1730150 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of China. The applicant claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution upon return to China due to his association with Falun Gong in Australia, including participation in a parade where he believed he was photographed by Chinese government agents. The applicant had arrived in Australia in July 2014 on a student visa, commenced practising Falun Gong in January 2015, and lodged his protection visa application in July 2017, some ten months after his student visa was cancelled. The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of Ministerial Direction No. 84 and relevant guidelines and country information.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and Schedule 2 of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution, or if he qualified for complementary protection. A further consideration was the applicant's delay in lodging his protection visa application after his student visa was cancelled and his alleged commencement of Falun Gong practice.

The Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed. It found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. The Tribunal noted the significant delay in lodging the protection visa application, particularly given the applicant's alleged practice of Falun Gong and the common knowledge within the community of Chinese protection visa applicants regarding available support. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's failure to attend a scheduled Department interview and his consent to a decision on the papers without a hearing, which, in the context of having access to a migration agent, raised questions about the genuineness of his claims. The Tribunal found no suggestion that the applicant satisfied the criteria as a member of the same family unit as another person holding a protection visa.

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