2009239 (Refugee)

The applicant, who arrived in Australia in January 2014 on a student visa, sought judicial review of a decision concerning his protection visa application. The applicant claimed he feared persecution in China due to his adherence to the unregistered "Local Church," also referred to as "shouters" or an "evil cult." He asserted that members of this church, including his wife who was detained and assaulted in September 2017, faced persecution from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for their religious beliefs. The applicant's own protection visa application was lodged in January 2018, after an earlier invalid application in November 2017, and he explained the delay by citing his lack of English proficiency and unfamiliarity with protection visa procedures.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether there were substantial grounds for believing that he would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to China, pursuant to section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act), which concerns complementary protection. This required the court to assess the applicant's claims of persecution against the available country information regarding the treatment of unregistered religious groups, particularly the Local Church, in China.

The court considered the applicant's evidence and the country information, including DFAT reports on religious policy in China. While acknowledging that unregistered house churches could operate with minimal interference, the court also noted that members of both registered and unregistered religious organisations could face adverse attention if they were critical of the government, advocated for politically sensitive issues, or held prominent roles. The court also took into account the government's campaign to "sinicise religion" and its concerns about foreign influence and subversion. The court found that the applicant had not established a right to enter and reside in a third country. The decision under review was affirmed.