2015665 (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 he faced persecution due to his involvement in a petition against unfair demolition and subsequent conflict with Chinese authorities. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm.

The Tribunal considered whether the applicant's claims of persecution related to his political opinion, and whether he met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2) of the Act. A key issue was the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence provided by the applicant regarding his alleged petition, the demolition plan, and the actions of the authorities. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had failed to respond to a request for further information under section 56 of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient supporting detail or evidence to substantiate his claim of being a petitioner against a demolition plan. Specifically, the Tribunal highlighted the absence of evidence concerning property ownership, the demolition plan itself, the petition's signatories, developer details, compensation figures, and the ultimate fate of his property. Furthermore, the Tribunal applied the principles of complementary protection, noting that Australia does not have such obligations if it is reasonable for the applicant to relocate within their country, if they can obtain protection from an authority in their country, or if the risk is faced by the general population rather than the applicant personally.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.