2112722 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant claimed to have contracted a chronic illness due to air pollution in China and asserted a fear of persecution or significant harm if returned. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either as a refugee or on complementary protection grounds.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to China. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims against the statutory definitions of "refugee" and "significant harm" under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), and consider relevant guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal reasoned that the onus was on the applicant to establish all statutory elements of their claim, and that mere assertion of fear or risk was insufficient. The applicant's claims regarding chronic illness from air pollution were found to be unsupported by detail as to how this might lead to serious or significant harm. Furthermore, the applicant's failure to attend a protection visa interview, provide oral testimony, or respond to the Tribunal's hearing invitation meant that their claims could not be tested. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm upon return to China.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.