1916609 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant, who is from China, claimed to be a member of an underground Christian church and feared persecution by the authorities. The core dispute was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either as a refugee or on complementary protection grounds.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, or if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia to China, the applicant would suffer significant harm. The Tribunal also considered its obligation to assess the applicant's claims based on the evidence provided.

The Tribunal reasoned that the onus rests on the applicant to specify the particulars of their claim and provide sufficient evidence to establish it. A decision-maker is not obliged to construct the applicant's case. In this instance, the applicant made several claims regarding his religious beliefs, alleged persecution by police, and detention of friends, but these claims were unsupported by detailed evidence. Crucially, the applicant failed to attend a scheduled interview with the delegate and did not respond to the Tribunal's invitation to a hearing, preventing the Tribunal from testing the veracity of his claims. The Tribunal applied the principles that mere assertion of fear does not establish its genuineness or well-foundedness, and that the applicant must satisfy all statutory elements.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or that there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal to China. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.