1910572 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa, who claimed to be a Chinese national. The applicant alleged membership in an underground Christian church in China, and that he and friends were arrested and detained for attempting to prevent the removal of a cross from their church. He further claimed that he could not relocate within China to avoid authorities and would face arrest and lack of protection if returned. The applicant arrived in Australia in December 2017 and lodged his protection visa application in January 2018, but did not attend a scheduled interview with the Department.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, or if he met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims in light of the evidence provided and relevant country information, considering the onus on the applicant to supply sufficient detail to establish the facts of his case.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not provided sufficient detail to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. While acknowledging the applicant's claims regarding his religious beliefs and past detention, the Tribunal noted the absence of further information beyond his initial application, particularly given his failure to attend a scheduled interview. The Tribunal applied the principles that the mere assertion of fear does not establish its genuineness or well-foundedness, and that the Tribunal is not obliged to construct the applicant's case for him. The Tribunal also considered the provisions for complementary protection, but ultimately found that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for either refugee status or complementary protection.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958.