1812448 (REFUGEE)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning an applicant for a protection visa who is a citizen of China. The applicant claimed to have fled China in May 2017 due to persecution related to his family's Christian faith, alleging his mother was arrested and died in detention, and that he himself was subsequently detained, tortured, and harassed by authorities. The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims against the background of country information regarding the regulation of Christianity in China.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant qualified for protection obligations under Australian law, specifically whether he was a refugee or faced a real risk of significant harm upon removal to China. This required the Tribunal to assess the credibility and evidentiary support for the applicant's claims of persecution based on his religious beliefs and his family's activities. The Tribunal also had to consider the provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* concerning well-founded fear of persecution and significant harm.

The Tribunal found the applicant's claims to lack credibility and sufficient detail. It noted the absence of evidence, such as baptism certificates, to support the assertion that the applicant and his family were baptised into Christianity. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not adequately explain his own involvement in his mother's house church or his continued practice of Christianity. The Tribunal also questioned the applicant's assertion that his mother's small family gathering group would lead to her arrest, as country information suggested such groups were generally tolerated. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant did not satisfy the criteria for being a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958*, nor was there a basis to consider complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for being a member of the same family unit as a person who holds a protection visa.