1731739 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a male Chinese citizen. The applicant claimed he feared harm from local police and authorities in China due to a compulsory land acquisition dispute and irregular business debts, citing the detention and injury of his business partner as evidence of the risks he faced. The applicant arrived in Australia in July 2017 and applied for a protection visa on 29 August 2017.

The core legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This required the Tribunal to assess whether there was a real risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm if returned to China, considering the country information provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and the applicant's specific claims. A key consideration was whether any identified risk was faced by the population generally or by the applicant personally, pursuant to s 36(2B)(c) of the Act.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the country information regarding China's security apparatus, police powers, judicial system, and the prevalence of corruption. It noted that while protests concerning land disputes are common, the treatment of individuals often depends on the attitude of local officials. Crucially, the Tribunal found the applicant's claims to be vague and lacking corroborative evidence. Furthermore, the applicant disclaimed any fear of harm at the hearing. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a real risk of significant harm, and therefore, the decision under review to refuse the protection visa was affirmed.