1936170 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming a well-founded fear of persecution in China. The dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), specifically whether there was a real chance of persecution or significant harm upon return to China. The matter was before the Tribunal, presided over by Member Rosa Gagliardi.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, as defined in section 5J(1) of the Act. Alternatively, the Tribunal had to consider if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to China, the applicant would suffer significant harm as defined in section 36(2A) of the Act. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's claims regarding alleged persecution stemming from his father's business dealings with a local government department, including detention, confiscation of property, and threats.

The Tribunal applied Ministerial Direction No. 84 and relevant guidelines, including the 'Refugee Law Guidelines' and 'Complementary Protection Guidelines'. The applicant's narrative detailed a series of adverse events following his father's dispute with a new district government head, including the father's detention, the family home being confiscated, the applicant being expelled from school, and threats and physical harm directed at the applicant and his mother. Despite these claims, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa. The decision noted that there was no suggestion the applicant qualified as a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfied the refugee or complementary protection criteria.

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