1805665 (Refugee)

The case involved three applicants seeking protection visas. The first applicant, a Chinese citizen of Christian faith, claimed she feared persecution upon return to China due to her religious beliefs. She had been in Australia on student visas and subsequently remained in Australia unlawfully for a significant period before applying for protection. The second applicant, her de facto partner, and the third applicant, their Australian-born child, did not make separate claims. The decision under review affirmed the refusal of the protection visas.

The court was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), and for the child, under section 36(2)(b)(i) or 36(2)(c)(i). This involved assessing the credibility of the claims made by the first applicant and considering whether she had a well-founded fear of persecution based on her religious beliefs and activities, or if she would suffer harm if returned to China. The court also had to consider the country information regarding religious freedom and state protection in China.

The court found the first applicant's claims to be vague and unconvincing. It noted that she had remained in Australia unlawfully for an extended period before applying for a protection visa, suggesting her church membership and activities in Australia may have been for the purpose of strengthening her claim. The court also considered the country information, which indicated that while freedom of religion is constitutionally protected, adherents of religious groups, including unregistered ones, faced intensifying official persecution. However, the court was not satisfied that the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution, particularly in light of her delayed application and the nature of her claims. The court concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.