1809369 (Refugee)

[2021] AATA 3508

1809369 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 3508 (14 July 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1809369

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   China

MEMBER:Genevieve Hamilton

DATE:14 July 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.

Statement made on 14 July 2021 at 3:29pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – religion – Christianity – Local Church – ‘Shouters’ – credibility concerns – legal departure from China – memory issues – delay in seeking protection – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65, 424A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.03; Schedule 2

CASES
Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

BACKGROUND

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The first named applicant (the applicant) arrived in Australia [in] August 2012 and applied for a protection visa on 8 September 2016.  Her daughter (the included applicant) was born in Australia on [date] and was deemed to have made the same application pursuant to Migration Regulation 2.03.  The delegate refused to grant protection visas on 20 March 2018.  The applicants applied for review of the decision on 4 April 2018.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

3. Under section 65(1) of the Act a visa may be granted only if the decision maker is satisfied that the criteria for the visa prescribed in the Act are met.

4. The criteria for a protection visa are relevantly set out in s.36 of the Act.  An applicant must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c).  Generally speaking, they must either be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or be a member of the same family unit as such a person.

   Refugee

5. Refugee is defined in the Act.  A person is a refugee if they are outside the country of their nationality (of if they have no nationality, their country of former habitual residence) and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s.5H(1).  

6. Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country.

7. The criterion in s.5J(1) contains a subjective requirement, that an applicant must in fact hold a fear of being persecuted, but also imposes an objective standard, that there be a real chance the person would be persecuted. A 'real chance' is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility: Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379.

8. The persecution must involve serious harm such as a threat to the person’s life or liberty or significant physical harassment or ill treatment, significant economic hardship that threatens their capacity to subsist, or denial of access to basic services or capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens their capacity to subsist (ss 5J(4) and (5)).

9. A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to them in the receiving country (ss 5J(2) and 5LA). 

10. A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecutionif the person could take reasonable steps to modify their behaviour to avoid persecution (s.5J(3), which also gives examples of types of modifications that are not required, such as concealing one’s religion, political opinion, race or sexual orientation). 

11. In determining whether the person has a well-founded fear of persecution, any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless they satisfy the Minister that they engaged in the conduct for a reason other than to strengthen their claim to be a refugee (s.5J(6)).

    Complementary Protection

12. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), they may still be a person to whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations if there are substantial grounds to believe that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa).  S.36(2A) defines significant harm as arbitrary deprivation of life, carrying out of the death penalty, torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 

    CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

13. In her application it is stated that the applicant was born on [date] in Yangzhong City, Jiangsu, China.  She speaks reads and writes Mandarin and requires a Mandarin interpreter.   She travelled to Australia on a Chinese passport issued [in] 2012, arriving [in] August 2012.  She has completed 12 years of education including attending University to August 2012.  She has no employment history.  At that stage she was single. 

14. The applicant said the first meaningful thing that happened her life was to become a very devout Christian.  In China her belief was not respected instead faced continuous forced obstacles, local government and police persecution.  She urgently hopes for the protection of the Australian Government so that she can stay in Australia free to believe her God.  If she returns to China she will be arrested by the local government and punished, as her family have told her.  Her regular church activities have been severely persecuted.  The applicant recounts an incident where her group was surrounded by police and while some managed to escape the majority were put into the Public Security Bureau car. 

15. The applicant said she was harmed by the PSB.  She was illegally interrogated and insulted, handcuffed for four hours, hit twice in the face and stripped.  She was shamed, and made to confess that her Church was a cult, and threatened that if she did not accept this it would lead to a beating.  She was attacked with hot (chilli) water and accused of being in an illegal gathering, and of being stubborn and unrepentant.  Her arms had been beaten until very painful and couldn’t move.  She was detained for 26 days.  Her family bailed her out.  Since she has been in Australia her parents have been the subject of local government supervision, the authorities want to know her whereabouts.  Her parents must be charged in order to teach her.  If she goes back she will be caught and beaten in custody.  The family church continued its activities; they frequently changed their location, but they continued to become a guest of the PSB.  She is very afraid.

16. The applicant said that her church had become the object of surveillance because the Chinese government does not accept family church. 

17. The applicant said she left China legally and had no difficulties obtaining a passport.  She is in contact with her parents in China.  

18. The applicant also provided a statement of her claims, written in English.  In addition to the above claims, she added that she was introduced to the Christian Church by her friend [Ms A].  People gathered in [Ms A]’s home.  The applicant describes how she became deeply attracted to Christianity and became baptised.  She began to frequent the formal family church activities.  The Church members were very helpful to each other.  The applicant said that her church leader [Ms A] lost her personal freedom, her property was illegally searched and cash and shares were take away from her.  Her son and parents are still afraid to go home. 

19. It is stated in the Delegate’s decision that the applicant applied for a second student visa onshore on 14 March 2015, which expired on 15 Mar 2016.  At interview the applicant said she stopped studying in late 2014 or early 2015.  She could not remember when her student visa ceased.  She didn’t return to China because she was afraid of being arrested.  She became a Christian when she was 16 or 17.  The applicant said she did not think of herself as a “Shouter” but said her faith was classified as an evil cult by the authorities.  Asked whether she was involved in evangelising in China the applicant said she was, and prompted by a series of questions in due course claimed to have converted 6 people to the Local Church. 

20. In support of her review application the applicant provided some news reports about the treatment of Christians in China including the Local Church.  She also provided a statutory declaration reiterating her claims.  She said it was in 2008 that she joined the local family church activities through the introduction of her friend [Ms A].  The incident of her detention occurred on 1 August 2011.  After that the PSB continued to harass her and she was taken away and detained three or four times and detained for one or two nights each time.  The applicant said she was not aware of the right to apply for a protection visa until September 2016.  Also, the applicant defined her religious adherence in China as “local family church” and “local church”, but said it was proclaimed by the CCP as an evil cult and named the Shouters. 

21. Among the news reports submitted by the applicant is one from Bitter Winter about incidents of the detention of Local Church preachers and practitioners and confiscation of their Bibles.  Others are about house churches and other religious groups. 

22. The Tribunal conducted a hearing of the matter on 1 April 2021 with the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter. 

23. On 20 April 2021 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant in accordance with s.424A of the Act inviting her to comment on or respond to certain information which it considered would, subject to her comments or response, be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decisions under review.  The letter specified the following particulars of information, their relevance, and the consequences of the Tribunal relying on the information:

    The particulars of the information are:

    •You arrived in Australia [in] August 2012.

    •You applied for a second student visa onshore on 14 March 2015, which expired on 15 March 2016. 

    •At your protection visa interview, you stated that you stopped studying in late 2014 or early 2015. 

    •You only applied for a protection visa on 8 September 2016.

    This information is relevant to the review because the delay in lodging a protection visa application casts doubt on the credibility of your claim to have a fear of persecution.  

    Further particulars of the information are:

    •At interview, you said you did not remember when you found out about protection visas, whereas in support of your review application you have stated that this occurred in September 2016. 

    •At interview, you could not remember the year, or the month, or the date of the incident of the raid which led to your detention.  But you have stated in support of your review application that this occurred on 1 August 2011. 

    •At interview, you said you started going to the Church in [Australian City 1] at the end of 2015.  But in the Tribunal hearing, you said you started going in March. 

    This information is relevant to the review because the discrepancies in your evidence cast doubt on the credibility of your claims to have been a practitioner of Local Church in China, to have been detained and harmed in relation to that practice, and to be a practitioner at the Local Church in [City 1]

    If we rely on this information in making our decision, we may find that you do not have a well-founded fear of persecution, which would be a reason for affirming the Delegate’s decision. 

24. In reply the applicant provided a further statutory declaration.  She confirmed that she was initially unable to remember the date of the incident of her being arrested because it had been more than six years before the Delegate’s interview.  But she contacted her parents before the AAT review and they told her the date.  Similarly, when preparing for the AAT review she recalled that she became aware of protection visas not long before lodging her protection visa application.  The applicant said she actually continued studying until late 2015 and early 2016: her previous evidence had been in error on this point.  The applicant also provided information about the history of Local Church and said that Christianity was a central part of her life. 

25. The applicant reiterated her claim that the Shouters are a persecuted religion.  She reiterated her claims concerning her detention for 26 days, and said that subsequently police officers made random checks on her and continued to harass her, and locked her up three to four times.   She asked the Tribunal to take into account that she only slept for about two hours the night before the hearing and therefore was quite confused and sometimes her brain was not functioning on the day. 

    FINDINGS AND REASONS

26. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

27. Based on the information on the Department’s file, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is a Chinese national.

28. During the protection visa interview it emerged that the applicant was claiming to be a member of Local Church both in China and in Australia.  She reiterated this claim at the review stage.  She did not pursue any claim to fear persecution as a Christian in general, or as a member of any other unregistered Church. 

29. The history, structure, doctrine and unique worship of the Local Church, and how it came to be banned by the CCP and labelled the Shouters and listed as a cult (due to its links to the US and Taiwan, its evangelical enterprise, and its resistance to registration) is described in the (former) RRT background paper “The Local Church in China” issued in January 2013.  Further information about Local Church is available on its website The website does not identify any branches in mainland China. 

30. The DFAT Country Information Report on China dated 3 October 2019 (“DFAT Report”) contains the following information about religious practice in general, and various Christian practices in particular, including a short note on the Local Church:

    3.44 Broadly speaking, religious practice in China is possible within state-sanctioned boundaries, as long as such practices do not challenge the interests or authority of the Chinese government. While practice of non-recognised faiths or by unregistered organisations is illegal and vulnerable to punitive official action, it is, to some degree, tolerated, especially in relation to traditional Chinese beliefs. Nevertheless, restrictions on religious organisations vary widely according to local conditions, and can be inconsistent or lack transparency, making it difficult to form general conclusions.

    …

    3.48 DFAT assesses an individual’s ability to practise religion can be influenced by whether the individual exercises faith in registered or unregistered institutions, whether they practice openly or privately, and whether or not an individual’s religious expression is perceived by the CCP to be closely tied to other ethnic, political and security issues.

    …

    3.76 China has seen a significant growth in Christianity since the 1980s. In 2010, the Pew Research Center estimated there were 67 million Christians in China (58 million Protestant, including both state-sanctioned and independent churches). However, 2018 estimates had grown closer to 100 million (unregistered churchgoers outnumber members of official churches nearly two to one).

    3.77 In addition to state-sanctioned Catholic and (non-denominational) Protestant churches in China, [the CCP] historically permitted friends and family to hold small, informal prayer meetings without official registration.  This, combined with the controlled nature of religious worship amongst registered Christian institutions, has led to the proliferation of sizeable unregistered Christian communities in both rural and urban China. Independent churches, otherwise known as ‘house’ or ‘family’ churches (for Protestant organisations), and ‘underground’ churches (for Catholic organisations) are private religious forums that adherents create in their own homes or other places of worship. ‘House’ or ‘underground’ churches vary in size from around 30 to several thousand participants/attendees.

    3.78 There has been an increase in state control of both registered and unregistered churches in recent years, including targeted campaigns to remove hundreds of rooftop crosses from churches, forced demolitions of churches, and harassment and imprisonment of Christian pastors and priests. 

    …

    3.87 Estimates of numbers of unregistered Protestants in China vary from around 30 million to over 100 million. Unregistered Protestant churches risk adverse treatment by authorities due to their illegal status. Adverse treatment can include raids and destruction of church property, pressure to join or report to government-sanctioned religious organisations and, on occasion, violence and criminal sanction, particularly in response to land disputes with local authorities. DFAT is aware of, but cannot verify, reports of authorities pressuring house churches by cutting off electricity or forcing landlords to evict members. Some members of house churches claim to have been able to use registered church facilities for weddings, or to purchase bibles. Others have reported difficulties in hiring even commercial facilities such as hotels or restaurants, because of their association with illegal churches. Christian organisations report house church members were arrested in 2017 for refusing to register with the TSPM, and Christian schools were closed for ‘brainwashing’ children.

    3.88 … In May 2019, media and Christian advocacy groups reported the government launched a new campaign called ‘Return to Zero’ in April 2019, aimed at eradicating underground house churches and ensuring only state sanctioned and heavily restricted TPSM churches remained functional.

    3.93 The Criminal Law provides for prison sentences of up to seven years for individuals who use ‘superstitious sects, secret societies or evil religious organisations’ to undermine the state’s laws or administrative regulations. …

    3.94 In September 2017, the government published a list of 20 banned groups on its official Anti-Cult website ‘xie jiao’(cult) and launched an anti-cult platform on social media called ‘Say No to Cult,’ which includes a function for reporting suspicious activity.  Eleven banned groups were listed as ‘dangerous’ on the xie jiao website:… [including] The Shouters.

    …

    3.105 The Shouters (also known as ‘Yellers’, ‘Local Church’, ‘Recovery Church’, ‘Assembly Hall’ and ‘Assemblies’) are a Chinese offshoot of Watchman Nee's Little Flock led by Nee's student, Changshou Li, otherwise known as ‘Witness Lee’. The Shouters were created in the US in 1962 and introduced to China in 1979. Witness Li created a ‘Recovery Bible’ by annotating the standard Bible and claimed that the gift of tongues could be taught, and that salvation could be had by saying ‘O Lord’ three times. The Shouters are named for their practice of stamping their feet while shouting as part of their worship. By 1983, the group had up to 200,000 followers across China.

    3.106 The CCP targeted the Shouters in the early 1980s as counter-revolutionary, and the Shouters splintered into several groups including Eastern Lightning (also known as the Church of Almighty God, see Eastern Lightning). DFAT is unable to verify the extent to which Shouters remain active in China.

1. Bitterwinter is an online magazine on religious liberty and human rights in China published by CESNUR, the Center for Studies on New Religions, headquartered in Torino, Italy.  It has received and published occasional reports of Local Church leaders and practitioners being detained.  These reports cannot be verified but they are consistent with the DFAT report.  

2. Both at interview and at the Tribunal hearing the applicant demonstrated some familiarity with the unique features of the Local Church and the Tribunal accepts that she has attended its services in [City 1].  For example she said that practitioners would shout out to the Lord during services, that they do not celebrate Christmas and Easter.  They use the Recovery Bible and she was able to identify it.  She explained the significance of baptism.  She was able to describe the other features of their services.   She attends the brothers and sisters’ home gatherings although she is aware of other venues such as the school and Church Hall, and her husband has been to the Church Hall. 

3. However, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was a member of the Local Church in China.  In her application she called it a “family church”.  At the hearing the applicant was unclear in identifying her form of worship in China.  Asked the name of her Church the applicant said they were known as The Shouters.  The Tribunal noted that the Local Churches usually had a name identifying them by their location, e.g. the Local Church in [City 1] (as indicated in the website cited above).  The applicant said her Church in China had no such name.  However, the Tribunal does not accept that this is the case.  The Local Churches were founded in China and the same naming convention would apply there as in the other nations where it is practiced.  The applicant’s evidence about the name of her faith in China was not consistent with her claim to have been involved in a unique and illegal practice over several years. 

4. From finding that the applicant was not a member of the Local Church in China, it follows that the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was detained for being a member of the Local Church.  Other factors reinforce this finding. 

5. First, the applicant confirmed that she had no difficulties obtaining a passport or leaving China.  At the hearing the Tribunal observed that this appeared to be at odds with her claim to have been repeatedly detained and that her Church was under surveillance.  The applicant said she was always released and was not being investigated at the time she left and the local authorities were not necessarily confident in the rightness of their actions.  The Tribunal does not find these explanations persuasive, considering the applicant presented the claim as being that she and her fellow church goers were under constant adverse attention by the authorities. 

6. Secondly, the evidence about the event itself lacked credibility.  At interview the applicant could not remember the year, let alone the month the date of the incident of the raid which led to her detention.  The applicant has not provided a convincing explanation of this, considering that the incident was, as claimed, very dramatic and harmful.  At the hearing she reiterated the length of detention and the harm she experienced precisely as per her previously written claims.  Regarding her inability to recall the date at the interview, the applicant said she was very anxious and did not try to remember such a bad experience, but she did remember it very clearly.  The Tribunal observed that the applicant had been able to say in her application that it was 26 days of detention.  The applicant said this was also told to her by her parents.  The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she was at university at the time.  The applicant did not answer the question.  The Tribunal asked her whether she was on holidays at the time, the applicant said maybe, it was a long time ago.  Asked who else was detained, the applicant said she did not know as she was held on her own.  Asked whether the church members didn’t discuss it afterwards, the applicant said they did not want to talk about it afterwards. 

7. The Tribunal would expect that the applicant would have some information about the experience of her fellow sufferers in this incident, if it occurred.  The Tribunal would also expect the applicant herself would have an approximate if not an exact recollection of the date of such a traumatic event if it occurred.  The applicant also was not able to situate this event in a time of other life events. 

8. Thirdly, the applicant had been in Australia for four years before making a protection visa application.  The period of time elapsing between an applicant’s arrival in Australia and the making of the application for refugee status is a legitimate matter to take into account when assessing the genuineness, or at least the depth, of the applicant’s fear of persecution. 

9. At interview, when asked why she did not lodge a protection visa application in 2012 the applicant said she did not know about such a visa.  She did know that her student visa had expired.  A sister at the Church told her about protection visas but said not to apply until her current visa expired.  She did not remember when this happened.  At the hearing the applicant said her main reason for coming here was to flee persecution.  Asked why, this being the case, she did not apply for protection sooner, the applicant said she did not know about protection visas.  The Tribunal observed that this did not sit well with her claim to fear persecution.  Didn’t she discuss her options with others?  The applicant said all the students talk about is music, hobbies and study.   Only in September 2016, when she told the church brothers and sisters why she could not go back to China, they mentioned the protection visa.  She was told that it would not be possible to lodge a protection visa if the student visa had not expired.  The Tribunal put it to the applicant that she would have been aware that her second student visa had already expired in March 2016 because she would have received a grant letter with the expiry date on it.  The applicant said she was not very mature and didn’t pay attention to this matter.  The Tribunal is not persuaded by the applicant’s explanation for the delay.  The existence of the general category of protection visas is a matter of wide reporting in Australia, and visa status and dealing with the Department would certainly be discussed among students aspiring to migrate. 

10. The credibility of the applicant’s claims was also adversely affected by the discrepancy with regard to the date she started going to the Local Church in [City 1].  The applicant said in the interview she meant that she had joined the Church BY the end of 2015, not AT the end.  However, this interpretation is strained: the applicant clearly said at the interview that she began attending at the end of 2015.  Asked why she did not start going sooner, the applicant said she was focused on her study.  A further credibility arose during this discussion during the hearing: the applicant said she was frightened and she did not know that Australia had freedom of religion.  Then she met someone of faith who told her that it was free to be religious in Australia and began attending the gatherings.  The Tribunal does not find this answer persuasive.  The applicant claimed to have been seriously harmed in China due to her religion and said at the hearing that she fled to Australia seeking freedom from persecution, she would have known it was permitted to go to Church here. 

11. As the Tribunal has not accepted that the applicant was detained, it follows that the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was harmed as claimed during detention, or that since she has been in Australia her parents have been the subject adverse local government attention because of her. 

12. At interview the applicant was prompted by questioning from the Delegate to claim that she had converted about 6 people to her Church.  She reiterated this claim at the hearing.  However, since the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is a member of the Local Church, it does not accept this claim to be have evangelised.  It does not accept that she has a church friend called [Ms A] who has been harmed because of her religion. 

13. Furthermore, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was subject to further incidents of surveillance or detention.  Again, the detail on these incidents was consistently unclear.  Asked at the interview if she was detained any further times the applicant said yes, a few.  Asked how many times, she said 3 or 4 times.  Asked how long she was detained for on these occasions, she said one or two days.  Other times she was just taken into the police station for education.  At the hearing, the Tribunal asked the applicant how many times the authorities came after that, the applicant said it was “3 or 4” times and each time she was detained for 1 or two days.  Asked whether she could be more precise as to the number of occasions, and length of detention each time, the applicant said she could not, neither she nor her family kept records at the time.  The Tribunal said it would think these incidents were important and that the lack of clarity in such aspects of her claims could lead to the view that her account of events was rehearsed.  The applicant said she tried not to remember.  The Tribunal is not persuaded by this answer, as other elements of the claims were described in vivid detail. 

14. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claim that her evidence in general was affected by memory issues (whether due to trauma or lack of sleep or both) and that her parents had reminded her of certain matters.  However the Tribunal does not accept that this was the case.  As she was able to recite some aspects of her case in detail in what appeared to be a rehearsed fashion, the Tribunal finds that where she was unable to remember key elements of her claims, it is because the events did not occur, or not as claimed.   

15. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant will continue to worship at Local Church in China.  The applicant’s evidence indicates a low level of interest, despite the claimed centrality of Christianity in her life.  Both at interview and hearing the applicant said she only goes to gatherings at brother’s and sisters’ houses, not to formal services.  At the hearing the applicant said she did not go to that many brothers and sisters’ houses because she got pregnant and then had the baby to take care of.  She didn’t go that much. 

16. The available country information would not support a finding, and the Tribunal does not accept, that the Chinese authorities take an adverse interest in church attendance by their nationals in Australia, as an isolated factor. 

17. The applicant’s husband was refused a protection visa and that decision was affirmed by the Tribunal (differently constituted).  The Tribunal has examined the decision in relation to the applicant’s husband and evaluates that it is neither adverse to or supportive of the applicant’s claims as, even though they both made religious claims, they married after their claims arose.  

18. Having considered the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm for reasons of her religion or any other reason.  She therefore does not have a well-founded fear of persecution as required by s.5J(1).  The Tribunal finds that the applicant is not a refugee as defined in s.5H(1). 

19. Having concluded that the applicant is not a refugee, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant is a person to whom Australia owes complementary protection obligations.  The Tribunal has not accepted the factual basis of the applicant’s claims to fear harm in China.  The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied there are substantial grounds to believe that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to China, there is real risk that she will suffer significant harm.

    CONCLUSION

20. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a).

21. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has complementary protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa). 

22. No protection claims were made specifically in relation to the included applicant.  The Tribunal considered whether the included applicant might be harmed in association with her mother’s claims.  However, as the Tribunal has not accepted that the applicant herself is a refugee or a person to whom Australia owes complementary protection obligations, the Tribunal further finds that the included applicant is not a refugee or a person to whom Australia owes complementary protection obligations.

23. Neither the applicant nor the included applicant is a member of the family unit of a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. 

24. Accordingly, the applicants do not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).

    DECISION

25. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.

    Genevieve Hamilton
    Member