1833301 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection visa by an individual and their spouse, who were refused the visa by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was tasked with reviewing this decision. The applicants claimed they feared persecution in China due to their imputed political opinion and religion, stemming from the appropriation of their house and land by village officials, subsequent harassment, threats, and beatings. They also alleged that their attempts to appeal were thwarted by the Public Security Bureau, and that their family member faced discrimination after police inquiries regarding their religious practice of Yiguandao.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants met the criteria for a Protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as refugees, or under section 36(2)(aa) as persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal. The Tribunal was required to assess the sufficiency and detail of the applicants' claims and the evidence provided to support them.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had not provided sufficient or sufficiently detailed evidence to satisfy the statutory requirements for a Protection visa. It was reiterated that the onus rests on the applicant to specify all particulars of their claim and provide adequate evidence, and that the Tribunal is not obliged to construct or assist in establishing the applicant's case. The Tribunal noted a significant passage of time since the applicants last provided information and that they declined an invitation to provide oral evidence or present arguments at a hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicants faced a real chance of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon removal to China.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the Protection visas. The applicants were found not to satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), and therefore could not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(b) or (c) either.