1910749 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming to be a refugee due to persecution as an underground Christian in China. The dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either as a refugee or on complementary protection grounds. The decision was made by a member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of the Migration Act 1958, specifically whether she had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, and if not, whether she faced a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to China, thus qualifying for complementary protection. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims against the statutory definitions and evidentiary requirements.

The Tribunal reasoned that the mere assertion of a fear of persecution or significant harm does not satisfy the applicant's onus to prove their case. The applicant must provide sufficient particulars and evidence to establish all statutory elements. In this instance, the applicant's claims about being an underground Christian and facing harassment were described as brief and unsupported. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had previously travelled to and from China legally, including obtaining a new passport and departing China for Australia. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for a protection visa.

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