1803939 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of China, sought review of a decision not to grant a protection visa. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm if returned to China, particularly in light of alleged dealings with corrupt businessmen and government officials. The matter was heard by Mr S Norman of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the Migration Act 1958. This involved assessing 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 there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia. The Tribunal also considered whether effective protection measures were available to the applicant in China, including the possibility of internal relocation.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, concluding that the applicant had not provided sufficient detail to satisfy the statutory elements for the grant of a protection visa. Despite accepting the applicant's citizenship and China as the receiving country, the Tribunal found the applicant's claims regarding engagement with corrupt individuals and the resulting pressure to be unsubstantiated. Crucially, the applicant failed to demonstrate why internal relocation within China would not be a viable option or why they did not report the alleged issues to other authorities. The Tribunal noted that the onus rests on the applicant to supply the necessary facts to enable a decision-maker to establish the case, and a decision-maker is not required to construct the applicant's case. The applicant also failed to attend the scheduled hearing, and the Tribunal proceeded to make a decision without further action, pursuant to section 426A of the Act.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 36 of the Act.