1730547 (Refugee)

[2020] AATA 3736

1730547 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 3736 (16 July 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1730547

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   China

MEMBER:David McCulloch

DATE:16 July 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 16 July 2020 at 10:12am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – religion – underground Christian – arrests – lack of knowledge of Christianity – credibility issues – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65, 499

Migration Regulations 1994

CASES

Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510

Luu & Anor v Renevier (1989) 91 ALR 39

MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559

Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155

Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437

Yao-Jing Li v MIMA (1997) 74 FCR 275

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 9 November 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, applied for the visa on 31 August 2017. The delegate refused to grant the visa. The applicant did not appear to give evidence at the interview with the delegate to which he was properly invited.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal by telephone on 3 June 2020. The Tribunal was assisted through the use of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.

4. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by telephone. The hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by telephone, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by telephone. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

5. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

6. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.

7. A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a) of the Act. In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).

8. Under s.5J(1) of the Act, a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in s.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-5LA of the Act, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

9. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in s.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

   Mandatory considerations

10. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs (the Department), and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration. The Tribunal has before it the DFAT Country Information Report – People’s Republic of China, 3 October 2019.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

11. The issue in this case is the credibility of the applicant and whether, on accepted claims, the criteria for protection are fulfilled. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

12. The applicant arrived in Australia [in] June 2017 as the holder of an FA 600 tourist visa, which was valid until 19 September 2017. On 31 August 2017, the applicant applied for the protection visa.

13. The following information is apparent from the application forms. The applicant was born on [date] in Linyi, Shandong Province, China. The applicant is a Christian of Han ethnicity who speaks, reads, and writes Mandarin. The applicant married [in] June 2012. The applicant’s mother, father, brother, wife and son reside in China, and the applicant is in daily contact with them via phone and WeChat. The applicant lived in [District 1], Shandong Province, China from [1997] until [2010]. The applicant then lived in [District 2], Shandong Province from [2010] until [2017]. The applicant worked in [Country 1] from [March] 2012 until May 2014. The applicant attended primary and middle school from [year] before graduating from [Middle] School in [year]. The applicant worked as a factory worker in [District 2] from January 2002 until March 2012. The applicant then worked as a [worker] for a [company] in [Country 1] from [May] 2012 until May 2014. The applicant then worked as [another occupation] at [another company], [District 2] from May 2014 until June 2017.

14. The applicant claims that he is a devout underground Christian, and joined through a friend. The applicant claims that there is no freedom of religion in China, and that the Chinese Communist Party combats underground religions. The applicant claims that many of his church friends were caught during a church gathering, were detained, and tortured. The applicant claims that the police want to arrest him because they knew he was a devout Christian, and they came to his home continually and harassed his family. The applicant escaped China for his safety with the help of his friends. The applicant states that he was kept under close watch by the local authorities and could not relocate, and states that there is no freedom of religion anywhere in China. The applicant fears that he will be taken away by the local authorities and receive harsh treatment if he returns to China. The applicant states that he has already had bad encounters with the courts and police, and does not think that the local authorities will offer him protection.

    Independent information

15. DFAT Country Information - Report People’s Republic of China, 3 October 2019 variously provides the following information under the heading of Religion (underlining added):

    China is a religiously diverse country with a rich and complex society of faiths, belief systems and organised religious groups. Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism constitute the ‘three teachings’, a philosophical framework which historically has had a significant role in shaping Chinese culture, including traditional folk religions. Christianity has been present in China since the seventh century but increased when Catholics became active in the late thirteenth century and through Protestant Christian missionaries in the nineteenth century. The establishment of the PRC in 1949 under the control of the atheist CCP resulted in the expulsion of Christian missionaries and the establishment of ‘Patriotic Associations’: government-affiliated organisations which seek to regulate and monitor the activities of registered religious organisations on behalf of the CCP.

    In 2018, the Government attempted to regulate religious groups to prevent challenges to CCP and Government control. As religious observance has grown, the CCP has increased oversight and worked to tighten control over state-sanctioned religious organisations. Nevertheless, despite the atheist nature of the ruling CCP, as many as 25 per cent of Party officials in some localities are estimated to engage in some type of religious activity (mostly associated with Buddhism or folk religion).

    It is difficult to provide exact figures on the number of religious believers in China. In 2018, the government released a white paper on China’s Policies and Practices on Protecting Freedom of Religious Belief (CPPPFRB white paper). This states the major religions practiced in China are Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism, and religious believers total almost 200 million (including more than 380,000 clerical personnel). The white paper also notes the majority of 10 of China’s ethnic minorities, totalling 20 million people, follow Islam (around 57,000 clerical personnel); 6 million follow Catholicism (8,000 clerical personnel); and 38 million follow Protestantism (57,000 clerical personnel).

    The CPPPFRB white paper indicates there are also approximately 5,500 religious groups in China, including seven national organisations: the Buddhist Association of China, Chinese Taoist Association, China Islamic Association, Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, Bishop’s Conference of Catholic Church in China, National Committee of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement of the Protestant Churches in China, and the Christian Council. There are also an estimated 144,000 places of worship in China: 28,000 Han Buddhist temples; 3,800 Tibetan Buddhist lamaseries; 1,700 Theravada Buddhist temples; 9,000 Taoist temples; 35,000 Islamic mosques; 6,000 Catholic churches and places of assembly spread across 98 dioceses, and 60,000 Protestant churches and places of assembly. China also has 91 religious schools, approved by the State Administration of Religious Affairs (SARA), where more than 10,000 students study, including: 41 Buddhist, 10 Taoist, 10 Islamic, nine Catholic and 21 Protestant schools. It has six national level religious colleges: the Buddhist Academy of China, High-Level Tibetan Buddhism College of China, Chinese Taoism College, China Islamic Institute, National Seminary of the Catholic Church in China, and Nanjing Union Theological Seminary.

    In practice, the number of religious believers, places of worship and religious organisations is likely to be much higher - particularly with respect to unregistered organisations (including house churches) which operate in parallel to state sanctioned Christian churches. Freedom House estimates there are more than 350 million religious believers in China who are mostly Chinese Buddhists (185 to 250 million), followed by Protestants (60 to 80 Million, of which only 30 million are registered), Muslims (21 to 23 million), Falun Gong practitioners (7 to 20 million), Catholics (12 million, of which 6 million are registered) and Tibetan Buddhists (6 to 8 million). Other otherwise unaccounted for groups tend to observe aspects of Buddhism, Daoism and ‘folk religion’. Discrepancies between official statistics and international estimates are due to the fact that China does not recognise worshippers who engage in religious activity outside of state-sanctioned organisations or believers who are under 18.[1]

    [1] DFAT Country Information - Report People’s Republic of China, 3 October 2019 paras 3.28- 3.32

    …

    Government Framework regarding religion

    Chinese law recognises five religions (Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism), members of which must register with the government’s Patriotic Associations mentioned above (Protestants must be non-denominational). These organisations must be independent of foreign associations (for example, the Vatican).

    Article 36 of the Constitution states that citizens enjoy freedom of religious belief, and that no state organ, public organisation or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not believe in, any religion. Discrimination on the basis of religion is prohibited by law. According to China’s 2018 CPPPFRB white paper, every citizen ‘enjoys the freedom to choose whether to believe in a religion; to believe in a certain religion or a denomination of the same religion; to change from a non-believer to a believer and vice versa. Believers and non-believers enjoy the same political, economic, social and cultural rights, and must not be treated differently because of a difference in belief.’ However, Article 36 of the Constitution also states that no one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the State. This is enforced by Chinese public security officials who monitor registered and unregistered religious groups.

    Historically, the CCP’s United Front Work Department (UFWD), State Administration for Religious Affairs (SARA), and the Ministry of Civil Affairs provided policy guidance and supervision on the implementation of the regulations. However, in 2018 the CCP moved religious affairs under the direct purview of the UFWD, and thus the CCPs Central Committee. To ‘ensure centralised and unified leadership,’ the UFWD absorbed SARA and has direct oversight of the State Ethnic Affairs Commission and the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office, and has been elevated to a level of importance not seen since 1949.

    The conditions governing the establishment of religious bodies and religious sites, the publication of religious material, and the conduct of religious education and personnel are outlined in the Regulations on Religious Affairs (RRA). In April 2017, President Xi called on CCP officials working in religious administration to reassert the Party’s ‘guiding’ role in religious affairs. Xi’s speech emphasised the need to ‘sinicise’ religion, to ensure religious rights did not impinge on CCP authority, and to enforce the prohibition on Party members from belonging to any religion. In September 2017, the State Council approved revisions to the 2005 RRA, which came into effect on 1 February 2018. The RRAs devolve substantial powers and responsibility to local authorities to prevent illegal religious behaviour, including undue influence from foreign organisations. Local authorities have significant discretion in interpreting and implementing the regulations at the provincial level.

    The 2018 RRAs ‘protect citizens’ freedom of religious belief, maintain religious and social harmony and regulate the management of religious affairs,’ and give state-registered religious organisations rights to possess property, publish literature, train, and approve clergy, collect donations, and proselytise within (but not outside) registered places of worship and in private settings (but not in public). Government subsidies are also available for the construction of state-sanctioned places of worship and religious schools.

    According to the State Council, the RRA also ‘curb and prevent illegal and extreme practices,’ and emphasise the need to prevent ‘extremism’, indicating they may target Uighur Muslims and Tibetan Buddhists. The RRAs: restrict religious education in schools; restrict the times and locations of religious celebrations; impose fines for organising illegal religious events or fundraising; detail procedures for approval and monitoring of religious training institutions and monitoring online religious activity; detail a requirement to report all donations over RMB 100,000 (AUD 20,750); prohibit registered religious organisations from distributing unapproved literature, associating with unregistered religious groups, and accepting foreign donations (previously permitted); and prohibit foreigners from proselytising. Parallel provisions in the Foreign NGO Law also prohibit foreigners from donating funds to Chinese religious organisations, or raising funds on their behalf.

    The devolution of enforcement of the RRAs to local government and Party authorities also affects unregistered Christian churches. Historically, those involved with unregistered churches could be charged with fraud. However, under the RRA it is now considered a crime to organise people for the purpose of religion (with a particular focus on the organisers).

    Broadly speaking, religious practice in China is possible within state-sanctioned boundaries, as long as such practices do not challenge the interests or authority of the Chinese government. While practice of nonrecognised faiths or by unregistered organisations is illegal and vulnerable to punitive official action, it is, to some degree, tolerated, especially in relation to traditional Chinese beliefs. Nevertheless, restrictions on religious organisations vary widely according to local conditions, and can be inconsistent or lack transparency, making it difficult to form general conclusions.

    Religious practice that the government perceives as contravening broader ethnic, political or security policies (for example, see Uighurs and Muslims) is at high risk of adverse official attention. China has one of the largest populations of religious prisoners, estimated in the tens of thousands. Human rights groups claim, but DFAT cannot verify, that some religious prisoners are tortured and killed in custody. Since 1999, the US State Department has annually designated China as a country of particular concern for religious freedom due to continued reports of arbitrary detentions and violence with impunity.

    Members of religious groups claim government authorities continue to press to install CCTV at all religious sites, and failure to comply can lead to authorities cutting power and water, or restricting rental space to pressure compliance. According to media, in April 2018, the Zion Church in Beijing (one of Beijing’s largest unofficial Protestant house churches) refused a request from government authorities to install 24 CCTV cameras, including in worship areas, for security purposes. Churchgoers were reportedly harassed by police and state security officials at their homes and places of employment, and the Zion Church was evicted by its landlord.

    Regulations prohibiting proselytising are generally enforced across Chinese cities. Public expressions of faith are more vulnerable to adverse treatment than private worship (including in small groups). In Rongcheng, Shandong, an Social Credit System (SCS) pilot area (see The Social Credit System and Security Situation), residents of First Morning Light, a neighbourhood of 5,100 families, have taken the official Rongcheng SCS pilot a few steps further and introduced their own SCS penalties for ‘illegally spreading religion.’ DFAT is aware of reports of foreigners, including religious missions, being refused entry at churches due to pressure from local authorities.

    DFAT assesses an individual’s ability to practise religion can be influenced by whether the individual exercises faith in registered or unregistered institutions, whether they practice openly or privately, and whether or not an individual’s religious expression is perceived by the CCP to be closely tied to other ethnic, political and security issues.

    While the Constitution and 2018 RRA allow for sanctioned religious belief, DFAT assesses adherents across all religious organisations – from state-sanctioned to underground and/or banned groups - faced intensifying official persecution and repression in 2018, which continues in 2019. However, DFAT assesses that as Buddhism (as compared to Tibetan Buddhism) and Daoism are part of China’s cultural heritage and are not associated with foreign influence, believers are unlikely to experience significant restrictions.[2]

    ...

    [2] DFAT Country Information - Report People’s Republic of China, 3 October 2019 paras 3.37-3.49

    Christians

    China has seen a significant growth in Christianity since the 1980s. In 2010, the Pew Research Center estimated there were 67 million Christians in China (58 million Protestant, including both state-sanctioned and independent churches). However, 2018 estimates had grown closer to 100 million (unregistered churchgoers outnumber members of official churches nearly two to one).

    In addition to state-sanctioned Catholic and (non-denominational) Protestant churches in China, SARA historically permitted friends and family to hold small, informal prayer meetings without official registration. This, combined with the controlled nature of religious worship amongst registered Christian institutions, has led to the proliferation of sizeable unregistered Christian communities in both rural and urban China. Independent churches, otherwise known as ‘house’ or ‘family’ churches (for Protestant organisations), and ‘underground’ churches (for Catholic organisations) are private religious forums that adherents create in their own homes or other places of worship. ‘House’ or ‘underground’ churches vary in size from around 30 to several thousand participants/attendees.

    There has been an increase in state control of both registered and unregistered churches in recent years, including targeted campaigns to remove hundreds of rooftop crosses from churches, forced demolitions of churches, and harassment and imprisonment of Christian pastors and priests (see Government Framework regarding religion). Some churches deliberately restrict their numbers to avoid attracting adverse official attention. Government officials are more likely to scrutinise churches with foreign affiliations, or those that develop large or influential local networks, and house churches are under pressure to ‘sinicise’ their religious teachings.

    Leaders of both registered and unregistered churches are also subject to greater scrutiny than ordinary worshippers are, and leaders of registered churches must obtain permission to travel abroad. Church leaders (registered or unregistered) who participate in protest activity on behalf of their congregations or elsewhere are at high risk of official sanction, but this is likely to relate more to their activism than to their religious affiliation or practice (see Political Opinion (actual or Imputed) and Protesters/petitioners).

    Religious NGOs claim that, while pressure on Christian groups differs from province to province, a trend of increased pressure on Christian groups normalised across provinces in 2018. Authorities apply pressure to Christian churches during monthly ‘tea’ meetings. According to media, authorities cracked down on Christmas celebrations in December 2018. Several cities, schools and government institutions issued instructions not to celebrate Christmas and to promote Chinese culture instead, and at least four cities and one county issued a ban on Christmas decorations. In Langfei, Hebei province, authorities ordered the removal of all Christmas decorations and stopped shops selling Christmas-themed products to ‘maintain stability.’ In Changsha, Hunan province, the education bureau issued a directive to schools not to celebrate ‘western festivals’ such as Christmas, and not to put up decorations, post related messages or exchange gifts. Nevertheless, DFAT notes Christmas decorations were still visible in some department stores in major cities across China.

    In December 2018, police raided a children’s bible class in Guangzhou, and shut down the Early Rain Covenant Church in Chengdu, arresting 100 members and keeping others under close surveillance in December 2018. In September 2018, one of China’s largest underground churches, Beijing Zion Church, was shut down (see Government Framework regarding religion). Members of the Early Rain Covenant Church were detained by authorities in June 2018 due to plans to hold a prayer service to mark the anniversary of Tiananmen Square and, in May 2018, due to plans to hold a prayer service to mark the tenth anniversary of the Sichuan earthquake.

    Heightened government sensitivity over foreign influence creates difficulties for prominent members of unregistered churches seeking to travel abroad, particularly for religious events, and for foreign church organisations to work, or liaise with registered churches, in China. NGOs report increasing difficulties for mainland Christians seeking to travel to Hong Kong or Macau for religious activities, and for Christian NGOs or activists from Hong Kong and Macau to travel to the mainland.

    DFAT assesses members of unregistered churches who participate in human rights activism are at high risk of official discrimination and violence, as are their families (see Political Opinion (actual or Imputed). DFAT assesses the adverse attention relates to their activism and association with unregistered (and illegal) organisations, rather than specifically to their Christian faith.

    Protestants

    The Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM), established in 1949, oversees China’s ‘post- denominational’ (non-denominational) Protestant church and is estimated to have 23 to 30 million members (official statistics). The ‘Three-Self’ is a Chinese abbreviation for the church’s three principles of self- administration, self-financing and self-evangelisation. The Chinese Christian Council (CCC) and the TSPM supervise approximately 60,000 registered Protestant churches and several hundred thousand affiliated meeting points.

    The TSPM operates seminaries in Liaoning, Zhejiang, Heilongjiang, Guangdong, Fujian, Jiangsu, Shandong and Nanjing, as well as many bible schools across the country. Unlike other religions, sources report the government provides financial support to TSPM seminaries, and TSPM seminaries are required to play an informal role in implementing government policy and regulations on religion (see RRA, Government Framework regarding religion), and monitoring provincial churches.

    Between 100 and 200 students are estimated to study at each TSPM seminary each year. TPSM seminary study is four-years long, and graduates are required to return to teach at their original church on completion of the course, and to return to their TSPM seminary every three years (while under 60 years of age). Qualifications from foreign seminaries are not recognised in China. TSPM believers are not permitted to proselytise outside of church or seminary walls, and TSPM seminaries require provincial-level approval from the TSPM committee to invite foreign religious leaders to visit the seminary. Sources report the demographics of TPSM followers are shifting. Historically, believers were mostly older and female, whereas there is a growing trend of younger adults with higher levels of education joining TSPM.

    Estimates of numbers of unregistered Protestants in China vary from around 30 million to over 100 million. Unregistered Protestant churches risk adverse treatment by authorities due to their illegal status. Adverse treatment can include raids and destruction of church property, pressure to join or report to government-sanctioned religious organisations and, on occasion, violence and criminal sanction, particularly in response to land disputes with local authorities. DFAT is aware of, but cannot verify, reports of authorities pressuring house churches by cutting off electricity or forcing landlords to evict members. Some members of house churches claim to have been able to use registered church facilities for weddings, or to purchase bibles. Others have reported difficulties in hiring even commercial facilities such as hotels or restaurants, because of their association with illegal churches. Christian organisations report house church members were arrested in 2017 for refusing to register with the TSPM, and Christian schools were closed for ‘brainwashing’ children.

    The Zhejiang provincial government’s 2013 urban renewal campaign led to the demolition of several hundred unregistered churches. In 2017, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom reported over 1,500 church demolitions or removals of crosses since 2014. The government has punished church leaders who oppose the campaign with heavy prison sentences (up to 14 years) on public disorder charges, as well as apparently unrelated charges such as embezzlement. In May 2019, media and Christian advocacy groups reported the government launched a new campaign called ‘Return to Zero’ in April 2019, aimed at eradicating underground house churches and ensuring only state sanctioned and heavily restricted TPSM churches remained functional. Authorities have also targeted lawyers defending the church leaders (see Human Rights Defenders (including Lawyers)).

1. In a 2016 report, Freedom House categorises provinces in China in terms of the levels of religious persecution within those provinces (with the categories being low, moderate, high and very high). Shandong Province is listed as very high.[3]

   [3] Freedom House, The Battle for China's Spirit, 2016, p.25.

   Hearing, credibility, findings, and assessment

2. The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is ‘well-founded’ or that it is for the reason claimed. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out: MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision making (Yao-Jing Li v MIMA (1997) 74 FCR 275 at 288), the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant himself or herself, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant’s case for him or her: Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70; Luu & Anor v Renevier (1989) 91 ALR 39 at 45. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant: Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437.

3. In considering overall the credibility of the applicant the Tribunal is cognisant of the words of Beaumont J in Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451 in which he stated that ‘in the proof of refugeehood, a liberal attitude on the part of the decision-maker is called for… [but this should not lead to]… an uncritical acceptance of any and all allegations made by supplicants’. The Tribunal notes also the remarks of Gummow and Hayne JJ in Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510 at 191 where it was said that ‘the fact that an applicant for refugee status may yield to temptation to embroider an account of his or her history is hardly surprising’. The Tribunal has sought to adopt the liberal approach outlined in these cases.

4. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a citizen of China and accordingly his claims will be assessed against China.

5. The Tribunal has the following credibility concerns with the applicant’s claims.

6. Firstly, the applicant’s written claims of problems encountered in China because of the practice of his Christianity fail to make mention of significant instances of harm indicated by the applicant in the Tribunal hearing.

7. In the Tribunal hearing, the applicant indicated that he was introduced to Christianity while in [Country 1]. The applicant indicated that on return from [Country 1] he lived in [Town 1], China and would practice his religion in weekly gatherings. The applicant referred to problems in gatherings as a result of individuals who in fact were gangsters employed by the government, but wearing police uniforms, who would disrupt gatherings and arrest and beat protesters.

8. When the applicant was asked in the hearing if he was arrested he said that he was, approximately seven or eight times. The applicant also indicated that he was beaten by these ‘authorities’.

9. The Tribunal noted to the applicant in the hearing significant differences between his written claims for protection and the evidence provided by the applicant in the hearing. Significantly, this included the written claims only indicating that others, not the applicant, were detained and tortured and the police harassed the applicant and his family at their home. The applicant indicates that police wanted to arrest him but there is no indication that they actually did arrest him. In contrast, in the Tribunal hearing the applicant indicated that he was arrested on seven or eight occasions and beaten by authorities.

10. Further, as put to the applicant, the written claims that his family were continually harassed is not consistent with the applicant’s evidence in the hearing that he had no family (no wife and child as per the application) and lived by himself during this period in [Town 1].

11. In response to the various inconsistencies put to the applicant, he indicated that the information in the application form was prepared by an agent in China and then with an agent and lawyer in Australia completing the application form, without the applicant having details of the information that was provided.

12. The Tribunal does not think that if the applicant had been arrested as a result of his Christianity on seven or eight occasions and been beaten by agents of the authorities that these very important and significant claims would not have been included in the written application for protection.

13. The failure by the applicant to include in his written application for protection key instances of harm claimed to have been suffered by authorities in China as a result of the practice of his Christianity are undermining of the applicant’s credibility. The Tribunal does not find it plausible or credible that the applicant would not have been cognisant of key claims for protection made in his original written claims. Whilst not a central issue to the applicant’s claims, the Tribunal is also concerned at inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence as to having had a family who were also harassed by authorities at this time.

14. Secondly, the failure by the applicant to have practised publicly as a Christian in Australia is undermining of the applicant being a Christian in China, having fled from China as a result of harm suffered as a result of Christianity and having the freedom to practice as a Christian in Australia.

15. The applicant indicated in the hearing that he has not practised publicly as a Christian in Australia since his arrival in 2017. This is because the applicant does not speak English and fears getting lost on public transport. The applicant also refers to the impact of the more recent COVID-19 pandemic. The applicant indicates that he practices at home and on WeChat.

16. The Tribunal has very significant concerns that the applicant, who has been in Australia since mid-2017, has not publicly practised as a Christian in the context of the applicant’s claim to have fled China due to his religion and having the freedom to practice his religion in Australia. There are many Chinese orientated Christian churches in Australia and the Tribunal is not satisfied that language concerns would prevent interaction with such churches by the applicant either in person or through other means, such as online. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the relatively recent COVID-19 pandemic explains why the applicant has not engaged in public Christian activity up until the beginning of 2020.

17. Thirdly, the inability by the applicant in the hearing to have an awareness of key Christian events, and details of the Bible, undermine the applicant’s claims to have been a genuine practitioner of Christianity for more than five years.

18. In the hearing, despite being asked on more than one occasion, the applicant was not able to indicate that the significance of Christmas was that it celebrated the birth of Jesus. The applicant did know that the event had something to do with Jesus but was unable to indicate what event it signified. The applicant indicated that Christmas was similar to the spring festival. The Tribunal asked the applicant what the two main sections of the Bible were. The applicant was able to indicate New Testament, but did not know that the Old Testament was the other component. The Tribunal asked the applicant to indicate any books of the Bible that he was aware of/or particularly appealed to him. The applicant provided a response that did not answered the question. The response was not able to name any specific book in the Bible. The only other piece of information that the applicant was able to tell the Tribunal that demonstrated a knowledge of Christianity was the fact that Easter marked the crucifixion of Jesus.

19. The very limited knowledge of the applicant as to key information in relation to Christianity, including the fact that the applicant did not know that Christmas celebrated the birth of Jesus and the applicant not being able to name one book in the Bible are undermining of the applicant’s claims to have been a practising Christian for more than five years.

20. Fourthly, the applicant provided evidence in the Tribunal hearing as to where he has lived over time in China and his work history, and whether he has been married and has a child that was markedly different from the applicant’s information provided in the protection visa application form.

21. In the hearing the applicant indicated that he was born and grew up in Linyi, consistent with his written claims, but other details as to where he had subsequently lived in the hearing were markedly different than his written claims. The applicant indicated that he had lived subsequently in [Town 1]. This is not listed as a place of residence in his written claims. The applicant provided no indication in the hearing, as indicated in the written claims, that he had lived in [District 1] or [District 2].  Further, in the hearing the applicant indicated that he had never worked for a long-term fixed employer and had worked in casual [jobs]. In contrast, the written claims indicated the applicant worked long-term as a factory worker prior to visiting [Country 1].  On return from [Country 1] the written claims indicate that the applicant worked as [another occupation] at [a] company.

22. The Tribunal put to the applicant in the hearing the very different evidence he had given in the hearing as to the places he had lived over time and the work that he had undertaken.  The Tribunal also noted that the application form indicated that the applicant was married and had a son, which the applicant indicated in the hearing was not the case.

23. As indicated above, in response the applicant referred to not being aware of the details of the information in the application form because this had been put together by an agent in China and then later through the efforts of an agent and lawyer in Australia.

24. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant would not have provided input and been cognisant of his personal details as provided in his application for the protection visa. Whilst the information in which there are inconsistencies are matters tangential to the applicant’s claims for protection, the discrepancy in the details provided provides general credibility concerns in relation to the applicant’s claims and reinforces more central and significant credibility concerns.

25. The Tribunal has considered these four credibility concerns. Cumulatively considered, these credibility concerns are significantly damaging to the applicant’s truthfulness and credibility. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has been a truthful witness, or is credible. The Tribunal is not satisfied as to any key substantive claims by the applicant.

26. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was a practising Christian in China or indeed has been a practising Christian in Australia. The Tribunal is not satisfied that fellow Christian practitioners of the applicant in China were detained and tortured. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was arrested on multiple occasions and beaten, as claimed for the first time in the hearing. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant or his family were harassed by authorities at their home as a result of the applicant’s Christianity. The Tribunal is not satisfied that authorities in China have any ongoing adverse interest in the applicant as a result of his Christianity or otherwise. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has engaged in any Christian activity in Australia that would create concern for authorities in China upon the applicant’s return. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant would be a practising Christian on return to China.

27. Given these findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious or significant harm on return to China for the reasons claimed.

28. In summary, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason set out in s.5J(1) of the Act. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk he will suffer significant harm.

29. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).

30. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

31. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy any of the criteria in s.36(2).

    DECISION

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

    David McCulloch
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT  -  Extract from Migration Act 1958

    5 (1) Interpretation

    …

    cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:

    (a)    severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, intentionally inflicted on a person; or

    (b)   pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;

    but does not include an act or omission:

    (c)    that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

    (d)   arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

    …

    degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:

    (a)    that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

    (b)   that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

    …

    torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:

    (a)    for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or

    (b)   for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or

    (c)    for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or

    (d)   for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or

    (e)    for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;

    but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

    …

    receiving country,  in relation to a non-citizen, means:

    (a)    a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or

    (b)   if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.

    …

    5H   Meaning of refugee

    (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:

    (a)    in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or

    (b)   in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.

    Note:    For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.

    …

    5J    Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution

    (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:

    (a)    the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and

    (b)   there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and

    (c)    the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.

    Note:    For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.

    (2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.

    Note:    For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.

    (3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:

    (a)    conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or

    (b)   conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or

    (c)    without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:

    (i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;

    (ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;

    (iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;

    (iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;

    (v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;

    (vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

    (4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):

    (a)    that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and

    (b)   the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and

    (c)    the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.

    (5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:

    (a)    a threat to the person’s life or liberty;

    (b)   significant physical harassment of the person;

    (c)    significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;

    (d)   significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

    (e)    denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

    (f)    denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.

    (6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

    5K   Membership of a particular social group consisting of family

    For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:

    (a)    disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and

    (b)   disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:

    (i)the first person has ever experienced; or

    (ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

    where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.

    Note:    Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

    5L   Membership of a particular social group other than family

    For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:

    (a)    a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and

    (b)   the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and

    (c)    any of the following apply:

    (i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;

    (ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;

    (iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

    (d)   the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

    5LA Effective protection measures

    (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:

    (a)    protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:

    (i)the relevant State; or

    (ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

    (b)   the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.

    (2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:

    (a)    the person can access the protection; and

    (b)   the protection is durable; and

    (c)    in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.

    …

    36    Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act

    …

    (2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:

    (a)    a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or

    (aa)  a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    (b)   a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

    (i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and

    (ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

    (c)    a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

    (i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and

    (ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

    (2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:

    (a)    the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or

    (b)   the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or

    (c)    the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or

    (d)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or

    (e)    the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.

    (2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:

    (a)    it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    (b)   the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    (c)    the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.

    …