1810720 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Chinese national, sought a protection visa, claiming he feared persecution due to a dispute over his business in China. The applicant alleged a developer attempted to forcibly acquire his food factory at a reduced price, damaging the premises, and that his subsequent complaint to the police and a public letter resulted in authorities seeking his arrest, compelling his departure from China. The Department initially made a decision based on written submissions as the applicant did not attend an interview. The matter was subsequently heard by the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations, specifically whether he met the criteria for being a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, or alternatively, the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). This required determining if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or if there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal to China.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion of a well-founded fear of persecution. While acknowledging the applicant's business dispute and the owner's demand for him to vacate the premises, the Tribunal concluded that these circumstances did not amount to persecution for any of the prescribed reasons. The applicant's claims of police involvement were not substantiated to the Tribunal's satisfaction as constituting a fear of persecution by the authorities. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm upon return to China, nor that he could not reasonably relocate within China or access protection. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.