1807785 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual from China. The applicant claimed to fear persecution due to his Christian faith, alleging that the Chinese government was targeting Christians, including the arrest and institutionalisation of a priest and the imprisonment of other adherents. The applicant asserted that if returned to China, he faced imprisonment, being sent to a mental hospital, or torture due to his beliefs and alleged inclusion on a political blacklist. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was tasked with reviewing the decision not to grant the visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). This required determining if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution based on his claims of religious persecution or if Australia had other protection obligations towards him. A significant procedural issue also arose concerning the applicant's failure to attend a scheduled hearing and a prior Departmental interview.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant failed to attend a scheduled Departmental interview in March 2018. Subsequently, the Tribunal issued a hearing invitation in September 2023, advising the applicant that it was unable to make a favourable decision based on the existing material and invited him to provide oral evidence and arguments at a hearing on 20 October 2023. The applicant was warned that a decision might be made without further notice if he did not attend and a postponement was not granted. Despite receiving the invitation and two SMS reminders, the applicant did not respond, request a reschedule, or attend the hearing. Consequently, pursuant to section 426A of the Act, the Tribunal proceeded to make its decision without further action to enable the applicant's appearance. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the Act.