1731082 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a national of China. The applicant claimed to have fled China after participating in a public letter-writing campaign protesting a lack of compensation for the demolition of his home, which led to his neighbour's arrest by police. The applicant expressed a fear of persecution by the police upon return to China, alleging government corruption and collusion with law enforcement.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one or more of the five prescribed reasons under s.5J of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Alternatively, the court had to consider whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant's removal to China, there was a real risk of him suffering significant harm, as defined by s.36(2A) of the Act.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of relevant policy guidelines and country information. It noted that the applicant had stated he had not experienced harm in China and, while initially indicating he could relocate, later asserted that the situation in China was uniform due to government corruption and police collusion. However, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, specifically finding that he did not meet the refugee criterion under s.36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa).

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