1804347 (Refugee)

The applicants, citizens of China, sought review of a decision not to grant them protection visas. Their claims involved alleged extortion by local government inspectors and threats and violence from gangsters, which they asserted forced them to cease operating their business and led them to fear for their safety. The applicants did not attend a departmental interview, respond to the Tribunal's hearing invitation, or make contact when provided with a link to a video conference hearing, which was offered due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as refugees, or under section 36(2)(aa) as persons facing significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia. This required the Tribunal to assess the genuineness and well-foundedness of the applicants' fear of persecution or significant harm.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visas. It applied the principles that a mere claim of fear is insufficient and that the applicant must satisfy the Tribunal that all statutory elements are met, referencing *MIEA v Guo* (1997) 191 CLR 559. The Tribunal noted the applicants' failure to engage with the process, including not attending the departmental interview or responding to the hearing invitation, which prevented a full assessment of their claims. Without sufficient evidence or engagement, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under either section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa).