1802111 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Chinese citizen, sought a Protection visa, claiming she feared persecution upon return to China due to her petitioning against official corruption related to land resumption and inadequate compensation. The dispute concerned whether Australia owed her protection obligations. The matter was heard by Member Tania Flood of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa, specifically whether she was a refugee or a non-citizen in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia. This required assessing the credibility of her claims and whether the alleged persecution was for a Convention reason, or if she faced significant harm as defined by the Migration Act 1958.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims regarding her petition against corrupt land resumption practices, the alleged destruction of her property, threats, and physical assault, as well as her fear of subsequent persecution by the police. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not satisfied the onus of establishing that she met the statutory elements for a Protection visa. The decision noted that a decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for them and that the applicant must provide sufficient evidence to establish her claim. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.