2013419 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the application of a Chinese national for a protection visa. The applicant claimed he feared harm upon return to China, initially alleging he witnessed a police officer commit a murder and was subsequently threatened by that officer. However, at the Tribunal hearing, the applicant recanted this claim, stating it was fabricated by his agent, and instead asserted his fear stemmed from gang members hired by property developers who had appropriated his house.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution under the refugee provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), or alternatively, whether he met the criteria for complementary protection due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia. The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of the applicant's claims, consider available country information regarding China, and apply the relevant legislative definitions of "refugee" and "significant harm."

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims were inconsistent and lacked credibility, particularly his shifting narrative regarding the source of his fear. It noted that the applicant's initial claim of being threatened by a police officer was disavowed at the hearing, and the subsequent claim involving gang members was not substantiated with sufficient evidence. The Tribunal applied the principles outlined in sections 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which require a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm, respectively. Given the lack of credible evidence and the applicant's inconsistent statements, the Tribunal concluded that he did not satisfy the criteria for either refugee status or complementary protection.

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