1913290 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection visa by an applicant from China. The applicant claimed to have been arrested, detained, tortured, and forced to sign a confession and pay a fine due to his involvement with an underground Christian church. The delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs refused the visa application, finding the applicant was not a refugee and did not face a real risk of significant harm upon return to China. The applicant sought review of this decision before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa under section 36 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of section 5H(1) of the Act, or if he was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under the complementary protection criterion in section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, by considering whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to China, he would suffer significant harm.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims regarding his religious practice and subsequent arrest and detention. While accepting that the applicant had practised Christianity in an unregistered church and was baptised, the Tribunal found inconsistencies and a lack of persuasiveness in his evidence concerning his arrest, detention, and the alleged torture. The Tribunal noted that the applicant failed to attend a scheduled interview with the Department of Home Affairs and that his claims about obtaining a passport and departing China without difficulty, as well as a late and uncorroborated claim of bribery of officials, were unconvincing. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no evidence of church membership in Australia.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the Protection visa. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, nor that he faced a real risk of significant harm upon return to China. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established that he met the criteria for the grant of a Protection visa.