2016815 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual from China. The applicant claimed he was seeking protection due to his participation in protests against unfair compensation for house demolitions in his village and his reporting of corrupt officials, which he alleged led to threats of revenge and persecution. The decision under review was a refusal by a delegate to grant the visa.

The court was required to determine whether there was a real chance that the applicant would be persecuted if returned to China, based on reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Additionally, the court had to consider whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to China, the applicant would suffer significant harm.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and DFAT country information. The delegate had refused the visa application, finding that the applicant had not established he was a refugee or a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This refusal was based on the applicant's failure to provide sufficient particularity regarding his claims of unfair compensation, protests, and subsequent harassment, despite being invited to do so by the Department. The applicant had not responded to the Department's request for further information. The DFAT country information indicated that land disputes are a common reason for protest in China, and while the Civil Code requires fair compensation, it does not define this term, and corruption in land deals is alleged. However, DFAT had no information to suggest that failed asylum seekers are targeted by authorities merely for seeking asylum, though Chinese authorities may be aware of asylum applications.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa application. The applicant had failed to provide sufficient details to substantiate his claims, and had not responded to requests for further information. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had established a real risk of persecution or significant harm upon return to China.