1731091 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of China, sought a protection visa. The dispute concerned whether the applicant faced a real chance of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to China, based on her claim of being a devout underground Christian whose family had been harassed by police. The applicant had provided brief written claims detailing her religious beliefs, the lack of freedom of belief in China, police harassment, and her fear of harm if returned. She did not attend a departmental interview and consented to a decision without a hearing before the Tribunal, submitting only a short letter restating her claims.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant qualified as a refugee under the Migration Act 1958, specifically whether she had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, and whether Australia had protection obligations towards her. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had satisfied the statutory elements for a protection visa, considering the evidence and claims presented.

The Tribunal reasoned that the onus was on the applicant to specify all particulars of her claim and provide sufficient evidence to establish it, as mandated by section 5AAA of the Act. The Tribunal is not obliged to make or assist in making the applicant's case. The applicant's claims were found to be too brief and undetailed to be accepted as true. Her failure to attend the departmental interview and her consent to a decision without a hearing, coupled with the scant information provided, meant the material before the Tribunal was insufficient to establish her claims. The Tribunal applied the principles that a mere claim of fear does not establish its genuineness or well-foundedness, and that the applicant must satisfy all statutory elements.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, concluding that the applicant had not satisfied the criterion in section 36(2) of the Act.