1800172 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of China, sought review of a delegate's decision to refuse him a protection visa. The applicant claimed he left China due to persecution by government officials concerning a dispute over compensation for property acquisition. He alleged that officials attempted to force him to sign a demolition agreement for his home, resorting to violence and threats when he refused. He further claimed to have petitioned the city government for a reasonable explanation and compensation, after which police were sent to apprehend him, prompting his escape to Australia. He expressed fear of persecution, imprisonment, and physical and mental harm if returned to China, believing the authorities were corrupt and collusive.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant was a refugee, as defined by section 5H, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, or if he qualified for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia. The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of the applicant's claims and consider whether any claimed fear of persecution was well-founded, taking into account the provisions regarding effective protection measures and the possibility of reasonable steps to avoid persecution.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence to be vague, implausible, and inconsistent, particularly in relation to his oral evidence presented to the Tribunal, which did not adequately address his original claims. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, nor had he demonstrated a real risk of suffering significant harm upon return to China. The Tribunal noted that any risk from COVID-19, which the applicant raised, would be a general risk faced by the population and not personally directed at him, and therefore did not constitute significant harm under the complementary protection guidelines.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).