1825025 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of China. The applicant claimed he would face persecution in China due to his political opinion, specifically his involvement in protests against corruption and bribery related to a local official and land purchases, which he alleged led to torture in prison. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant would face persecution in China or a real risk of suffering significant harm if removed to China.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the refugee criterion under s 36(2)(a) and the complementary protection criterion under s 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Tribunal noted that significant harm and the circumstances under which a person is not taken to face a real risk of significant harm are further defined in ss 36(2A) and (2B). In its assessment, the Tribunal had regard to Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information assessments from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The Tribunal found significant concerns regarding the credibility of the applicant's evidence. These concerns arose from fundamental differences between the claims made in his protection visa application and interview, and those presented at the hearing. Further internal inconsistencies were identified, particularly concerning his central claim of imprisonment due to lodging petitions against a local official, his account of obtaining his passport and leaving China, and his motivation for coming to Australia. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in his employment history and business ventures in China.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Accordingly, the decision under review was affirmed.