1935570 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of the People's Republic of China, sought review of a decision not to grant him a protection visa. The applicant claimed he was a victim of loan sharks in China, had been physically assaulted, and feared torture and death if returned. He also asserted that he could not seek protection from Chinese authorities due to the illegal nature of his borrowing. The applicant did not attend the review hearing, consenting instead to a decision on the papers.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee or entitled to complementary protection. This required determining if he had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and if such persecution would involve serious harm and systematic, discriminatory conduct. The Tribunal also considered whether effective protection measures were available to the applicant in China, including the possibility of internal relocation.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. While accepting the applicant's citizenship and the fact that he had been subjected to threats and assault by loan sharks, the Tribunal concluded that these circumstances did not constitute persecution for a Convention reason as defined by the Migration Act 1958. The Tribunal also found that the applicant had not demonstrated that he could not access effective protection in China, nor that internal relocation would not be a reasonable option. The applicant's claim that he could not approach authorities due to the illegal nature of the loan was not sufficient to establish a lack of state protection.

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