1915684 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision not to grant her a protection visa. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm if returned to China. The matter was heard by Maralean McCalman.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as a refugee, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) as a person facing significant harm. This required determining if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, and if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, she would suffer significant harm.

The court noted that the applicant had declined to attend a scheduled hearing, consenting to a decision based on the available evidence. The court found that the applicant had not provided sufficient detail in her claims to satisfy the Tribunal that she faced a real chance of persecution or a real risk of significant harm in China. It was emphasised that the onus rests on the applicant to specify and provide evidence to establish all statutory elements of her claim, and the Tribunal is not obliged to make or assist in making the applicant's case.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, concluding that she had not satisfied the criteria under section 36(2) of the Act.