1730248 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning a protection visa application made by an individual from China. The applicant claimed to fear persecution due to their adherence to Yi Guandao, a religious practice, and alleged that their family's home temple had been investigated, property confiscated, and warnings issued by local authorities. The applicant also asserted that the government's surveillance had intensified, leading to arrests and detentions of fellow practitioners, and that returning to China would place them at risk of persecution.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, or alternatively, whether they faced a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia to China, thereby meeting the criteria for complementary protection. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of relevant country information and the provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* concerning refugee status and complementary protection.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence, including their statement detailing the confiscation of religious items, government warnings, and increased surveillance and persecution of Yi Guandao followers. However, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for a protection visa. Specifically, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the definition of a refugee under section 5H of the Act, nor did they establish a real risk of significant harm under the complementary protection provisions. The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act, and therefore did not qualify for a protection visa.

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