1731277 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision to refuse their protection visa application. The applicant's father had previously applied for a protection visa, claiming harm in China due to his involvement with a "Local Church." While the Refugee Review Tribunal accepted some involvement in Australia, it was not satisfied that the father would be involved in the Local Church in China or that his Australian involvement would lead to a risk of harm there. The applicant, born in Australia, was not considered a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfied the criteria for a protection visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was the credibility of the applicant's claims and whether, on accepted claims, the criteria for a protection visa were fulfilled. This involved assessing whether the applicant met the refugee criterion under s.36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) or the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa), which requires substantial grounds for believing that removal would result in a real risk of significant harm.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), including the definitions of "refugee" and "well-founded fear of persecution," as well as the provisions relating to "significant harm" and "complementary protection." The Tribunal noted that the applicant's father's claims regarding his involvement with the Local Church in China and the consequent risk of harm were not accepted by the Refugee Review Tribunal. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, specifically noting that there was no suggestion the applicant qualified as a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa.

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