1920035 (Refugee)

The applicant, a man from China, sought review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse his protection visa application. The applicant claimed he had borrowed money from a loan shark in China and feared threats, physical assault, detention, and death from debt collectors, believing Chinese authorities could not protect him and that relocation within China was not a viable option. The delegate had found that effective protection was available in China, meaning the applicant did not face a real chance of serious harm or significant harm, and therefore did not meet the criteria for a protection visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations. This involved assessing whether the applicant met the criteria for being a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, or the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), which requires a substantial ground for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to China, there is a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal also considered its obligations under Ministerial Direction No. 84, including the Refugee Law Guidelines and Complementary Protection Guidelines.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient material to establish his claims to be owed protection, nor that he faced a real chance or real risk of serious or significant harm upon return to China. Despite being invited to a hearing to address the preliminary view that his claims were not established, the applicant elected not to attend and consented to a decision on the papers. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2) of the Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.