2016820 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa, who claimed to be a citizen of China. The applicant alleged a fear of harm from an "underground bank" in Malaysia, involving threats, violence against her parents, and collusion with police. The AAT was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether she had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm if returned to China.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's responsibility to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate her claims. While accepting the applicant's Chinese nationality based on her passport, the AAT noted the lack of evidence regarding her right to reside in Malaysia or any other country besides China. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided adequate detail or evidence to support her claims of fear of harm, nor had she established that any potential harm would be significant or well-founded for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Consequently, the AAT was not satisfied that the applicant would experience serious harm if returned to China, and therefore, Australia had no protection obligations towards her.

As a result of the insufficient evidence presented by the applicant to satisfy the refugee or complementary protection criteria, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa. The applicant did not meet the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the relevant legislation, nor did she satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(b) or (c) as she did not demonstrate membership in the same family unit as a person who met those criteria.