1912571 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of China. The applicant claimed to be a devout underground Christian who feared harm from the Chinese government if returned to China, alleging that the Communist Party combatted underground religious beliefs and that many of his church friends had been tortured. He stated that police had come to his home and harassed his family, leading him to flee to Australia. The applicant departed China legally using his own passport. The Tribunal was asked to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of a protection visa under section 36(2) of the Act.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant would face a real risk of significant harm if returned to China, as contemplated by section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, which addresses complementary protection obligations. This required the Tribunal to assess the applicant's claims of persecution based on his religious beliefs against available country information regarding the treatment of underground Christians in China and the effectiveness of Chinese border controls. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had provided sufficient information to establish his claims, particularly in light of his legal departure from China.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant had not established a real risk of significant harm. While accepting the applicant was a Christian, the Tribunal noted he had not claimed to be a church leader or to have proselytised, and his legal departure with his own passport suggested he was not a person of interest to Chinese authorities. Relying on country information, the Tribunal observed that state-sanctioned churches exist in China where Christians can practice their religion, and that greater scrutiny typically falls on church leaders, proselytisers, and activists. The Tribunal concluded that there was no information to indicate the applicant could not continue practising his religious beliefs by attending a state-sanctioned church, and therefore, he had not demonstrated a real chance of serious harm. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant was a citizen of China and that China was his receiving country.