2101676 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision by the Department of Home Affairs to refuse a protection visa. The applicant, who is from China, contended that she left her country due to a lack of freedom of speech and human rights under the Communist Party's rule. She claimed that individuals who express dissenting views or use VPNs to access foreign websites face imprisonment without legal procedure. The applicant also stated she had experienced harm in China and feared mistreatment upon return, alleging the Communist Party knew of her use of VPNs and would charge her with treason. The matter was heard by the Refugee Tribunal.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons outlined in section 5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958, and whether there was a real chance she would be persecuted or suffer serious harm if returned to China. Alternatively, the Tribunal was required to consider if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to China, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm as defined in section 36(2A) of the Act.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not provided sufficient detail regarding the harm she claimed to have experienced or feared. While the applicant asserted general lack of freedom and potential imprisonment for certain actions, she failed to provide specific details of any harm she personally suffered or a concrete basis for her fear of persecution or significant harm upon return. The Tribunal noted the applicant's responsibility to supply facts in necessary detail and her failure to respond to invitations to provide further information or attend a hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa.