1935799 (Refugee)

1935799 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 2172 (4 April 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE: Mr Harry Huang (MARN: 9579277)
CASE NUMBER: 1935799

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: China
MEMBER:Jason Cabarrús
DATE:4 April 2024
PLACE OF DECISION: Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 04 April 2024 at 2:27pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – religion – Christian – local church in Australia – imputed political opinion – challenging government corruption – land resumption without fair compensation – detention – torture – exit procedures – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 16 December 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant, who is a citizen of China, applied for the visa on 10 November 2017. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not meet the refugee or complementary protection criteria in the Act.
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the refugee criterion, and if not, whether she meets the complementary protection criterion. These criteria broadly require that a person face a real chance of serious harm for specified reasons, or a real risk of significant harm, in their home country. The relevant law is set out in the attachment at the end of this decision.
For the following reasons, I have concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Background
The applicant was born in [Village 1], [Town 1], [City 1], China in [specified year]. She married in 2001 and went to live with her husband in [Village 2], [Town 2], [City 1]. They had [specified children], born in [specified years]. The couple separated in 2012 and the applicant returned to live with her parents in [Village 1].
The applicant came to Australia in August 2017 and applied for the protection visa in November 2017. She gave the Department of Home Affairs:
a.a copy of her passport;
b.a statutory declaration dated 10 November 2017 detailing her claims for protection (‘her 2017 statement’); and
c.a further statutory declaration bearing the same date, essentially indicating that her migration agent had explained the protection application process to her, that the information she had provided in the application was true and that it accurately and completely represented her claims.
The applicant attended an interview with the delegate in October 2019, and the delegate refused to grant the visa in December 2019. The applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision later that month. She gave the Tribunal:
a.a copy of the delegate’s decision;
b.a document titled ‘submission’, the contents of which were in the nature of a declaration, dated 12 March 2024, detailing further claims for protection (‘her 2024 statement’);
c.a letter of support from [Ms A], dated 25 February 2024, translated into English (‘the letter of support’); and
d.two photos captioned as being of meetings of the Local Church at [a location in Suburb 1], undated; with further copies of these same two photos subsequently provided with green ticks (the accompanying email said ‘the applicant has been ticked’).
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 19 March 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, I have taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant.
Findings and reasons on the applicant’s claims
Summary of claims
Broadly, in her visa application and to the Department and Tribunal, the applicant claimed to fear harm because of alleged anti-government activities at the funeral of a man with whom she had worked closely in a catering business, who had died in detention after he had sought to petition the government about the expropriation of his property. She also claimed to the Tribunal that she feared harm because of her more recent conversion in Australia to the Local Church in 2022.
The following is a more detailed outline of the applicant’s claims, as set out in her statements and also in oral evidence given at the Department interview and Tribunal hearing:
a.after the applicant separated from her husband in early 2012, she got a job as an assistant to [Mr A], who had his own business as a cook, specialising in catering for weddings and funerals;
b.in 2015, the [Town 2] government expropriated the properties of [Mr A] and other residents for development, and they were not given fair compensation;
c.during 2015 to 2017, [Mr A] and other residents approached the [Town 2] government, [City 1] municipal government, and Fujian provincial government to seek reasonable compensation, without success;
d.in April 2017, [Mr A] went to Beijing to appeal to the central government, along with [other] representatives for the people whose properties were expropriated;
e.in May 2017, [Mr A] and the [others] were arrested in Beijing, accused of anti-government activities and jeopardising state security; they were returned to [City 1] and detained at a detention centre there, where they were tortured;
f.[In] May 2017, [Mr A] died in detention; the police said that this was due to a sudden heart attack, but because [Mr A] had previously been very healthy and had no health problems, the applicant and others suspected that he was tortured to death;
g.[Mr A’s] wife asked the applicant to cater for his funeral, which took place [in] July 2017;
h.at the funeral, government officials were in attendance and the applicant asked the authorities to investigate [Mr A’s] death, to release the other [detainees], to compensate [Mr A’s] family as well as others whose properties who had been expropriated, and to protect basic human rights;
i.the applicant was accused of having an illegal gathering and jeopardising social security, police were called, and the applicant was arrested;
j.[between dates in] July 2017, the applicant was detained and tortured by police;
k.[in] July 2017, the applicant was released on bail, because her ex-husband’s father bribed the police, but she was under investigation and had to report to the authorities regularly;
l.a friend of the applicant’s ex-husband’s father then arranged for the applicant to travel to Australia, and the applicant left China [in] August 2017;
m.after the applicant came to Australia, she heard from relatives in China that the police had come to her home in China and harassed and monitored family members there;
n.in February 2022, the applicant’s father was diagnosed with [medical condition 1], which made the applicant worried; she was out to buy something in [Suburb 1], sitting and crying out on the street, when a woman named [Ms B] approached her and asked her story; [Ms B] suggested that the applicant put her hope in God, and subsequently took the applicant to church;
o.the applicant began attending church, was baptised in April 2022, and has become a faithful Christian of the Local Church (also known as ‘Shouters’);
p.the applicant has regularly attended church and read the Bible and other religious materials from February 2022 to the present;
q.because the applicant was regarded as an anti-government dangerous person, her parents have been harassed by police three or four times per year, and the police most recently approached her parents in February 2024 because they found out that she had evangelised to her parents.
In her statements, the applicant said that she believed that she would be arrested by the police and persecuted by authorities if she returned to China due to the incidents relating to [Mr A]; and that she would also be subject to persecution due to her Christian faith, because the Local Church is regarded as an evil cult by the Chinese government, and particularly because she used to evangelise to her parents.
The applicant told me that she feared she would be arrested if she returned to China, because she left illegally or organised an illegal gathering and had impacted on the communist party and government; that they would definitely harm her because she escaped and because of reasons relating to the death of [Mr A], and because she asked the government to investigate the reasons for his death; that she was scared of being detained and beaten and tortured again, including being tied up, having her body pressed and dirty things stuffed in her mouth, and being tortured to death; that the Local Church was defined in China as a cult; and that police are aware that she spread the gospel to her parents and she’s worried they would go to her father continuously and her father’s health isn’t good.
When I questioned the applicant in more detail about her claims at the hearing, a number of concerns arose in relation to her evidence, which I put to her for comment.
Applicant and [Mr A’s] catering business activities and operations
In her 2017 statement, the applicant said: she only completed [number] years of primary school, dropping out when she was just [age] years old to help her parents do housework at home; after she separated from her husband, it was very difficult for her to find work to support herself and her [children], because she had little formal schooling; fortunately, she got to know [Mr A], a self-employed cook, who was looking for an assistant, and she began working with him in February 2012; [Mr A] specialised in catering for weddings and funerals at people’s homes; normally each table had 10 people, and he could do the catering for over 100 tables; the applicant followed [Mr A], catering for weddings or funerals in the [City 1] area in the following years, and became more and more popular among local residents with her cooking skills and experience; after [Mr A] died, his wife invited the applicant to cater for his funeral which took place [number] days after his death; the funeral feast had 100 tables of around 10 people each, so around 1000 people attended the funeral.
At the Department interview, the applicant similarly told the delegate that she got a job with [Mr A], who was a cook, in 2012; and that she was preparing the food at his funeral feast, which had 100 tables of around 10 people, so around 1000 people altogether.
At hearing, the applicant told me that she started work with [Mr A] in February 2012, and followed him to be a chef; she helped him do feasts for weddings and funerals for local villagers; all the villagers had the business card for their business, so whenever it was needed they’d go there to prepare the feast; she started as an apprentice and gradually got to grasp the skills and eventually worked together with him; [Mr A] owned the business; usually it was just the applicant and [Mr A] working, but if there was a big feast and they needed other people to help, they would get assistance; there were sometimes 4 to 5 feasts per month, or up to 20 feasts per month, but around the end of the year, for lunar New Year, it would be every day, and they’d employ many other helpers; when it was just the applicant and [Mr A], the functions were around 20 to 30 tables of 10 people per table.
I put to the applicant that it seemed like it would be a lot of work for 2 people, just her and [Mr A], to cater for a function of 2-300 people (20 to 30 tables). The applicant replied that the customers would prepare all the dishes like vegetables and meat, and when she and [Mr A] arrived, they would just slice or chop and cook them, and didn’t need to wash them. She also told me that they weren’t paid to do preparation, cleaning and washing; they would give the customer the names of the dishes and all the ingredients, and the customer would purchase and wash the ingredients and put them on a board, and she and [Mr A] would finish slicing, chopping and cooking them.
I put to the applicant that this sounded like an unusual business model for a catering business, as usually catering would involve doing all of those steps. The applicant replied that that was their business model, they were more than capable of catering for weddings of 20 to 30 tables, as all the ingredients were already purchased and washed, and all they’d need to do is slice and chop and arrange them, they would wait until evening right before the feast and then start to cook them; all they did was slicing and chopping and cooking them; they weren’t expected to do any other tasks, because the customer didn’t totally outsource the job to them, otherwise if they did, they’d employ more people. The applicant also said that if there were 70 to 80 tables, they would have 7 or 8 extra staff assisting them, or if there were 100 tables there would be 10 extra staff; the people they used weren’t the same each time, as most women can do the job of washing dishes and vegetables; and when they engaged 10 extra people, they would also do cleaning up.
The applicant told me that when [Mr A] went to Beijing in early 2015, she carried on the business on her own, because she had learned the skills from him, and they had a business card for both of them. I asked her if she employed other people to help her and she said yes, she couldn’t do it on her own. I asked whether she had a regular employee to help, and she replied that because there were a lot of people in her area doing kitchen hand work, they’d come over to help if you contact and pay them. I put to the applicant that I was having difficulty understanding how she managed to continue the businesses without a regular assistant, in circumstances where it had previously required the two of them (her and [Mr A]). She replied that it was doable because she is a great chef, if it’s just catering for 15 tables of people, she can do it herself, the process could take several hours in which she could prepare, then put all the plates on a shelf and wait until the start of the feast. She also said that she was doing smaller functions by herself, and would hire other people to help her for larger ones, and that she accepted more offers for catering because she had the capability.
I asked the applicant if she could explain how she was able to continue the business after [Mr A] left, as presumably the needs of the business and the customers would not have changed significantly, and she was using their existing business card. She replied that she would get notifications from potential customers a week before the function, so she’d design the menu, confirm the total table count, and call in helpers based on the total table count; and that she was capable of this because she had a passion for cooking; and the minimum table count was 4 to 5 tables.
I put to the applicant that I was finding it difficult to understand how a catering business would operate with only one week’s notice before an event, as presumably organisers would need to book catering weeks or months in advance in order to invite guests. The applicant replied that this happens where she’s from, and as an extreme example she might get notice on the first day of a month of a wedding to be held on the third day of that same month, but if she had availability she’d go ahead; and that for the first month after lunar New Year, they’d need to inform her in advance otherwise they wouldn’t get a position; and they were running a business for the local area, and really needed to provide delicious food, so they had a good reputation. She also said that [Mr A] sometimes came to help during 2015-2017 after he went to Beijing, but sometimes he wasn’t able because he was visiting the government to deal with his house appropriation issue.
I asked the applicant how far in advance of [Mr A’s] funeral did [Mr A’s] wife ask her to do the catering. The applicant initially said that she couldn’t remember. I asked her if she could tell me approximately how much notice she had, noting that it was an event for 1000 people, and I would expect she would be able to recall roughly how much time she had to prepare for catering such a large event. The applicant said she couldn’t recall, but it was maybe just a few days, because they don’t need many days, because many chefs would be there to help, and she was just the head of the chefs. I asked the applicant who had to organise the other chefs, and she told me that she had to do that. I put to the applicant that I was finding it difficult to understand why she couldn’t recall how long she had to organise so many chefs, as it must have been a stressful time, being asked to take on such a large function. She replied that it was approximately three days in advance; there was no need to have many weeks in advance, because many chefs can do it, and with the help of many chefs she can do it, and she still does the same thing in Australia, and people recommend her as a good chef.
I asked the applicant how many cooks she engaged to help her at the funeral. She replied there should be four of them, they were all friends, and they also asked some kitchen hands to come help wash and chop vegetables, and [Mr A’s] relatives were also there helping, so they were able to do it.
Having considered the applicant’s evidence in relation to her catering business, I put to her that I was concerned that she had not provided a reasonable explanation for several aspects of her business operations, for example the service being provided, the number of days’ notice for catered events, the scale of the business and her use of employees to assist. The applicant responded that:
a.they only did chopping, slicing and cooking, and didn’t do other things, and the customers would serve the food using their own people;
b.even if it was quite a lot of tables, they’d receive the notification 1 week before and prepare the menu and ingredients for the customer to purchase;
c.if it was just catering 4-5 tables, she could do it by herself with the help of the family, and if it was more, then she’d need to hire someone to help her; it depends on the willingness of the customer, she could do more if they paid more, otherwise the family needs to send someone to help.
The applicant has not provided a reasonable explanation for these aspects of the claimed business operations, particularly when all the aspects are considered together and noting the applicant’s evidence about the scale of the business (which serviced between 4 and 20 feasts per month, more around New Year, with at least 40 to 50 guests). From a customer’s perspective, it is reasonable to expect that a caterer for a significant event such as a wedding or funeral would take care of all aspects relating to the provision and preparation of the food in relation to the event, rather than the customer having to negotiate and contract with different service providers or family members regarding the interdependent functions of purchasing ingredients, washing, chopping, and cooking the food. And while I accept that the notice period for a funeral function could be quite short because death is usually sudden and unplanned, it is reasonable to expect a greater period of notice would be given for a function such as a wedding, particularly to enable the customer to lock in the arrangements and pricing. It is also reasonable to expect, particularly with such short notice periods as the applicant described, that a business of this kind would have regular staff available, and not have to rely so frequently on sourcing irregular workers mere days in advance of an event, or on the availability of customer family members to assist, whose catering skills could vary significantly.
Additional details added to claims (making a toast, asking for death certificate)

In her 2017 statement, the applicant said that she was invited by [Mr A’s] wife to cater for his funeral, which was attended by around 1000 people, and the funeral eventually became an open protest against the communist government, where they demanded the authorities to investigate the death of [Mr A], to release the other [detainees], to provide reasonable compensation to everybody whose property had been expropriated, and to protect basic human rights; that they were later on accused of having illegally gathered people together and jeopardised social security; that they were suppressed by the police in the end; and that the applicant was arrested by the police, because as one of the major organisers of the funeral, she was regarded as a leader of the anti-government activity.
At the Department interview, the applicant told the delegate that halfway through the feast, they needed to toast to each other, and as the cook she toasted to the local government officers; when she was making the toast, she asked the local officers about [Mr A’s] death, questioned the version of him dying of a sudden heart attack, and questioned whether it was due to police persecution, because [Mr A] was in good health; then she asked the local government to return justice for him, to find the real reason for his death, and to release the other [detainees]; then [Mr A’s] family and relatives came up asking for justice; what the applicant did irritated the local government, it was okay for her to make a toast, but she had made a scene so they called the police; and finally when the police came, they said that the applicant went against the government and gathered people illegally, then she was arrested.
The delegate asked the applicant about why she hadn’t referred to being the first one to speak up in her statement. The applicant told the delegate that she didn’t write that, that as a cook she needed to make a toast, and that because she was the first person to stand up and make a toast, then the other people behind her also stood up. The delegate asked the applicant about her claim to have been regarded as a leader of the protest, and she said that in her toast, she just asked about [Mr A’s] death, as she didn’t suspect that he had died of a heart attack, and she wanted them to make an investigation; and that the crime was put on her, and they claimed she was an organiser because she was invited by [Mr A’s] wife to cater for the funeral, then the police claimed she was the leader.
The delegate also asked the applicant about how long she spoke for when proposing the toast. The applicant said that she didn’t talk too long, she only said to please help make investigation of the death, and then the relatives came over. The delegate asked the applicant what she had actually said, and the applicant replied that she just said to the local government, can you please help to investigate the death of [Mr A], can you please release the other [detainees] and return justice to them, and make reasonable compensation for the property.
At the hearing, the applicant told me that at the funeral feast function, they invited someone from the village government, and she went up to them and asked for the death certificate of [Mr A] and asked them to release the [people] in prison; that because the families of the [detainees] were also there, they all went up and started to have a verbal argument, and because she was the one who took the initiative to ask them to check the reason for [Mr A’s] death and ask them to release the [detainees], the government officials reported her to the police and they arrested her.
I asked her what she said when proposing a toast, and she said she asked the local government and village government officials about the reason for [Mr A’s] death, and asked them to release the [detainees]; and she also confirmed that she had asked for [Mr A’s] death certificate. I asked the applicant why she hadn’t mentioned asking about the death certificate in her 2017 statement or in the interview with the delegate, and she said that she did ask them to check, she asked them to issue a death certificate. I asked the applicant if she said anything else during the toast, and she said she didn’t say anything else, but the families of [Mr A] and the other detainees all came over and asked them to release the detainees. I asked the applicant why she didn’t include reference to the toast in her 2017 statement, which she had declared accurately and completely presented her claims. She replied that she did mention it in that document, to go there and give a toast, and she mentioned it several times. I subsequently reviewed her 2017 statement and could find no reference to making a toast or speech in that document.
I put to the applicant that I was concerned that she had not provided a reasonable explanation for the changes in her account over time, and in particular, the additional details of proposing the toast and making a speech (which were not in her 2017 statement and were told to the delegate for the first time), and the additional detail of requesting [Mr A’s] death certificate (which was not in her 2017 statement or her interview with the delegate, and was told to me for the first time). The applicant replied that that’s impossible, and it should be in the recording as well. I subsequently checked the recording of the interview and could not find a reference to requesting [Mr A’s] death certificate.
The applicant has not provided a reasonable explanation for why she did not include any reference to the toast or speech in her 2017 statement. By her own account, her direct questioning of the authorities in this speech was the reason why the authorities became interested in her and subsequently arrested her, and therefore gave rise to her claims for protection. In these circumstances, it is reasonable to expect that she would have included it in her 2017 statement which accompanied her protection visa application, or been able to explain why she did not.
Nor has the applicant provided any explanation for why she did not include any reference to requesting [Mr A’s] death certificate in her 2017 statement or in the interview with the delegate. Asking for a death certificate is a very specific request, and it also suggests that the applicant was interested in confirming what reason was given for [Mr A’s] death in the official documentation; whereas in other versions of her account, the focus of the demands were for the authorities to conduct an investigation into the death, in circumstances where the official version of events was that he had died of a heart attack, but the applicant and others did not believe this version of events. In these circumstances, it is reasonable to expect that she would have referred to this request earlier (particularly when the delegate questioned her about the details of what she said in her toast), or been able to explain why she did not.
Making of the speech/toast
As noted above, the applicant told the delegate that she asked the local government officers about [Mr A’s] death, questioned the version of him dying of a sudden heart attack, and questioned whether it was due to police persecution, because [Mr A] was in good health; and that she asked them to investigate and find the real reason for his death, and to release the other [detainees] and return justice to them; and to make reasonable compensation for the property.
The delegate observed that in the circumstances claimed by the applicant, it seemed like a very brave act to attack local officials responsible for [Mr A’s] death and for detaining [the] other people. The applicant replied that it was because he was her teacher and took her in when she was in hardship. The delegate observed that it seemed that doing this could put not only the applicant herself but also others at the funeral at risk, and asked the applicant whether she had spoken with [Mr A’s] family about it. The applicant replied that when she stood up to make the toast, she was only trying to ask them to give a reasonable truth of [Mr A’s] death and to release the other [people], then the others came over and all of a sudden she was the leader of this anti-government activity. The delegate asked the applicant why she thought it was her role to make the requests she made. The applicant replied that because he was her teacher, she thinks as a student she should speak up for him; and that as a cook in her village, usually they are supposed to make a toast for the guests halfway through the feast.
As also noted above, the applicant told me at the hearing that at the funeral she asked government officials for [Mr A’s] death certificate, asked them to release the [detainees], and ask them to investigate the reason for [Mr A’s] death.
The applicant also told me that she found out about [Mr A’s] death about 2 days after he died. Noting that the applicant claimed the funeral took place [number] days after [Mr A] died, and that she didn’t believe that the police had told them the truth about his death, I asked the applicant what action she took to follow up about the incorrect information from the police, ahead of the funeral feast. The applicant said she didn’t do anything at that time because his wife was dealing with everything. I asked the applicant if [Mr A’s] wife told the applicant what she was doing. The applicant said that she didn’t, as she couldn’t do anything but cry at home every day. I put to the applicant that in circumstances where people including the applicant and [Mr A’s] wife suspected that [Mr A] had been killed in detention, I would have expected them to make a complaint to the authorities about that. The applicant replied that all of them believed he was killed in there, but how could they do anything about it, because in their place, nobody dared to do anything against the government, because they’d definitely be tortured and arrested and severely punished.
I later asked the applicant why she asked the government officials what she claimed she asked them during the toast, noting her evidence to me that nobody would dare to do anything against the government because they would be tortured, arrested and punished. She replied that she chose to help speak for [Mr A] because she still hadn’t experienced such things herself, otherwise she would not dare to do it, as all that torture was very terrifying. I sought clarification from the applicant, pointing out that she had earlier told me that she dared not do anything because of that fear from the authorities. She asked if she had said that, and said that she thought she said that his wife was not in the mood to do anything.
I put to the applicant that I might find that she had not given a reasonable explanation for why she would say what she claims she said during the toast, in circumstances where she had told me that she dared not do anything due to fear from the authorities, and these were clearly sensitive issues to raise with government officials, including suggestions that the authorities had tortured and killed [Mr A]. The applicant replied that in the beginning, she didn’t say that they dared not do that, because at that moment she hadn’t experienced that kind of thing yet, so she should dare to do it, but in the funeral she stood up and said these things, she stood up and asked them to give her the death certificate and release the [detainees].
The applicant has not provided a reasonable explanation for saying what she claimed she said during the toast. She has not reasonably explained why she would choose to challenge government officials about such sensitive matters at such a large event, particularly in light of the reasons she gave for not pursuing such matters earlier, relating to fear of being tortured, arrested and punished. I do not accept that such a bold act is sufficiently explained by the applicant’s claims to the delegate that she spoke up because [Mr A] was her teacher and took her in when she was experiencing hardship, nor by her subsequent claims that she did not yet fear those things because they had not yet happened to her, because by her own account she claimed that they had already tortured her teacher and close colleague [Mr A], so it is reasonable to expect that she would have been fearful of them in those circumstances (even if she had not been tortured herself).
Departure from China
In her 2017 statement, the applicant claimed that: her ex-husband’s father ran a [company] and had wide social contacts; through his contacts, he bribed the police and had her released on bail; and his friend in Guangzhou organised her trip overseas and her departure from Baiyun airport.
At the Department interview, the applicant similarly told the delegate that her ex-husband’s father ran a logistics company; because of his business he had a lot of friends and connections; he bribed the police so the police released her; she was released on bail, then he asked his friend to help her with her overseas visa; so she came to Australia from Baiyun airport in Guangzhou. The delegate also put to the applicant country information about exit procedures, border controls, passport technology and surveillance in China, that prevents persons of interest from departing and suggested that if the applicant was on bail, it would be difficult for her to leave on her own passport. The applicant replied that she didn’t know and wasn’t clear about what happened, they did it for her and just asked her to come.
At the hearing, I asked the applicant whether her earlier evidence given to the Department, that her ex-husband’s father bribed police to release her on bail was true, and she replied that it was. I also asked if he organised for her visa to come to Australia, and she said yes, a friend of his did this.
I put to the applicant that I might not accept that she had given a reasonable explanation about how she was able to depart China, in light of country information indicating that: exit from China is strictly regulated; there are laws that prevent criminal suspects and defendants from exiting China; police, judicial and other authorities record details in databases that are shared with and used by border control authorities to create an exit control list; and facial recognition and artificial intelligence are used to check identities on exit.[1]
[1] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, ‘DFAT Country Information Report - People’s Republic of China’, 22 December 2021 at paras 5.40 and 5.32-5.33; Song, L (2022) ‘Exit regulation in the People’s Republic of China: Law, policy and practice’, International Migration, 00, 1-15 (available from: 'China: Whether authorities seize the passports, identity documents, or travel documents of persons who are the subject of a criminal summons, a police investigation, or criminal charges (2021–October 2023)', Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 06 October 2023, 20231030124306, available from >
The applicant replied that it was because she hadn’t been charged yet, she was just detained and released on bail, so if she had actually received a charge, she wouldn’t be able to get released. This does not reasonably explain how the applicant was able to depart China in light of the country information, because that information shows that even people who are just suspects (i.e. not yet formally charged and still under investigation) are prevented from leaving.
Claims about Local Church faith
In her 2024 statement, the applicant claimed that: in February 2022, her father was diagnosed with [medical condition 1], which made her worried; she began attending church, was baptised in April 2022, and has become a faithful Christian of the Local Church (also known as ‘Shouters’); and the police approached her parents in February 2024 because they found out that she had evangelised to her parents.
At the hearing, the applicant told me:
a.in February 2022 her father was diagnosed with [medical condition 1] and nearly died;
b.he was in hospital for a month, and she was very hopeless at that time, she’d burst into tears while walking;
c.when she was walking on the street one day in February 2022, out in [Suburb 1] where she had gone to buy something, she was in a bad mood, sitting there crying, and a sister approached her and told her not to cry and asked her the reasons why she was crying;
d.after the applicant told the sister her story, the sister suggested why doesn’t she put her hope in God, and asked her to believe in God;
e.the sister, whose name was [Ms B], took her to the church on the weekend, and since the end of February 2022 the applicant has been attending church consistently one to two times per week, every Sunday and sometimes on Saturday and Sunday;
f.on Saturdays they sing worship, read Bible verse and pray, and exercise themselves, while on Sundays they sing worship, read Bible verse, and have a bread and wine ceremony to manifest drinking God’s blood and eating God’s body;
g.the applicant was baptised in April 2022 and has followed God since then;
h.before meeting this sister in [Suburb 1], the applicant had not been religious or practised any religion.
I asked the applicant what religion she was, and she replied that it was Local Church. I asked the applicant when she realised that she was a member of this religion, and she replied that a sister guided her there when she was suffering in the worst. I asked the applicant to tell me about her journey to become a member of this church, and what drew her to this religious practice. She replied that she felt she could find comfort by visiting the church and feel less suffering. I asked her what she found comforting and she replied that she found the verses of God comforting. I asked her to tell me about a verse that was significant to her, and she said that God created humans to manifest himself. I asked her why that was significant to her, and she replied that it’s because God created us.
I asked the applicant why she decided to get baptised in April 2022, soon after she was first introduced to the religion. She replied that it was because she wanted to follow God and wanted to walk the way of God. I asked her why she wanted to do this, and she replied that it’s because she had to rely on God, she needs God. I asked her why that was, and she replied that she wouldn’t have so much sadness in her heart when she believes in God. I put to the applicant that in circumstances where her first contact with this religion was in February 2022, it seemed quick to decide to get baptised in April 2022. The applicant replied that when she was in that very bad situation, she felt she could have comfort while reading Bible verses, so she decided to have a baptism to follow Jesus.
I asked the applicant when she last attended church, and she told me that it was this weekend. I asked what the main discussion or sermon was about, and she said that they were discussing a brochure, which she held up to show me at the hearing, and that they were also talking about Almighty God which includes everything. I asked if they discussed particular parts of the brochure, and she told me that normally they just open it and read out loud, holy words for the morning revitalisation. She told me the brochure was written by Brother Lee and that they had just started the content for week one last week, enjoying the Almighty God who includes everything, so they’d talk about growth in the life of God. She explained that they receive a new brochure on a yearly basis, and that she had also used the 2022 and 2023 brochures in church; and that they spend most of their time in church looking at these brochures.
I asked the applicant if the Local Church was a branch of Christianity. She replied that it was not, and they are the Local Church. I asked what made the Local Church different from Christianity. The applicant replied that she didn’t know the churches of Christianity because she’d never been there, the Local Church should have a different religion from them.

The applicant told me that she was interested in reading Bible verses, and said that she has to open it and read it, otherwise she can’t recite it; and that she enjoys reading some, that’s why she reads it. I asked her which parts she enjoyed, and she replied that she couldn’t think of it now.
The applicant also told me that she spread the gospel to her father, and that she hadn’t been familiar with the Local Church or this religion before, she was just starting, but she likes to read the Bible and she read verses to her parents. I asked when she started reading the Bible to her parents, and she said that she forgot. I asked her what sort of verses she was reading to her parents, and she said that she told her parents that Jesus replaced us to die, and then became the Holy Spirit which can grant life to us. She told me that her parents had not been religious before, and in the beginning they didn’t want to believe in God, but she did it gradually and they accepted it gradually. She told me that they are now religious but haven’t been baptised, and she asks them to call for Jesus and pray every day.
I asked the applicant if she did anything else to practice or express her faith. She said that they pray for the morning revitalising every day, reading a chapter of the verse in the brochure. Noting that she had only recently received that brochure, I asked what else she did to practice or express her faith. She told me that she was given the brochure the weekend before last, so she already started to exercise herself last Monday, and on the weekend they started from the first part of the brochure. I asked her what she did to express her faith before she got that brochure. She replied the worship song and the recovery version of the Bible. She explained that there were 2 books of songs, a main one and a complementary one, they sing at the small group and worship services on Saturdays and Sundays, and she would also sing when exercising at home. I asked if she could give me an example of what she would sing, and she replied that in the morning revitalising brochure, there is a song for each week, and this week they sang the third song from the complementary song book, called ‘Glory, glory, glory belongs to God’.
I asked the applicant how often she read the Bible. She told me that sometimes she’d read it after she got home from work, because she got up very early for work. I asked her again how often, and she replied that it should be every day, other people who don’t have to work read words from the brochure every morning after they get up, but she reads when she has time at home after work, and maybe doesn’t do it as completely as other people because they aren’t working. I asked her again how often she read the Bible, as opposed to the brochure. She said that sometimes she’d read it when she had time after work. I asked her if she could give me a general indication of how often she read it, and she said it wasn’t for sure because it depended on what time she finished work. I asked if she could give me a rough estimation of how many hours she spent reading the Bible each week, and she replied that it was 30 minutes after work. I asked her if she meant 30 minutes each week or each day, and she replied that it was every day, but if it was on the weekend she’d read more.
I asked the applicant if she could tell me about the story, passage or part of the Bible that was most significant to her, and why. She replied that it’s about the plan of God and what God has created, like the different roles in our church. I asked her why that was significant to her. She replied that God is eager to create us according to his own image, and that maybe she didn’t grow maturely in God, sometimes when she needs to clarify something, she needs to check the content in these books, otherwise she may not be able to recite it.
I put to the applicant that I might not accept that she had given truthful evidence about her practice of Christianity, because: the reasons that she had given for getting baptised and following the faith were vague; and despite claiming that she read the Bible for 30 minutes every day, and more on weekends, and also that she attended church one or two times a week, she was not able to give a clear account of a significant verse or part of the Bible and why it was significant to her. In response, the applicant said that because she didn’t go to school, she wouldn’t be able to recite verses, she only be able to read according to the guide in the brochure when she opened the brochure.
I accept that the applicant has had limited formal education, having only completed a few years of primary schooling, but in spite of this, she was able to provide a considerable level of detail in her other evidence. While I would not expect a person of the applicant’s level of education to be able to memorise and quote passages from the Bible, it is reasonable to expect that a genuine follower of a religion, who attended church and read the Bible as much as the applicant claimed, would be able to describe a Bible story or verse that was meaningful to them. The applicant also talked in vague terms about her reasons for following her faith and getting baptised, what they talked about at church, significant verses and what verses she read to her parents. She referred to things such as finding comfort and not having as much sadness, God creating humans to manifest himself, wanting to walk the way of God, needing God and having to rely on god, discussing a brochure and talking about Almighty God which includes everything, talking about growth in the life of God, that Jesus replaced us to die and then became the Holy Spirit which can grant us life. She couldn’t think of a Bible verse that she enjoyed reading, and when I asked her to tell me about a part of the Bible that was significant to her, she replied that it’s about God’s plan and what God has created, like different roles in the church. When I asked her why that was significant to her, she replied that God is eager to create us according to his own image. When I asked her to explain the personal significance of aspects of her faith, her responses lacked depth and did not demonstrate the level of personal connection that it is reasonable to expect that a genuine practitioner of the faith in the applicant’s claimed circumstances would have.
I also put to the applicant that another reason I might not accept her religious claims was that she told me that the Local Church was not a Christian faith, which was not consistent with country information and also contradicted her 2024 statement where she said that she was a Christian. She replied that in the Local Church they defined Jesus Christ as their body, but don’t call themselves Christianity. I find that this is inconsistent with country information which indicates that the Local Church is a Christian religion,[2] and is also inconsistent with the applicant’s own written evidence in her 2024 statement that she had ‘become a faithful Christian of the Local Church’ and would be persecuted due to her ‘Christian faith’.
[2] See e.g. Refugee Review Tribunal, ‘Background Paper – The Local Church in China’, January 2013
I therefore find that the applicant has not given truthful evidence about her claimed practice of her Local Church (or Christian) faith.
The applicant’s credibility and findings on the claims
Given that there were several significant aspects of the applicant’s evidence which lacked a reasonable explanation or were not truthful as explained above, I find that the applicant is not a witness of truth and did not give truthful evidence about her claims.
I therefore do not accept:
a.that the applicant worked in a catering business with [Mr A];
b.that [Mr A’s] property was expropriated, or that [Mr A variant] complained or appealed about the expropriation;
c.that [Mr A] was arrested, detained, tortured or killed;
d.that the applicant attended or did a toast or speech at [Mr A’s] funeral or asked the authorities any of the things she claims she asked them at the funeral, or was accused of anti-government activities;
e.that the applicant was arrested, detained, or tortured by the police;
f.that the applicant’s ex-husband’s father bribed the police to release her on bail or helped to organise her departure to Australia;
g.that the applicant was of any interest to the authorities when she left China, or that she left China illegally; or
h.that the applicant’s family were harassed or monitored in China.
I therefore find that there is no real chance that the applicant will be of any interest to authorities in China or will suffer persecution or significant harm in China on the basis of her claims relating to [Mr A] and his funeral if she returns to China in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Because I have found that the applicant is not a witness of truth and did not give truthful evidence about her claims, I also do not accept:
a.that the applicant is a genuine Local Church or Christian practitioner or has any genuine interest in Christianity or the Local Church;
b.that the applicant has regularly attended church in Australia;
c.that the applicant has been baptised;
d.that the applicant has read the Bible or other religious materials; or
e.that the applicant has evangelised to her parents in China, or that this has become known to the authorities in China.
I therefore find that there is no real chance that the applicant will attend church or engage in any other religious activities in China if she returns there in the reasonably foreseeable future, because she has no genuine interest in doing so. I therefore find there is no real chance that she will suffer persecution or significant harm due to her claims to be a Christian or Local Church follower/practitioner/believer in China in the reasonably foreseeable future.
I have also considered the other documents provided by the applicant, namely the letter of support and the photographs. The letter of support states that the author [Ms A] (who the applicant explained was different from the [Ms B, with similar name] who introduced her to the church) had attended a church banquet and meetings together with the applicant. And I also accept that the photos depict the applicant at meetings of the [Suburb 1] Local Church. Based on this evidence, I am prepared to accept that the applicant attended meetings of the Local Church in [Suburb 1] on a small number of occasions, e.g. around 2-5 occasions between 2022 and 2024. However, I do not accept that this mere attendance on a few occasions demonstrates any genuine commitment to the faith.
I put to the applicant that even if I accepted that she attended the church on some occasions, I might find that this would not come to the attention of the authorities in China, because she had not given any evidence to show why it would; and that therefore she would not be of any interest to the authorities there based on this conduct in Australia. The applicant replied that she hardly took photos in that place, sometimes her friend took some for her, one or two times but not many, but the Chinese authorities oppose the Local Church which is defined as a cult there.
I accept that the Local Church is considered to be an ‘evil cult’ in China, but the applicant has not explained how her attendance at a small number of Local Church meetings in Australia would come to the attention of the authorities in China, particularly in circumstances where I have found that she is not a genuine follower of the faith and has not attended church regularly. In the absence of any other evidence to show why her limited attendance at church meetings in Australia would come to the attention of or be of interest to the authorities in China, I find that there is no real chance that it would. I therefore find there is no real chance that the applicant will face any kind of harm in China arising out her attendance of a small number of Local Church meetings in Australia, in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Conclusion
I have found that there is no real chance that the applicant will suffer persecution or significant harm if she returns to China in the reasonably foreseeable future, arising out of any of her claims or mattes that I have accepted. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Jason Cabarrús
Member

ATTACHMENT
Criteria for a protection visa
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted below.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted below.
Extracts from the Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2024] AATA 2172

4 April 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Natural Justice

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction