or alone, while their parents work in cities.
5.35 The Ministry of Public Security reported 28.9 million new urban residency permits issued in 2016, mostly in third or fourth tier cities. The local governments of the largest cities, including Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Chengdu, Wuhan and Xi’an, have historically had tough restrictions on granting new hukou permits given the already high populations and overburdened infrastructure in these cities. Lower-tier cities (with fewer than 3 million permanent residents in downtown areas) have been generally more willing to issue hukou, in line with government’s aim to drive economic growth in less developed and less populated regions.
5.36 In April 2019, the National Development and Reform Commission announced the 2019 Urbanisation Plan, which relaxed hukou residency restrictions in small and medium-sized cities. The 2019 Urbanisation plan requires cities with populations between one and three million to end all household registration restrictions under the hukou system. Cities with populations between three and five million will relax restrictions on new migrants and remove limits on key population groups, including graduates of universities and vocational colleges. Small and medium-sized cities and towns of under one million permanent residents have already gradually lifted restrictions on household registration. In addition to loosening hukou restrictions, the plan directs local governments to promote basic public services for permanent residents and further develop urban infrastructure to handle increases in population.
5.37 According to media reports, it will be easier to apply for hukou in big, medium-sized, and small cities (some second-tier and all third and fourth tier cities). China has 13 cities with a population of more than five million in their urban areas, which will not see a relaxation of hukou restrictions under the new policy: Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Tianjin, Chongqing, Wuhan, Chengdu, Nanjing, Zhengzhou, Hangzhou, Shenyang and Changsha. Cities that may be affected by the new plan may include, but are not limited to: Xi’an, Harbin, Changchun, Taiyuan, Nanning, Dongguan, Suzhou, Hefei, Jinan, Qingdao, Dalian, Xiamen, Ningbo, Kunming, Shijiazhuang, Nanchang and Fuzhou.
RELIGION
3.28 China is a religiously diverse country with a rich and complex society of faiths, belief systems and organised religious groups. Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism constitute the ‘three teachings’, a philosophical framework which historically has had a significant role in shaping Chinese culture, including traditional folk religions. Christianity has been present in China since the seventh century but increased when Catholics became active in the late thirteenth century and through Protestant Christian missionaries in the nineteenth century. The establishment of the PRC in 1949 under the control of the atheist CCP resulted in the expulsion of Christian missionaries and the establishment of ‘Patriotic Associations’: government-affiliated organisations which seek to regulate and monitor the activities of registered religious organisations on behalf of the CCP.
3.29 In 2018, the Government attempted to regulate religious groups to prevent challenges to CCP and Government control. As religious observance has grown, the CCP has increased oversight and worked to tighten control over state-sanctioned religious organisations. Nevertheless, despite the atheist nature of the ruling CCP, as many as 25 per cent of Party officials in some localities are estimated to engage in some type of religious activity (mostly associated with Buddhism or folk religion).
3.30It is difficult to provide exact figures on the number of religious believers in China. In 2018, the government released a white paper on China’s Policies and Practices on Protecting Freedom of Religious Belief (CPPPFRB white paper). This states the major religions practiced in China are Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism, and religious believers total almost 200 million (including more than 380,000 clerical personnel). The white paper also notes the majority of 10 of China’s ethnic minorities, totalling 20 million people, follow Islam (around 57,000 clerical personnel); 6 million follow Catholicism (8,000 clerical personnel); and 38 million follow Protestantism (57,000 clerical personnel).
3.31The CPPPFRB white paper indicates there are also approximately 5,500 religious groups in China, including seven national organisations: the Buddhist Association of China, Chinese Taoist Association, China Islamic Association, Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, Bishop’s Conference of Catholic Church in China, National Committee of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement of the Protestant Churches in China, and the Christian Council. There are also an estimated 144,000 places of worship in China: 28,000 Han Buddhist temples; 3,800 Tibetan Buddhist lamaseries; 1,700 Theravada Buddhist temples; 9,000 Taoist temples; 35,000 Islamic mosques; 6,000 Catholic churches and places of assembly spread across 98 dioceses, and 60,000 Protestant churches and places of assembly. China also has 91 religious schools, approved by the State Administration of Religious Affairs (SARA), where more than 10,000 students study, including: 41 Buddhist, 10 Taoist, 10 Islamic, nine Catholic and 21 Protestant schools. It has six national level religious colleges: the Buddhist Academy of China, High-Level Tibetan Buddhism College of China, Chinese Taoism College, China Islamic Institute, National Seminary of the Catholic Church in China, and Nanjing Union Theological Seminary.
3.32In practice, the number of religious believers, places of worship and religious organisations is likely to be much higher - particularly with respect to unregistered organisations (including house churches) which operate in parallel to state sanctioned Christian churches. Freedom House estimates there are more than 350 million religious believers in China who are mostly Chinese Buddhists (185 to 250 million), followed by Protestants (60 to 80 Million, of which only 30 million are registered), Muslims (21 to 23 million), Falun Gong practitioners (7 to 20 million), Catholics (12 million, of which 6 million are registered) and Tibetan Buddhists (6 to 8 million). Other otherwise unaccounted for groups tend to observe aspects of Buddhism, Daoism and ‘folk religion’. Discrepancies between official statistics and international estimates are due to the fact that China does not recognise worshippers who engage in religious activity outside of state-sanctioned organisations or believers who are under 18.
Government framework regarding religion
3.37Chinese law recognises five religions (Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism), members of which must register with the government’s Patriotic Associations mentioned above (Protestants must be non-denominational). These organisations must be independent of foreign associations (for example, the Vatican).
3.38Article 36 of the Constitution states that citizens enjoy freedom of religious belief, and that no state organ, public organisation or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not believe in, any religion. Discrimination on the basis of religion is prohibited by law. According to China’s 2018 CPPPFRB white paper, every citizen ‘enjoys the freedom to choose whether to believe in a religion; to believe in a certain religion or a denomination of the same religion; to change from a non-believer to a believer and vice versa. Believers and non-believers enjoy the same political, economic, social and cultural rights, and must not be treated differently because of a difference in belief.’ However, Article 36 of the Constitution also states that no one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the State. This is enforced by Chinese public security officials who monitor registered and unregistered religious groups.
3.39Historically, the CCP’s United Front Work Department (UFWD), State Administration for Religious Affairs (SARA), and the Ministry of Civil Affairs provided policy guidance and supervision on the implementation of the regulations. However, in 2018 the CCP moved religious affairs under the direct purview of the UFWD, and thus the CCPs Central Committee. To ‘ensure centralised and unified leadership,’ the UFWD absorbed DFAT Country Information Report People’s Republic of China 25 SARA and has direct oversight of the State Ethnic Affairs Commission and the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office, and has been elevated to a level of importance not seen since 1949.
3.40The conditions governing the establishment of religious bodies and religious sites, the publication of religious material, and the conduct of religious education and personnel are outlined in the Regulations on Religious Affairs (RRA). In April 2017, President Xi called on CCP officials working in religious administration to reassert the Party’s ‘guiding’ role in religious affairs. Xi’s speech emphasised the need to ‘sinicise’ religion, to ensure religious rights did not impinge on CCP authority, and to enforce the prohibition on Party members from belonging to any religion. In September 2017, the State Council approved revisions to the 2005 RRA, which came into effect on 1 February 2018. The RRAs devolve substantial powers and responsibility to local authorities to prevent illegal religious behaviour, including undue influence from foreign organisations. Local authorities have significant discretion in interpreting and implementing the regulations at the provincial level.
3.41The 2018 RRAs ‘protect citizens’ freedom of religious belief, maintain religious and social harmony and regulate the management of religious affairs,’ and give state-registered religious organisations rights to possess property, publish literature, train, and approve clergy, collect donations, and proselytise within (but not outside) registered places of worship and in private settings (but not in public). Government subsidies are also available for the construction of state-sanctioned places of worship and religious schools.
3.42According to the State Council, the RRA also ‘curb and prevent illegal and extreme practices,’ and emphasise the need to prevent ‘extremism’, indicating they may target Uighur Muslims and Tibetan Buddhists. The RRAs: restrict religious education in schools; restrict the times and locations of religious celebrations; impose fines for organising illegal religious events or fundraising; detail procedures for approval and monitoring of religious training institutions and monitoring online religious activity; detail a requirement to report all donations over RMB 100,000 (AUD 20,750); prohibit registered religious organisations from distributing unapproved literature, associating with unregistered religious groups, and accepting foreign donations (previously permitted); and prohibit foreigners from proselytising. Parallel provisions in the Foreign NGO Law also prohibit foreigners from donating funds to Chinese religious organisations, or raising funds on their behalf.
3.43The devolution of enforcement of the RRAs to local government and Party authorities also affects unregistered Christian churches. Historically, those involved with unregistered churches could be charged with fraud. However, under the RRA it is now considered a crime to organise people for the purpose of religion (with a particular focus on the organisers).
3.44Broadly speaking, religious practice in China is possible within state-sanctioned boundaries, as long as such practices do not challenge the interests or authority of the Chinese government. While practice of nonrecognised faiths or by unregistered organisations is illegal and vulnerable to punitive official action, it is, to some degree, tolerated, especially in relation to traditional Chinese beliefs. Nevertheless, restrictions on religious organisations vary widely according to local conditions, and can be inconsistent or lack transparency, making it difficult to form general conclusions.
3.45Religious practice that the government perceives as contravening broader ethnic, political or security policies (for example, see Uighurs and Muslims) is at high risk of adverse official attention. China has one of the largest populations of religious prisoners, estimated in the tens of thousands. Human rights groups claim, but DFAT cannot verify, that some religious prisoners are tortured and killed in custody. Since 1999, the US State Department has annually designated China as a country of particular concern for religious freedom due to continued reports of arbitrary detentions and violence with impunity.
3.46Members of religious groups claim government authorities continue to press to install CCTV at all religious sites, and failure to comply can lead to authorities cutting power and water, or restricting rental space to pressure compliance. According to media, in April 2018, the Zion Church in Beijing (one of Beijing’s largest unofficial Protestant house churches) refused a request from government authorities to install 24 CCTV cameras, including in worship areas, for security purposes. Churchgoers were reportedly harassed by police and state security officials at their homes and places of employment, and the Zion Church was evicted by its landlord.
3.47Regulations prohibiting proselytising are generally enforced across Chinese cities. Public expressions of faith are more vulnerable to adverse treatment than private worship (including in small groups). In Rongcheng, Shandong, an Social Credit System (SCS) pilot area (see The Social Credit System and Security Situation), residents of First Morning Light, a neighbourhood of 5,100 families, have taken the official Rongcheng SCS pilot a few steps further and introduced their own SCS penalties for ‘illegally spreading religion.’
3.48DFAT is aware of reports of foreigners, including religious missions, being refused entry at churches due to pressure from local authorities. DFAT assesses an individual’s ability to practise religion can be influenced by whether the individual exercises faith in registered or unregistered institutions, whether they practice openly or privately, and whether or not an individual’s religious expression is perceived by the CCP to be closely tied to other ethnic, political and security issues.
3.49While the Constitution and 2018 RRA allow for sanctioned religious belief, DFAT assesses adherents across all religious organisations – from state-sanctioned to underground and/or banned groups - faced intensifying official persecution and repression in 2018, which continues in 2019. However, DFAT assesses that as Buddhism (as compared to Tibetan Buddhism) and Daoism are part of China’s cultural heritage and are not associated with foreign influence, believers are unlikely to experience significant restrictions.
Christians
3.76China has seen a significant growth in Christianity since the 1980s. In 2010, the Pew Research Center estimated there were 67 million Christians in China (58 million Protestant, including both state-sanctioned and independent churches). However, 2018 estimates had grown closer to 100 million (unregistered churchgoers outnumber members of official churches nearly two to one).
3.77In addition to state-sanctioned Catholic and (non-denominational) Protestant churches in China, SARA historically permitted friends and family to hold small, informal prayer meetings without official registration. This, combined with the controlled nature of religious worship amongst registered Christian institutions, has led to the proliferation of sizeable unregistered Christian communities in both rural and urban China. Independent churches, otherwise known as ‘house’ or ‘family’ churches (for Protestant organisations), and ‘underground’ churches (for Catholic organisations) are private religious forums that adherents create in their own homes or other places of worship. ‘House’ or ‘underground’ churches vary in size from around 30 to several thousand participants/attendees.
3.78There has been an increase in state control of both registered and unregistered churches in recent years, including targeted campaigns to remove hundreds of rooftop crosses from churches, forced demolitions of churches, and harassment and imprisonment of Christian pastors and priests (see Government Framework regarding religion). Some churches deliberately restrict their numbers to avoid attracting adverse official attention. Government officials are more likely to scrutinise churches with foreign affiliations, or those that develop large or influential local networks, and house churches are under pressure to ‘sinicise’ their religious teachings.
3.79Leaders of both registered and unregistered churches are also subject to greater scrutiny than ordinary worshippers are, and leaders of registered churches must obtain permission to travel abroad. Church leaders (registered or unregistered) who participate in protest activity on behalf of their congregations or elsewhere are at high risk of official sanction, but this is likely to relate more to their activism than to their religious affiliation or practice (see Political Opinion (actual or Imputed) and Protesters/petitioners).
3.80Religious NGOs claim that, while pressure on Christian groups differs from province to province, a trend of increased pressure on Christian groups normalised across provinces in 2018. Authorities apply pressure to Christian churches during monthly ‘tea’ meetings. According to media, authorities cracked down on Christmas celebrations in December 2018. Several cities, schools and government institutions issued instructions not to celebrate Christmas and to promote Chinese culture instead, and at least four cities and one county issued a ban on Christmas decorations. In Langfei, Hebei province, authorities ordered the removal of all Christmas decorations and stopped shops selling Christmas-themed products to ‘maintain stability.’ In Changsha, Hunan province, the education bureau issued a directive to schools not to celebrate ‘western festivals’ such as Christmas, and not to put up decorations, post related messages or exchange gifts. Nevertheless, DFAT notes Christmas decorations were still visible in some department stores in major cities across China.
3.81In December 2018, police raided a children’s bible class in Guangzhou, and shut down the Early Rain Covenant Church in Chengdu, arresting 100 members and keeping others under close surveillance in December 2018. In September 2018, one of China’s largest underground churches, Beijing Zion Church, was shut down (see Government Framework regarding religion). Members of the Early Rain Covenant Church were detained by authorities in June 2018 due to plans to hold a prayer service to mark the anniversary of Tiananmen Square and, in May 2018, due to plans to hold a prayer service to mark the tenth anniversary of the Sichuan earthquake.
3.82Heightened government sensitivity over foreign influence creates difficulties for prominent members of unregistered churches seeking to travel abroad, particularly for religious events, and for foreign church organisations to work, or liaise with registered churches, in China. NGOs report increasing difficulties for mainland Christians seeking to travel to Hong Kong or Macau for religious activities, and for Christian NGOs or activists from Hong Kong and Macau to travel to the mainland.
3.83DFAT assesses members of unregistered churches who participate in human rights activism are at high risk of official discrimination and violence, as are their families (see Political Opinion (actual or Imputed). DFAT assesses the adverse attention relates to their activism and association with unregistered (and illegal) organisations, rather than specifically to their Christian faith.
Other groups, including ‘cults’
3.93The Criminal Law provides for prison sentences of up to seven years for individuals who use ‘superstitious sects, secret societies or evil religious organisations’ to undermine the state’s laws or administrative regulations. A 1999 judicial explanation refers to: ‘those illegal groups that have been found using religions, qigong [a traditional Chinese exercise discipline], or other things as a camouflage, deifying their leading members, recruiting and controlling their members, and deceiving people by moulding and spreading superstitious ideas, and endangering society.’ While the criminal provisions principally target Falun Gong, others who engage in practices deemed superstitious or cult-like can face harassment, detention and imprisonment.
3.94In September 2017, the government published a list of 20 banned groups on its official Anti-Cult website ‘xie jiao’(cult) and launched an anti-cult platform on social media called ‘Say No to Cult,’ which includes a function for reporting suspicious activity. Eleven banned groups were listed as ‘dangerous’ on the xie jiao website: Falun Gong, Eastern Lightning (also known as The Church of Almighty God), The Shouters, The Disciples Society (or Mentu Hui), Unification Church, Guanyin Method Sect (Guanyin Famen or the Way of the Goddess of Mercy), Bloody Holy Spirit, Full Scope Church, Three Grades of Servants (or San Ban Pu Ren), True Buddha School and Mainland China Administrative Deacon Station. The xie jiao website also warned the public to ‘be on guard against’ an additional nine groups: the Lingling Church, the Anointed King, the Children of God, Dami Mission, the New Testament Church, the World Elijah Gospel Mission Society, the Lord God Sect, the Yuandun Dharma Gate, and the South China Church.
3.95Local authorities interpret ‘cult’ in different ways. Chinese government sensitivities towards religious cults have historical roots: religious cults led significant rebellions during the 19th century. Mainstream Christians tend to deride cults as heretics, but government crackdowns on ‘cults’ can affect unregistered mainstream Christian churches, as local officials may have difficulty distinguishing unregistered mainstream churches from cults.
Eastern Lightning (Church of Almighty God, COAG)
3.107The Chinese government listed Eastern Lightning, an offshoot of the Shouters, also known as ‘The Church of the Almighty God (COAG)’, ‘The Congregation’, ‘Oriental Lightning’, ‘Seven Spirit Sect’, ‘Second Saviour Sect’, ‘True Light Sect’, ‘True Way Sect’, and ‘New Power Lord's Church’ as a banned xie jiao (cult) in November 1995. According to Chinese government statistics, COAG had four million members in 2014. However, COAG claims more than a million followers in a seven-level hierarchy. DFAT is unable to verify the number of COAG members practising in China. Chinese government sources claim most members are uneducated rural women aged around 50 years. However, academics suggests COAG membership also includes middle and upper class, Chinese males and females.
3.108Zhao Weishan, a physics teacher from Henan province who later fled to the United States, is claimed to have founded COAG in 1989. However, academics note COAG members have denied Zhao was their founder, and some claim a small community existed before Zhao’s involvement. COAG adherents believe Jesus returned to earth and was incarnated as ‘Almighty God,’ a living person, sent ‘to bring the fullness of truth to purify and save humankind.’ Most of ‘Almighty God’s’ utterances are collected in the book ‘The Word Appears in the Flesh.’ COAG members also believe they are in a constant mortal struggle against the ‘Great Red Dragon’ (a possible reference to the CCP), and that membership of the group will save them from impending apocalypse. According to the COAG movement, ‘Almighty God’ came to inaugurate the third and final age of humanity, the Age of Kingdom, which follows the Age of Law (the Old Testament) and the Age of Grace (of Jesus).
3.109There is no formal liturgy in the COAG movement, nor sacraments or eucharist, as these are viewed by members as practices of the Age of Grace, not the Age of Kingdom. However, academics report COAG has a structural church system, with local and international leaders, and claim gathering is important to COAG members, who worship by meeting and discussing their understanding of ‘Almighty God’s’ words, listening to sermons and singing hymns.
3.110Although the movement never mentions the name of ‘Almighty God,’ nor any specific biographical details, academics believe ‘Almighty God’ identifies a Chinese woman known as ‘lightning Deng’ (Yang Xiangbin, the wife of Zhao Weishan). In 2000, Zhao and Yang Xiangbin moved to the United States and led the movement from New York. Academics note members refer to ‘Almighty God’ as ‘Almighty God,’ and not by any civil name, nor by any specific gender.
3.111COAG reportedly encourages members to break away from family, although academics claim the accusation that COAG’s theology is anti-family does not have any support in COAG’s scriptures, which teach that the family is part of Almighty God’s plan and reiterate Almighty God’s requirement to honour parents and be faithful spouses in the Age of Kingdom. COAG reportedly demands unconditional obedience from low-level believers.
3.112Academics claim the movement has been severely persecuted in China, and many COAG members, including national leader Ma Suoping (1969-2009), have been arrested or killed. According to statistics claimed by the movement, more than 400,000 members have been arrested in China to date. Security agencies have arrested large groups of sect members in Qinghai, Guizhou, Ningxia, Henan, Hubei, Xinjiang, Anhui and Liaoning provinces in recent years. DFAT is unable to verify these claims; however, academics cite semi-weekly references in Chinese State media reports regarding anti-COAG campaigns and arrests. State media reports detail abductions; extortion; beatings; murder; seduction; and aggressive proselytising as part of the group’s practice of recruiting new members and punishing non-believers, including those seeking to leave the group.
3.113In May 2014, six people, who the Chinese government claim were COAG members, reportedly beat a woman to death at a McDonald’s restaurant in Zhaoyuan, Shandong. Two of the six alleged perpetrators were executed in 2015. Three others received prison sentences of life, ten and seven years respectively for their roles in the attack. The sixth was a minor aged 12. The McDonald’s case triggered an official crackdown on ‘cult’ organisations. Academics claim the McDonald’s murder was not conducted by COAG, but instead perpetrated by an unrelated, but similar religious movement. Zhang Fan, a leader of the movement linked to the McDonald’s murder, denied she had ever been a member of COAG, but was executed in 2015.
3.114Sources report the government’s efforts to crackdown on Christian ‘cult’ organisations aim to identify and punish the leaders, with disciples viewed as victims. COAG in Australia (which denies connection to the McDonald’s attack) claims Chinese security agencies have monitored, intimidated, detained and mistreated its members in China since 2011, and its Annual Reports detail several such instances. Such treatment would be consistent with government treatment of members of other banned organisations. Stigma associated with cults may make it difficult for members to find defence lawyers, and lawyers taking on their cases are often themselves targets of adverse attention by authorities (see Human Rights Defenders (including Lawyers)). DFAT is unable to verify the extent to which COAG is active in China.
COUNTRY INFORMATION – SUMMARY

The Tribunal is informed by the country information, in summary, as follows:
a)As to security generally: gaining support for Chinese Communist Party (CCP) policies throughout the country and maintaining social stability are top priorities for the CCP. To achieve this, the government deploys a vast internal security apparatus.
b)As to the police: citizens can be arrested prior to being charged. Police and other security agencies have broad administrative detention powers and the ability to detain individuals for extended periods without formal arrest or criminal charge. The arrest procedures are not subject to judicial oversight. As to State protection: Article 5 of the Constitution states that ‘no laws or administrative or local regulations may contravene the Constitution. All State organs, the armed forces, all political parties and public organisations and all enterprises and institutions must abide by the Constitution and other laws. All acts in violation of the Constitution or other laws must be investigated. No organisation or individual is privileged to be beyond the Constitution or other laws’.
c)As to internal relocation: DFAT assesses internal relocation is possible unless a person has attracted adverse attention from authorities at the local or national level or has a low social credit score. People subject to adverse attention from authorities or with a low social credit score are unlikely to be able to relocate internally, due to the Chinese State’s significant surveillance capability and ability to restrict finances and travel.
d)As to religion: China is a religiously diverse country with a rich and complex society of faiths, belief systems and organised religious groups. The major religions practised in China are Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism, and religious believers total almost 200 million. Six million people follow Catholicism and 38 million follow Protestantism. There are 6,000 Catholic churches and places of assembly spread across 98 dioceses, and 60,000 Protestant churches and places of assembly. Chinese law recognises five religions (Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism), members of which must register with the government’s Patriotic Associations mentioned above (Protestants must be non-denominational). Article 36 of the Constitution states that citizens enjoy freedom of religious belief, and that no State organ, public organisation or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not believe in, any religion. Discrimination on the basis of religion is prohibited by law. DFAT assesses an individual’s ability to practise religion can be influenced by whether the individual exercises faith in registered or unregistered institutions, whether they practise openly or privately, and whether or not an individual’s religious expression is perceived by the CCP to be closely tied to other ethnic, political and security issues. While the Constitution and 2018 RRA allow for sanctioned religious belief, DFAT assesses adherents across all religious organisations – from State-sanctioned to underground and/or banned groups – faced intensifying official persecution and repression in 2018, which continues in 2019.
e)As to the Church of Almighty God or Eastern Lightning, the Chinese government listed the organisation, an offshoot of the ‘shouters’ as a banned cult in November 1995. Chinese government statistics recorded over four million members in 2014 however DFAT is unable to verify these numbers. COAG adherents believe Jesus returned to earth and was incarnated as ‘Almighty God’, and the church remains in a constant struggle against the ‘Great Red Dragon’ where membership of the group will save them from impending apocalypse. Adherents worship by meeting and discussing the words of Almighty God, listening to sermons and singing hymns. Academics claim that the movement has been severely persecuted in China however DFAT has been unable to verify these claims. A murder in May 2014 by persons claimed by the Chinese government to be members of the church triggered an official crackdown on cults with aims to identify and punish leaders however DFAT cannot verify the extent to which the Church of Almighty God remains active in China.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence of the applicant was often unresponsive to the question, vague, imprecise or discursive. Often the evidence of the applicant contained elements of all these issues. The Tribunal has rehearsed the evidence as a representative narrative, given in real time, which was often quite disjointed. The Tribunal’s rehearsal of the evidence is not intended to be a transcript of the evidence, rather the best recording as it transpired. It does give and is intended to give an appreciation of the nature and quality of the applicant’s evidence. The Tribunal notes that it is a requirement of the Act that the applicant provide details of the applicant’s claim and that it is not incumbent upon the Tribunal to prove the applicant’s case. Section 5AAA of the Act makes clear that it is the applicant’s responsibility to specify all particulars of a claim to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and to provide sufficient evidence to establish the claim. The Tribunal does not have any responsibility or obligation to specify, or assist the applicant in specifying, any particulars of her claims. Nor does the Tribunal have any responsibility or obligation to establish, or assist in establishing, the claim.
The applicant produced several documents to support her claims for protection. She did not refer to them in the hearing. This is most surprising having regard to the importance of this matter, apparently, to the applicant and the time which the applicant has had to consider and prepare for this application. Nonetheless the Tribunal has had regard to the documents and makes several observations in relation to those that appear relevant. Insofar as the documents provided to the Department are concerned they comprise a letter dated 27 September 2017 from [a person named L] on the letterhead of “the church of Almighty God”. The author stated that the applicant takes an active part in church life. The letter does not assert when she became involved with this church in Australia. It is given some weight. Secondly there are several photographs of people of Asian appearance apparently reading from books and in a posture of prayer perhaps. There is no narrative and the applicant did not refer to them in the hearing. They are given no weight. Insofar as documents given to the Tribunal are concerned they comprise several statutory declarations and letters. A statutory declaration from [Ms J] dated 15 June 2021 states that the author has known the applicant for three years and met her at an online church congregation. The author also states that this occurred in “2017, December” which is more than three years prior to the date of the declaration. The inconsistencies were not explained. It is given some weight. No other evidence was produced by the applicant to the Tribunal prior to or at the hearing.
However after the hearing several further statutory declarations and a letter were provided. These documents were not requested by the Tribunal and they were not foreshadowed by the applicant or her representative. A statutory declaration of [Mr I] dated 25 June 2021 states that the author met the applicant in China in April 2016. He states that he practised Christian religion with the applicant in China. Further that they left China together. He also states that they called the church hotline upon arriving in Australia on [date] August 2016. The declaration closely follows the issues raised by the Tribunal with the applicant at the hearing and to some extent supports the evidence. There was no explanation as to why this evidence was not produced earlier. It could have been and should have been produced well prior to the hearing. It is also apparent from paragraphs 1 and 2 of that document that the applicant’s representative was involved in the preparation of the document by posing questions following the lines adopted by the Tribunal in the hearing. [Mr I] was an obvious and relevant witness to be called by the applicant. He apparently was involved with this religion in China and knew the applicant in China. He travelled to Australia with the applicant. The failure of the applicant not to call [Mr I] is surprising and unexplained. The circumstances of the production of this declaration after the hearing and its preparation are of some concern and go to, at least, the weight which should be given to this document. It is given little weight. Next, a statutory declaration of [Ms K] dated 26 June 2021 asserts that she met the applicant shortly after she arrived in Australia. Further that the applicant attends gatherings and has been observed by the author practising her religion. The author does not state when she made those observations. The statement is quite vague as to the applicant’s involvement in her religion in Australia. Again the circumstances of the production of this declaration after the hearing and its preparation are of some concern and go to at least, the weight which should be given to this document. It is given some weight. Next, a letter from [Ms K], a church leader dated 28 June 2021. The author asserts that the applicant is a member of the church. Further that the applicant was a “long-standing member of the church in China”. The applicant does not provide the basis of that assertion or many others. This unsworn statement is vague and of low probative value. The Tribunal observes that the circumstances of production of the letter after the hearing and of its preparation are of some concern and go at least to the weight which should be given to it. It is given little weight.
The Tribunal observes that the applicant has had a lengthy period in which to consider and prepare her application for review. She has had the opportunity to advance her case at a Department interview and also to consider the reasons of the delegate in refusing her application. She has had the benefit of legal advice prior to the hearing. She produced a lengthy statement explaining her circumstances. It was prepared with the assistance of lawyers. She has had ample opportunity to explain her case during the hearing. Producing further statements after the hearing in order to bolster perceived issues arising during the hearing is undesirable to say the least. It raises questions as to what the witnesses were told, how the statements were prepared and the veracity of the content. As discussed above the failure to produce the witnesses or their statements prior to the hearing is also put in issue. In the event the Tribunal must question the weight which should be attributed to such evidence.
The applicant’s representative filed two written submissions. The first is dated 15 June 2021. It has been taken into account by the Tribunal and given appropriate weight. The second is dated 28 June 2021 and provided subsequent to the hearing. It purports to explain, upon instructions, the reasons for the delay in making the protection visa application. In so doing the submissions purport to advance factual matters on behalf of the applicant. This is evidence that could have been and should have been given by the applicant at the hearing. She had many opportunities to do so. In any event it is inappropriate for a representative to purport to give evidence and to do so after the hearing has been completed. Similar factual assertions are advanced as to why the applicant did not attend authorised Christian churches in China. To the extent that the submissions purport to give evidence they are given no weight. In other respects the submissions have been taken into account and given appropriate weight.
The applicant has asserted that she practised Christianity in China and did so together with her family. She attended religious gatherings with her family on a weekly basis. She asserted that her family were rejected and then evicted by her grandparents in 2002 as a result of their religious beliefs. She asserted that members of the church assisted her family after her father’s business failed in 1993. She stated that she became a” member” of the church when she was 19 years of age, this being a reference to a formal process of being accepted by the church. She also stated that she would attend group meetings at least twice each week. She attended religious meetings at the homes of others. She performed ceremonies within the church. However the applicant has not produced a witness from China to corroborate her assertions. The declaration of [Mr I], which was produced after the hearing is given little weight. The applicant’s involvement with the Christian church in China is a critical part of the applicant’s case. Her explanation as to why she has not produced any corroborative witness or documents is unconvincing. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant practised Christianity in China as alleged or at all.
She asserted that the son of a fellow practitioner became aware of the applicant’s involvement in Christianity and attempted to “drag” her to the police station and threatened to expose the applicant. This event is critical because it caused the applicant to move to another place and “hide” in the house of another practitioner. The Tribunal makes several observations. First it would be curious that the “son” would threaten to expose the applicant if by doing so he would also expose his mother and also curious that if he was prepared to do that he had not already exposed his mother. Secondly the applicant did not produce a statement from the mother [Sister A] to corroborate this apparently critical event. The Tribunal does not accept that the events occurred as alleged or at all.
Next the applicant asserted that she moved to [Area 1] in 2014 to “hide”. The police came to the house apparently looking for illegal gamblers and threatened her and others with arrest if they found religious material on the premises. As a result she left that location and travelled to [Village 1]. The applicant did not produce any statement from the other persons in the house, [Sister C] and [Sister D], to corroborate these events. It is also notable that she has not explained to the Tribunal’s satisfaction why the police would threaten her about her religious beliefs if they were looking for gambling material. At the hearing she was vague and inconsistent in her evidence as to how the police came to do this. Further if her information was encrypted as she alleged it is difficult to understand how the police would be able to access it. Indeed she does not assert that they did. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s version of these events.
She went to [Village 1] with [Sister C] and stayed in a house owned by the latter. She resided there for nine months until local officials attended the premises and asked to see identity documents. She gave a false name because she asserts she was concerned that if she gave her real name she would be arrested. She produced no corroborative evidence from [Sister C] as to these events. She did not explain to the Tribunal’s satisfaction the basis of her belief that if she gave a real name she would be arrested. Indeed it is curious that the authorities would accept a name without supporting documents to verify it. Further she has not explained why the authorities would attend her home and demand identity papers after she had been residing there for nine months, apparently peacefully and uninterrupted. The Tribunal does not accept that the events occurred as alleged or at all.
She asserts that she and [Sister C] moved to Changzhi in February 2016. While she was there she asserted that another practitioner, [Mr E] disappeared. The applicant was later informed this person had been arrested. The source of her information was a person identified as [Sister F]. This event caused her to move to another home in Changzhi City owned by one [Sister G]. She did not produce corroborative evidence from [Sister F], [Sister C], [Sister G] or anyone else. The Tribunal does not accept the events occurred as alleged or at all.
She asserted that in March 2016 she took steps to obtain a passport with the assistance of her cousin and “an agent”. She applied several times. The applicant obtained a passport and used it to leave China subsequently. The country information suggests that a person of interest to authorities would find it difficult to do so. The applicant’s ability to obtain a passport and to use a password in her own name in China without hindrance is given some weight. It undermines the applicant’s contentions that she was a person of interest or otherwise at risk.
The applicant asserts that in “mid June” a person came to her home and asked for some identity details. She gave false details. The person is asserted to have been looking for “believers in God”. This caused the applicant to move to another home in Changzhi owned by [Sister H]. The applicant has produced no corroborative evidence of this narrative especially from the person identified as [Sister H]. The Tribunal does not accept these events occurred. The Tribunal also notes that the applicant has not explained to the Tribunal’s satisfaction why this event which is no more significant than of the previous events ofconcern to her was the catalyst for the applicant to leave China. This is given some weight.
The applicant asserts that she left China together with [Mr I], the person who produced a declaration after the hearing. This declaration has been given little weight for the reasons discussed earlier.
At the hearing the applicant stated that she identified as a Christian however she did not attend the authorised Christian churches in China. Her reasons for not doing so were most unconvincing. This is given some weight.
She also stated that she was fearful of persecution on the basis of her religious beliefs while in China. However she did not leave China until August 2016 when she was approximately [age] years of age. Her failure to leave China earlier is inconsistent with her assertions of being afraid of persecution and also being arrested if she gave her true identity. This is given some weight.
The applicant asserts that she left China “because my life was in danger and I could never practise my religion freely”. The Tribunal observes that she was never detained or imprisoned, she was never harmed or threatened with harm on the basis of her religious beliefs, she was able to and did practise her religion the entire time that she was in China, she had the opportunity to attend authorised Christian churches in China but did not do so despite stating that she identified as a Christian, her explanation as to her failure to attend authorised Christian churches in China was most unconvincing. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s life was in danger when she was in China or that she could not practise Christianity freely in China.
The applicant asserts that immediately upon arriving in Australia she contacted the Church of Almighty God on a “hotline”. She did not explain how she had known of the existence of such a hotline or why she felt obliged to do so immediately upon arriving in Australia. Her assertion in that regard is given little weight. However her involvement in the church is corroborated, to a greater or lesser extent by [various individuals]. The commencement of her involvement in it is less clear, perhaps from 2017. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is currently involved in the church in Australia and has been so since probably 2017.
On balance, the vague nature of the assertions, and the failure to provide corroborative testimony and documents compel the conclusion that the applicant’s assertions cannot be accepted. The Tribunal does not accept the matters asserted by the applicant as the basis for her claim for protection in Australia.

It is also relevant that the applicant travelled to Australia as a tourist on [date] August 2016 but did not claim protection until 11 November 2016. Her reasons for the delay in applying for a protection visa were unconvincing. Delay in seeking a protection visa can support an adverse credibility finding as well as a finding that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of harm.[1] Even a three-month delay in lodging a protection visa application has been held to be a legitimate matter to be taken into account when assessing the genuineness or depth of an applicant’s fear of persecution.[2] In Selvadurai v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 34 ALD 347 the Court observed in regard to a delay in lodgement of a protection application: “In my opinion, this was a legitimate factual argument and an obvious one to take into account in assessing the genuineness, or at least the depth of the applicant’s alleged fear of persecution. It is a rational consideration open on the material”. In the Tribunal’s view the applicant’s delay in lodging a protection visa application further suggests that the basis of the claim for protection should not be accepted.
[1] Zhang v RRT & Anor [1997] FCA 423; Kavun v MIMA [2000] FCA 370.
[2] Subramaniam v MIMA (1998) VG310 of 1997.
In determining whether a person has a well-founded fear of persecution, any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Tribunal they engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening their claim to be a refugee.[3] While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has been involved in the church in Australia from probably 2017 it is not convinced that the applicant’s involvement in the church in Australia has not been otherwise than for the purposes of strengthening her claim for protection.
[3] Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 5J(6).
The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant feared persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion in accordance with s 5J(1)(a) of the Act.
Having regard to the evidence the Tribunal makes the following findings:
a)the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion;
b)the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that, if the applicant is returned to China, the applicant would be persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion;
c)the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance of persecution that relates to all areas of China;
d)the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution;
e)the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a refugee in accordance with s 5H(1) of the Act; and
f)the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations pursuant to s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
Complementary protection criterion assessment – s 36(2)(aa)
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal has considered whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm.
The mere fact that an applicant claims to face a real risk of significant harm does not establish that such a risk exists, or if that harm feared amounts to “significant harm”. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all the statutory elements are made out. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative enquiries and decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case must be provided by the applicant.
While the Tribunal is required to adopt a reasonable approach to such matters, the Tribunal is not required to make the applicant’s case out for the applicant. Neither is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all of the allegations made by the applicant. In respect of the Tribunal’s assessment in regard to complementary protection, the Tribunal adopts the findings stated above in relation to the refugee criterion assessment.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(b) or (c) 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 applicant does not satisfy any of the criteria in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Peter Booth
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.
…

[2021] AATA 4371

17 August 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Natural Justice

Standing

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction