2113006 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Chinese citizen, sought a protection visa, claiming he fled China due to threats from an individual named Mr. A who sought to acquire his business at an unfair price, and subsequent harm to himself and his staff when he refused. He also alleged police inaction due to Mr. A's connections. However, at the hearing, the applicant presented significantly different reasons for leaving China, stating it was difficult to find employment due to his perceived poor work ethic and his religious beliefs, specifically his adherence to Christianity.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) or under the complementary protection provisions in section 36(2)(aa). This required the Tribunal to assess the applicant's credibility and determine if he had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of suffering significant harm if returned to China, based on the reasons provided in his application and at the hearing.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence to be inconsistent and lacking credibility. It noted the stark contradiction between his initial claim of business-related threats and his later assertion that he never ran a business, and his vague and basic knowledge of Christianity. The Tribunal accepted the applicant's personal background details as true, including that he had not run a business. Given these inconsistencies, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.

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