1910384 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of China, sought review of the Department of Home Affairs' decision to refuse his application for a protection visa. The applicant claimed to have borrowed money at a high interest rate for his mother's hospital bills, was unable to repay the debt, and consequently faced threats to himself and his family from lenders, with police being unable or unwilling to assist. He also asserted that he would be detained in China until the debt was repaid. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either as a refugee or through complementary protection.

The Tribunal was required to consider whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, as defined by section 5J of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Additionally, the Tribunal had to assess whether, in the absence of meeting the refugee criterion, there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to China, pursuant to section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This involved considering the definitions of significant harm, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, and torture, as well as the availability of effective protection measures within China.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa. This outcome was primarily due to the applicant's failure to attend a scheduled hearing and provide further information or evidence to substantiate his claims, despite being notified of the hearing and the potential for a decision to be made in his absence. The Tribunal had invited the applicant to present oral evidence and arguments, but he did not appear, nor did he provide any reasonable explanation for his absence. In these circumstances, and pursuant to section 426A of the Act, the Tribunal proceeded to make a decision based on the material before it, which was insufficient to satisfy the criteria for a protection visa. The Tribunal 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.