2013682 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant, a Chinese citizen, claimed to have been a leader of a worker strike in China due to alleged labour abuses, including forced overtime without pay. He asserted that he was detained, tortured, and warned by police not to organise further strikes. He subsequently left China for Australia and applied for a protection visa.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution, or under section 36(2)(aa), whether there were substantial grounds for believing that he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to China. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims against the statutory definitions of "refugee" and "well-founded fear of persecution," as well as the meaning of "significant harm" and the availability of effective protection measures.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not satisfied the onus of establishing his claims. It noted that a mere assertion of fear does not establish its genuineness or that it is well-founded, nor does a claim of risk of significant harm automatically prove its existence. The Tribunal highlighted that it is the applicant's responsibility to provide sufficient detail and evidence to establish all statutory elements of his claim, and the Tribunal is not obliged to make or assist in making the applicant's case. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's claims lacked sufficient detail to be satisfied that he faced a real chance of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon removal to China.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958.