2018142 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse the applicant, a citizen of China, a protection visa. The applicant had arrived in Australia in May 2017 and applied for a protection visa in July 2017, claiming he had been threatened by a Triad group connected to a supplier after a business dispute, had his shop burglarised, and feared for his safety and that of his family if returned to China. The delegate refused the visa on the basis that Australia had no protection obligations under either the refugee or complementary protection criteria.

The Administrative Appeals 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 Tribunal 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 race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and whether there was a real chance of persecution in China. The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), which involves a real risk of suffering significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa. While the applicant presented claims of threats from a Triad group and a lack of police protection in China, the Tribunal concluded that these circumstances did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, nor did they meet the threshold for significant harm under the complementary protection provisions. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy section 36(2) of the Act.