1802843 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse to grant the applicant, a citizen of China, a protection visa. The applicant had applied for the visa on 15 September 2017, and the delegate refused it on 2 February 2018, finding that Australia did not have protection obligations towards the applicant under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicant sought review of this decision before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether Australia had protection obligations towards him. This involved assessing the veracity of his claims regarding his religious beliefs and activities in China, and his fear of persecution upon return. The Tribunal was also required to consider the applicant's conduct, including his prolonged period in Australia without a valid visa and his admissions that his initial protection visa application and subsequent statements to the Department contained false information provided on the advice of an agent.

The Tribunal ultimately affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa. The applicant's evidence before the Tribunal was found to be "quite extraordinary," as he admitted that his original protection visa application and subsequent statements to the Department were largely fabricated. He stated he was not a religious person, not a Christian, and did not fear returning to China or persecution there. He further conceded that the incident involving his father did not occur. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had repeatedly failed to attend scheduled hearings, requiring multiple postponements and reinstatements of his application, and had admitted to being untrustworthy of agents due to past experiences.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established that he was a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations. His admissions regarding the falsity of his claims, his lack of religious conviction, and his absence of fear of returning to China led the Tribunal to find that the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa should be affirmed.