1728559 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by two applicants, both citizens of China. The primary applicant alleged he was forced to flee China due to the compulsory acquisition of his home for a highway project, inadequate compensation, and subsequent persecution by local authorities and police when he protested. The secondary applicant made no independent claims. The primary applicant failed to attend a scheduled interview with the Department without providing an explanation, and the protection visa applications were initially refused.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for the grant of a protection visa, specifically considering the refugee criterion under s 36(2)(a) and the complementary protection criterion under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This involved assessing whether the primary applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to China. The Tribunal also had to consider the implications of the primary applicant's failure to attend the interview.

The Tribunal found that the primary applicant was a citizen of China and that China was the receiving country. It noted that while the primary applicant claimed to have suffered oppression, he failed to attend an interview with the Department and provided no explanation for this failure. Furthermore, the applicants had not presented any evidence to the Tribunal to substantiate their claims. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the primary applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion. As the secondary applicant's eligibility was dependent on the primary applicant's, they also failed to meet the relevant criteria.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.