1810066 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) reviewed a decision concerning an application for a protection visa by a citizen of China. The applicant failed to attend a scheduled hearing via Microsoft Teams, despite being contacted beforehand with the assistance of an interpreter and being aware of the hearing details. The Tribunal, exercising its discretion under section 426A of the Migration Act 1958, proceeded to make a decision without further action to enable the applicant's appearance.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason as defined by section 5H of the Act. This required the Tribunal to assess the applicant's claims of owing a substantial debt from a pyramid scheme, facing threats of death from a friend if the debt was not repaid, and his inability to obtain assistance from the Public Security Bureau or a bank. The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's written claims lacked detail and were not corroborated by any evidence. The failure to attend the hearing, coupled with the absence of supporting documentation, meant the applicant had not satisfied the onus of proving his claims. The Tribunal referenced the principle established in *MIEA v Guo* (1997) 191 CLR 559, that a mere claim of fear of persecution is insufficient; the applicant must persuade the decision-maker that all statutory elements are met. Given the lack of evidence and the applicant's non-attendance, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or that he would suffer significant harm upon removal from Australia. The Tribunal also noted a delay of over two months in lodging the visa application, which was inconsistent with his claimed urgent need to flee China.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958.