1801458 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning an applicant for a protection visa who is a citizen of China. The applicant did not attend a scheduled hearing before the Tribunal, nor did they provide a response to the Tribunal's correspondence. The Tribunal proceeded to make a decision on the merits of the application without further action to enable the applicant's appearance.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This required the Tribunal to assess whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or whether Australia had complementary protection obligations due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims but found them insufficient to establish a well-founded fear of harm. Specifically, the Tribunal noted the lack of detail regarding the alleged demolition of the applicant's home, their refusal to agree to this, the inadequacy of compensation, their petition against the government, and the circumstances of their departure from China. The Tribunal applied the principle that the onus is on the applicant to provide sufficient detail to satisfy the statutory elements for a protection visa, referencing established case law such as *Randhawa v MIEA* and *MIEA v Guo & Anor*. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not provide their personal mobile number and no response was received from them or their authorised recipient.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, concluding that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria under section 36 of the Act.