1926444 (Refugee)

The applicant, a woman from China, sought a protection visa, claiming she feared persecution due to her Christian faith and her attendance at an unregistered house church. The dispute centred on whether she met the criteria for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The decision was made by Meena Sripathy, a Member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of section 36(2)(a) of the Act, based on a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, and alternatively, whether she met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), meaning there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal to China. The Tribunal was required to assess the genuineness of the applicant's religious beliefs and her claimed experiences of persecution in China, as well as her conduct since arriving in Australia.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not established she was a genuine Christian or that she had attended a family church gathering that was ordered to cease by authorities. This conclusion was based on her vague and evasive evidence regarding her faith, the circumstances of her joining and attending the group, and the lack of credible detail surrounding the alleged cessation of meetings. Furthermore, her conduct in Australia, including infrequent and inconsistent engagement with religious activities, was not considered consistent with fleeing persecution for her faith. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that she would face serious harm or significant harm upon return to China, nor that Australia had protection obligations towards her under either the refugee or complementary protection criteria.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.