1729383 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a woman from China and her infant son. The applicant claimed she feared persecution in China due to her religious beliefs as a member of a "Shouter" church, which she described as a local or family church founded by Brother Watchman Nee. She stated that this church was considered an "evil cult" and was banned by the Chinese government, leading to persecution of its members. The applicant arrived in Australia in June 2008 and applied for a protection visa in August 2016.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Act. This involved assessing the credibility of her claims, considering the evidence presented, and evaluating the country information regarding the treatment of "Shouter" churches and their members in China. The Tribunal also had to consider the application of the second applicant, her son, which was dependent on the success of the primary applicant's claim.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's protection visa application contained inconsistencies and vague responses. Specifically, when asked why she left China, she stated she came as an overseas student in 2008, rather than citing fear of persecution. While she later claimed fear of harm if she returned, she had indicated she did not experience harm in China and did not seek help within the country. The Tribunal also considered a statutory declaration from the applicant detailing her father's detention in July 2016 for leading a church gathering, and a release certificate from a detention centre. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence, including her own account and the provided country information, did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution. The Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

As the primary applicant's claim for a protection visa was unsuccessful, the application of her infant son, who had not made a separate claim, also failed. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.