1731191 (Refugee)

This matter concerned a protection visa application by a Chinese national. The applicant claimed he feared persecution by the police and government upon return to China due to his complaint about inadequate compensation for land acquisition, which led to other protesters being apprehended. The applicant failed to appear at his hearing before the Tribunal and did not provide requested corroborating evidence, such as medical documentation for alleged injuries or details of a required operation.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution, as required by section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), or a real risk of significant harm under the complementary protection criterion in section 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims in light of the statutory definitions of "refugee" and "well-founded fear of persecution," and consider the available country information and relevant guidelines.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's claims lacked the necessary detail and corroboration to satisfy the evidentiary burden. The applicant's failure to attend the hearing or provide requested information, coupled with inconsistencies in his previous statements to Australian authorities, meant the Tribunal was not satisfied that his alleged experiences, including the demolition of his house, inadequate compensation, complaint to authorities, and subsequent flight, were established. The Tribunal applied the principle that a mere claim of fear is insufficient and that the applicant must persuade the decision-maker that all statutory elements are met, referencing *MIEA v Guo* (1997) 191 CLR 559.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he had not satisfied the criteria under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).