1836146 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Chinese national, sought review of a decision to refuse him a protection visa. The dispute concerned whether he met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to China. The matter was heard by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), based on a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion. Alternatively, the Tribunal had to consider if the applicant met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), which requires substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, there is a real risk of suffering significant harm.

The applicant claimed he feared detention and torture upon return to China due to his involvement in protests against unfair compensation for land expropriation. He stated that after his departure on a work trip, other apartment owners involved in the protests were detained. The Tribunal found that while the applicant had participated in protests and was arrested and detained for a period in December 2017, and subsequently dismissed from his employment, it was not satisfied that he had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there was a real risk of significant harm to the applicant as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to China, applying the principles outlined in sections 36(2)(aa), 36(2A), and 36(2B) of the Act.

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