1918301 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant the applicant, a citizen of China, a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear harm from business lenders and loan sharks due to outstanding debts, alleging harassment, threats, and assault. The applicant also raised an additional claim related to unpaid work in another country. The delegate had refused the visa, finding the claimed fear did not meet the criteria under section 5J(1)(a) of the Act and that the applicant could obtain protection from Chinese authorities, thus not facing a real risk of significant harm under section 36(2B)(b).

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether Australia had protection obligations towards him under the 'refugee' criterion or 'complementary protection' grounds. This involved assessing the applicant's claims of fear of persecution or significant harm in China, considering the credibility of his evidence, and evaluating the availability of protection from Chinese authorities or the reasonableness of internal relocation.

The court affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. The court noted inconsistencies and contradictions in the applicant's claims and evidence, particularly regarding his continued work during periods he claimed to be in hiding. Furthermore, the court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that he could not obtain protection from the Chinese authorities or that internal relocation within China would not be a reasonable option to avoid any risk of harm. The court concluded that the applicant did not satisfy any of the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the Act.