2101254 (Refugee)

The applicants, citizens of China, sought a protection visa. The dispute concerned whether they met the criteria for the grant of such a visa, specifically whether they had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm upon removal to China. The matter was before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicants had satisfied the statutory elements for a protection visa, including whether they could establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm in China. This involved assessing the evidence presented by the applicants against the relevant legal criteria and guidelines, including Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, and Complementary Protection Guidelines.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had not provided sufficient detail or documentation to satisfy its concerns regarding their protection claims. It noted that the onus was on the applicants to specify and establish their claims, and that a decision-maker was not obliged to construct the case for them. The limited information provided, particularly concerning the first applicant's nephew's medical prognosis and the details of a petition lodged, meant the Tribunal could not be satisfied that the applicants faced a real chance of persecution or a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their removal to China.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants did not meet the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Migration Act 1958. As a result, they also failed to meet the criteria under section 36(2)(b) or (c). The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visas.