1913584 (Refugee)

The case concerned two applicants, citizens of China, who sought protection visas. They claimed to have fled China due to persecution by a loan shark and a criminal gang. The applicants' father had borrowed money from a loan shark, and upon his death, the debt and land were passed to them. The gangster demanded payment, destroyed their crops when they could not pay, and physically assaulted the first applicant. The second applicant also suffered harassment, leading her to quit her job, and their attempts to seek police assistance were unsuccessful. They feared further harm and crop destruction upon return to China and believed relocation within China was not a viable option.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, meaning they were refugees with a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Alternatively, the Tribunal had to consider if they met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), which requires substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their removal to China. The Tribunal also considered whether effective protection measures were available to the applicants in China.

The Tribunal found that the applicants were citizens of China and that China was the relevant receiving country. However, it was not satisfied that the applicants had established a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the specified reasons. The Tribunal also concluded that there were not substantial grounds for believing that the applicants would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their removal to China. This conclusion was reached after considering the applicants' claims and the available country information, and it was noted that the onus was on the applicants to provide sufficient evidence to establish their claims. The Tribunal did not find that the applicants were unable to relocate within China to an area where they would not face harm, nor that effective protection measures were unavailable.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, as they failed to satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Migration Act 1958.