1811199 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a protection visa made by a citizen of China. The applicant claimed to fear persecution due to the appropriation of his farm for railway expansion, his forced relocation to less fertile land, and subsequent threats from police and the arrest of his father. He also alleged that his grandfather was injured when he approached higher authorities, who were confronted by armed police.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to China, he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm.

The Tribunal reasoned that the onus was on the applicant to establish all statutory elements of his claim by providing sufficient detail and evidence. The mere assertion of fear or risk does not satisfy the legal requirements. The Tribunal found significant problems with the applicant's claims, concluding that the evidence presented was not sufficiently detailed to establish a real chance of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon removal to China. The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion under section 36(2) and did not suggest he met the criterion under section 36(2)(b) or (c) as a family member of a visa holder.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.