1733162 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by a Chinese national and his de facto partner. The applicant claimed to fear persecution by the Chinese authorities due to his membership in a religious group known as the "Shouters" church, which he stated was considered an "evil cult" by the Chinese government. The applicant had arrived in Australia in July 2013 on a student visa, which was subsequently cancelled in April 2016, rendering him an unlawful non-citizen. He lodged his protection visa application on 3 July 2017.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This required the Tribunal to assess the applicant's claims of persecution based on his religious beliefs and the likelihood of him suffering harm if returned to China, taking into account relevant country information and guidelines. A key aspect of the assessment involved evaluating the applicant's credibility and the completeness of the information provided, particularly in light of his failure to attend a scheduled interview with the Department and the limited details initially provided in his application.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's personal statement, which detailed his fear of being arrested, jailed, and mistreated for continuing to practice his religious beliefs, as his religion was not one of the five officially sanctioned religious associations in China. The statement also asserted that the Chinese government's respect for religious freedom had deteriorated and that religious groups independent of state control were vulnerable to punitive action. Despite these claims, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence or credible information to substantiate his fear of persecution. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had selected "no" when asked if he had experienced harm in China or if he had attempted to move to another part of China to seek safety, and had not provided detailed reasons for these assertions. Furthermore, the applicant's refusal to attend an interview with the Department raised credibility concerns.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visas to the applicant and his secondary applicant partner.