2016472 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse a protection visa. The applicant, a national of China, claimed to be a Christian who had participated in an underground church. The delegate had refused the visa without an interview, noting a lack of response to a request for further information, but proceeding on the basis that the applicant was Christian. The delegate concluded, based on country information, that the applicant had a low profile and could practice their faith in a state-sanctioned church upon return to China. The applicant subsequently notified the Tribunal that they would not attend a scheduled hearing and consented to a decision being made on the papers.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of section 5H(1)(a) of the Act, which requires a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, and whether there was a real chance of persecution in all areas of China. The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), which requires substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal.

The Tribunal found that there was insufficient information to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. It was unclear whether the applicant remained of interest to Chinese authorities, whether they had experienced difficulties exiting China due to such interest, or if their family had been harassed. The Tribunal also noted the passage of nearly five years since the applicant left China and the limited information regarding their practice of Christianity in China and Australia, beyond identifying with an underground church and expressing freedom of belief in Australia. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.