1912442 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Refugee Tribunal to affirm the refusal of a protection visa to the applicant, who is from China. The applicant claimed he feared harm upon return to China due to his inability to repay loans from underground banks, which he alleged involved gangsters and corrupt officials. He also claimed to have protested against corrupt local officials regarding the government acquisition of his family's farmland.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This required determining if the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of section 5H of the Act, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and if there was a real chance of such persecution in China. The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, which involves a real risk of significant harm upon removal.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's credibility. It found that the applicant was not a witness of truth, citing inconsistencies in his evidence. The Tribunal noted that while the applicant claimed to have protested against corrupt officials, this was not substantiated. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant's claims regarding harm from gangsters and torture, including being forced to drink urine, were not credible. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm, and therefore did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.

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