2016078 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Chinese national. The applicant claimed to fear persecution due to his business being closed by police and his reporting of corruption, leading to fears of detention and killing. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia owed protection obligations, either under the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion. This required determining if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or if there were substantial grounds for believing that removal from Australia would result in a real risk of significant harm.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not discharged his onus to establish the statutory elements for a protection visa. Despite being invited to provide further information and documentation by the Department, the applicant failed to respond. Furthermore, the applicant consented to the Tribunal making a decision on the papers without a hearing, thereby limiting the Tribunal's ability to explore and test his claims. The Tribunal emphasised that it is the applicant's responsibility to specify the particulars of their claim and provide sufficient evidence, and the Tribunal is not obliged to make or assist in establishing the applicant's case.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that based on the available evidence, it was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa.