1928737 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Chinese national, sought a protection visa after his wife's earlier protection visa application, in which he was included as a family member, failed and was withdrawn. The applicant initially did not advance his own claims but later continued the appeal in his own right after his wife returned to China. The dispute centred on whether Australia owed protection obligations to the applicant. The decision was made by Member Sue Zelinka of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee within the meaning of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) or whether Australia had complementary protection obligations towards him due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal to China. This involved assessing his claims of fear of persecution based on his political opinions expressed through social media postings critical of the Chinese government's COVID-19 response, and the alleged pressure his wife faced from local authorities leading to their divorce.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims that his WeChat accounts were repeatedly cancelled after he posted articles critical of the Chinese government's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that a journalist who posted similar content was arrested. The applicant also suggested his wife's request for a divorce in Australia was due to pressure from the Chinese government. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa. The decision notes that the applicant did not suggest he was a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfied the refugee criterion, and therefore did not meet the criteria under section 36(2)(b) or (c) of the Act.

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