2107222 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of China, sought review of the delegate's decision to refuse his protection visa application. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was a practitioner of Falun Gong or that he would be targeted by Chinese authorities on that basis. The applicant claimed he would face harm if returned to China due to his practice of Falun Gong.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations, either as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 or under the complementary protection criterion in section 36(2)(aa). This required determining if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, or if there were substantial grounds for believing he would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to China.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant had provided inconsistent accounts regarding when and where he commenced practicing Falun Gong, and his knowledge of its teachings was limited. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had established he was a practitioner of Falun Gong, nor that he faced a real risk of significant harm upon return to China. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Australia did not have protection obligations towards the applicant.