1914697 (Refugee)

The parties to this matter were visa applicants from China and the decision-maker. The dispute concerned the applicants' eligibility for protection visas. The decision was made by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons set out in section 5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958, and whether there was a real chance they would be persecuted for one of those reasons if returned to China, and whether they would suffer serious harm. Alternatively, the Tribunal had to consider whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to China, there was a real risk of the applicants suffering significant harm as defined in section 36(2A) of the Act.

The Tribunal considered the applicants' claims that they had borrowed money to start a business which failed due to a plague, leading to an inability to repay a friend. This friend allegedly became angry, forced the sale of the applicant's car, continued to demand repayment, destroyed their house, wounded one applicant, and insulted his wife. The applicants stated they had sought police assistance, but it was ineffective, and they felt unable to relocate due to their debt. The Tribunal, having regard to the Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information, concluded that the applicants did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.