1911238 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a protection visa by a Chinese national. The applicant claimed to fear harm in China due to debts owed to an "underground bank." The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to China.

The Tribunal applied the principles that the onus is on the applicant to provide sufficient detail to satisfy the statutory elements of their claim, and that a decision-maker is not required to construct the applicant's case or uncritically accept all allegations. The applicant failed to appear at the hearing, preventing the Tribunal from questioning them further about the veracity of their claims. The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims lacked essential detail regarding past events and attempts to resolve the alleged debt.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had suffered past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution for any of the prescribed reasons. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no substantial grounds to believe that the applicant would suffer significant harm upon removal to China. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.