1729603 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of China, sought review of a decision to refuse his protection visa application. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either as a refugee or through complementary protection. The matter was heard by Tania Flood, a member of the Tribunal.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, as defined by section 5J of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Alternatively, the Tribunal was required to consider whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to China, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm, as contemplated by section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims that he was targeted by a village head due to witnessing torture and his refusal to accept inadequate compensation for his factory, which he alleged was an attempt to demolish his home. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not made submissions to the Tribunal in support of his review, and had provided oral evidence via telephone on two occasions. The applicant stated his family had moved to live with his in-laws and had not been bothered by authorities since, suggesting the village head's focus was solely on him. The Tribunal also considered the definitions of "significant harm," "torture," and "cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment" as provided in the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.