1805095 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of China, sought a protection visa, claiming fear of harm upon return due to a property dispute with authorities who allegedly forcibly acquired her business premises. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm if returned to China. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's identity and background, including inconsistencies in her employment history as presented in previous applications and during the hearing.

The central legal issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958. This involved assessing whether she was a refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution or a non-citizen facing a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. The Tribunal was guided by Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information assessments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's sole reason for fearing harm was a property dispute, and it was her responsibility to specify all particulars of her claim and provide sufficient evidence. The applicant's oral evidence was inconsistent, particularly regarding her employment history, and she attributed discrepancies in a prior visa application to a priest who allegedly completed the paperwork. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.