1807814 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of China, sought review of a decision to refuse her a protection visa. She claimed to have been arrested, beaten, and detained by police in June 2017 after petitioning local authorities regarding the appropriation of her elderly father's land. She further alleged that upon her release, village officials suppressed her welfare and used her as a warning to others. The applicant arrived in Australia in August 2017 and subsequently applied for a protection visa, which was refused by the delegate. The matter came before the Tribunal for review.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, as defined by section 5H of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her removal to China, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm, pursuant to section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found the applicant's oral evidence to be vague, inconsistent, and lacking in detail. Specifically, the Tribunal noted inconsistencies regarding the timing of her petitioning activities and her awareness of being of adverse interest to the authorities. The applicant's claims about the compensation received for her father's land also contained discrepancies. Given these issues with the applicant's credibility and the vagueness of her claims about the specific problems she would face upon return to China, the Tribunal was not satisfied that she had a well-founded fear of persecution or that she faced a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's migration history, including her arrival in Australia on a visitor visa and her subsequent application for a protection visa, as well as her failure to attend a scheduled interview.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).