1806186 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of China, sought review of a decision not to grant him a protection visa. The dispute centred on whether the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to China, engaging Australia's protection obligations. The applicant's claims regarding persecution due to religious beliefs, political activism, and subsequent torture were contradicted by his own evidence and his ability to travel to and from China, obtain a new passport, and a driver's licence without difficulty.

The court was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to assess whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution as a refugee, or if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. This involved considering the definitions of "refugee," "well-founded fear of persecution," and "significant harm" as outlined in the Act.

The court reasoned that the applicant's claims of persecution were not credible, particularly given his contradictory statements and his documented ability to travel freely to China and obtain official documents. The applicant's assertion that he was an atheist and had no religious beliefs further undermined any claim of religious persecution. Furthermore, the court found that economic hardship and difficulties in finding work or accommodation in China did not constitute "significant harm" as defined by the Act, as these issues did not threaten his capacity to subsist. The applicant's return visits to China and his ability to obtain a new passport and driver's licence suggested he was not of adverse interest to the Chinese authorities.

Consequently, the court affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he had not satisfied the criteria for protection under the *Migration Act 1958*.