1911807 (Refugee)

The applicants sought a protection visa, claiming they were underground Christians in China who had faced police harassment and feared persecution. The dispute concerned whether they met the criteria for a protection visa, either as refugees or on complementary protection grounds. The decision was made by the Refugee Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or alternatively, whether they faced a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia to China. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicants had provided sufficient detail and evidence to satisfy the statutory elements of these claims.

The Tribunal reasoned that the mere assertion of a fear of persecution or significant harm does not discharge the applicant's onus to prove their case. It is incumbent upon the applicant to provide specific particulars and sufficient evidence to establish all statutory elements. The Tribunal is not obliged to construct the applicant's case or accept allegations uncritically. In this instance, the applicants' claims regarding their status as underground Christians and the alleged police harassment were deemed brief and unsupported, failing to meet the required evidentiary threshold.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants a protection visa, finding that they had not satisfied the criteria under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958.