2017453 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa for China. The applicant claimed a well-founded fear of persecution based on membership in a particular social group, specifically women, and imputed political opinion related to environmental complaints and health impacts of air pollution, as well as concerns about forced abortion and sterilisation. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 5J of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which involves having a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the prescribed reasons, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to China, the applicant would suffer significant harm under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's responsibility to establish her claims with sufficient evidence, noting that mere assertion of fear does not equate to a well-founded fear or a real risk of significant harm. The applicant's claims regarding health issues stemming from pollution were assessed, with the Tribunal noting that her condition had improved in Australia and she had sought medical treatment there. The Tribunal also considered the definition of "significant harm" and the circumstances under which a real risk of such harm would not be found, including the availability of effective protection measures or the possibility of reasonable relocation within the receiving country.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria under section 36(2) of the Act, either by establishing a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to China. There was no suggestion that the applicant qualified under the family unit provisions of section 36(2)(b) or (c).