1731797 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a protection visa made by a Chinese national. The applicant claimed to fear harm in China due to his anti-government sentiments and alleged that his statements had been reported to the Chinese consulate. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds to believe that upon removal to China, he would suffer significant harm.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's failure to substantiate his claims with sufficient detail. It was noted that the mere assertion of a fear of persecution does not establish its genuineness or that it is well-founded. The applicant bears the responsibility to provide the necessary facts to enable the decision-maker to establish the relevant elements. Despite being invited, the applicant did not attend the hearing, which prevented the Tribunal from clarifying his claims or questioning him further. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had suffered past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution for any of the specified reasons.

Given the lack of detailed evidence and the applicant's non-attendance at the hearing, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958. The Tribunal also found no basis to consider the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.