1729602 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of China, sought review of a decision to refuse their application for a protection visa. The applicant alleged they had been subjected to persecution in China after petitioning local government authorities regarding compensation for the acquisition of their house. This petition allegedly led to damage to their possessions and physical harm to themselves and their parents by a demolition team, with no intervention from the police. The applicant subsequently departed China lawfully on their own passport. The parents remained in China and allegedly continued to be monitored and harassed. The applicant applied for a protection visa after their student visa was cancelled and they became an unlawful non-citizen.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had established that they would be a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This required the court to consider whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and whether the Australian government would be under an obligation to grant a protection visa. A secondary issue concerned the weight to be given to the applicant's delay in applying for protection and the lack of additional information or evidence provided to the Department.

The court affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant had not provided sufficient relevant facts to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. The court reiterated that it is the applicant's responsibility to supply all relevant facts and evidence to support their claim. In this instance, the applicant had consented to a decision without a hearing and had not provided any additional information or evidence beyond what was initially submitted. Consequently, the court concluded that the applicant had not discharged their onus of proof to demonstrate that they met the criteria for a protection visa.