2013283 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of China. The applicant claimed to have been forced to sell his land at a low price for development, to have resisted this, and subsequently had his house demolished, been threatened with jail, and detained. He also claimed that government departments were unhelpful and that he feared imprisonment and homelessness if returned to China. The decision under review affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This required determining if the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of section 5H(1)(a) of the Act, by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or if he met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims and evidence were vague and inconsistent, and lacked supporting documentation. The applicant had continued to live in or return to the local area until his departure from China, and his application had been prepared by an agent, despite bearing his signature and email address. The Tribunal considered the applicant's oral evidence and relevant country information, but concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal noted that there was no suggestion the applicant satisfied the criteria as a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa.

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