2016849 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by individuals from China. The applicants claimed they were victims of loan sharks and had faced threats, physical assault, and collusion between debt collectors and the police. They asserted that if returned to China, they would be imprisoned and persecuted, leading to their death. The delegate had invited the applicants to provide further information, but no additional details or documentation were submitted to the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) as refugees, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) on complementary protection grounds due to a real risk of suffering significant harm if returned to China. This required an assessment of whether the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of membership in a particular social group, and whether effective protection measures were available in China.

The Tribunal considered the country information provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which indicated that while loan sharks are active in China, state protection is available. DFAT assessed that victims of loan sharks have a plausible fear of violence, but the overall risk is low, and police operations against such activities are substantial. The Tribunal noted that the applicants had not provided further information to substantiate their claims, particularly regarding the lack of state protection or the inability to relocate within China to avoid risk. Applying the relevant sections of the Migration Act, the Tribunal found that the applicants had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm, nor had they shown that effective protection measures were unavailable.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, as they did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the Act.