2115708 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Chinese citizen, sought review of a decision to refuse his protection visa application. The applicant claimed to be a Christian who had ceased attending the state-sanctioned Three-Self Patriotic Church (TSPM) in 2017 due to its politicisation. He alleged he was warned against attending unregistered home churches and feared repercussions related to his land contract if he did not comply with TSPM attendance. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the applicant's claims in light of the Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, by being a refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution, or under section 36(2)(aa), by facing a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to China. This involved assessing the credibility of his claims regarding his religious beliefs and the potential for persecution or harm based on his alleged religious activities and the politicisation of the TSPM.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant failed to attend a scheduled interview with the Department of Home Affairs and did not provide further information when requested, despite being informed that the existing material was insufficient for a favourable decision. Furthermore, the applicant declined to attend a hearing before the Tribunal, requesting that the decision be made based solely on the submitted documents. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that he is a Christian or to demonstrate a link between the politicisation of the TSPM and a fear of harm. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for a protection visa.

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