2013535 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs' decision to refuse to grant the applicant, a citizen of China, a protection visa. The applicant claimed to have borrowed money from a usurer, and when unable to repay the debt, was subjected to threats and physical assault by gangsters sent by the usurer. He also claimed his home was resumed by the local government without adequate compensation, forcing him to borrow money.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as a refugee, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) as a person facing a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to China. The court was required to assess the applicant's claims in light of the evidence provided and relevant country information.

The court affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the criteria for a protection visa. While acknowledging the applicant's claims regarding land resumption, debt, and threats from a usurer and associated gangsters, the court noted significant ambiguities in the material. Specifically, the court found it unclear how much money was borrowed, the repayment status of the debt, whether the usurer or gangsters had contacted the applicant or his family since his departure, or if they remained interested in harming him. Given that over six years had passed since the applicant left China and lodged his statement, the lack of updated information regarding these matters meant the Tribunal was not satisfied there was a real chance the applicant would face persecution or harm upon return. Consequently, the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the Act.