2016460 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection visa by a national of China. The applicant claimed he feared persecution upon return to China due to his opposition to the forced demolition of his mother-in-law's property and subsequent detention and ill-treatment. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal), presided over by Member Tania Flood, was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of a Protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The central legal issue was whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of suffering significant harm if returned to China. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims regarding the demolition of property, his subsequent detention and ill-treatment, and the reasons for his delayed departure from China. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant's account of events was sufficiently substantiated by evidence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's account of the events, particularly concerning the demolition of his mother-in-law's residence and the subsequent detentions, contained significant discrepancies and lacked corroborating evidence. While acknowledging the applicant's stated fear, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had provided no evidence to support his claims beyond his own testimony and a copy of his passport. The Tribunal also questioned the delay between the alleged events and the applicant's departure from China. Applying the principles of assessing a well-founded fear and the complementary protection criterion, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a real chance or a real risk of facing serious or significant harm on return to China. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse to grant the Protection visa.