2203030 (Refugee)
[2025] ARTA 1999
•28 July 2025
2203030 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1999 (28 JULY 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2203030
Tribunal:General Member M. Tubridy
Date:28 July 2025
Place:Sydney
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Statement made on 28 July 2025 at 2:37pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – religion – Christian – home church – detention – physical assault – fines – credibility issues – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), s 106Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 10 February 2022 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The application for review was lodged with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) on 4 March 2022. On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the ART. The Transitional Act gives the ART the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.[1]
[1] References in this decision to ‘the Tribunal’ are intended to include both the AAT and the ART.
BACKGROUND
As noted, the applicant lodged his application for review with the Tribunal on 4 March 2022. In doing so, he provided the Tribunal with a copy of the refusal notification which was emailed to him on 10 February 2022 by the Department of Home Affairs (the Department), along with a copy of the delegate’s reasons for refusing to grant the visa.
The delegate’s decision records that the applicant lodged his application for a protection visa on 28 December 2017, and in doing so had submitted protection claims in writing with respect to the prospect of returning to the People’s Republic of China (hereafter: China). The delegate summarised the applicant’s claims as follows. He was a citizen of China and a Christian who feared he would be denied this religious freedom in China. He had belonged to a Christian family who often offered their home as a meeting place for church gatherings, and who as a result of practising their Christian faith had faced monitoring and arrest by the authorities. He did not want to attend state-sanctioned churches in China as he considered these to be manipulated by the Chinese authorities, and he came to Australia to pursue a life where he can have the religious freedom to attend church services. The delegate noted that the applicant had provided a copy of his passport as evidence of his identity and citizenship, and the delegate accepted that the applicant was a national of China. But the delegate had concerns about the applicant’s claim to be a Christian and to have experienced adverse treatment from the authorities in China as a result. The delegate considered that the applicant’s claims about these matters lacked detail and supporting evidence. The delegate related that on 20 May 2021 she had written to the applicant and had had invited him to provide more information about these claims, but the applicant had not responded to this invitation. On the basis of the evidence before her, the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was a Christian or that he had a profile that would be of adverse interest to the Chinese authorities or anyone else if he returned to China. Given this, the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant had well-founded fear of persecution, or that he would face a real risk of significant harm, in China.
On 4 March 2022 the Tribunal emailed the applicant an acknowledgement that his application for review had been received. In doing so, the Tribunal provided the applicant with an overview of what to expect of the review process, and the applicant was also advised that if he wished to provide material or written arguments for the Tribunal to consider (including a statement setting out why he disagreed with the delegate’s decision) he should do so as soon as possible. The correspondence also included a message in both simplified and traditional Chinese which advised that the Tribunal’s letter required the applicant’s urgent attention and that, if he did not understand it, he should telephone the Tribunal with the assistance of the Translating & Interpreting Service on a provided telephone number. The Tribunal received no response from the applicant to this.
The Department provided the Tribunal with a copy of the applicant’s protection visa application (including a copy of the applicant’s Statement in Support of Protection Visa Application; and a copy of the biodata pages from the applicant’s People’s Republic of China passport), also associated correspondence (including the delegate’s request for more information which was emailed to the applicant on 20 May 2021) and some associated administrative documents, and a further copy of the delegate’s decision.
In his written Statement in Support of Protection Visa Application (hereafter the Protection Statement) the applicant submitted that he fears return to China because he is Christian, and that he will become the target of persecution because of his faith. The applicant claims that he could never worship at a state sanctioned church in China because he considers these are not genuine churches because they are manipulated by the Chinse authorities, and because politics should have no place in Christianity. The applicant (who was born in [specified year]) details the background to his protection claims as follows:
· I was born in [year] in Jiangshan Zhejiang China. My family is a Christian family. My first memory of attending a church service was when I was about 10 (that is, in around [year]), and my parents had me baptised when I was around [age] (that is, in around 1994). My parents provided their home for church services which are not officially sanctioned by the Chinese authorities. My family also attended underground church services held at the homes of friends. The Chinese authorities neither approve of nor tolerate such house churches. I was under 18-years-old when my parents were subjected to harassment and persecution by the Chinese authorities (that is, before [year]).
· When I was about [age] (in around 1997) the Public Security Bureau (PSB) came to a church service held at a friend’s house tht I and my family were attending. They took away out Bibles and left after that. The PSB would come at least two or three times a month to disturb our church gatherings, and they would also come to out family home to search without a warrant. They would come mostly in the afternoon. My parents would ask them what they were searching for, but the PSB would simply reply very rudely or push them aside and continue with their searching. The other families that we worshipped with also experienced these searches.
· The PSB would also say to my father that he had to pay a fine because of our unauthorised church activities. On many occasions they asked for a fine to be paid, and this might be a few hundred renminbi (RMB) or over RMB1,000. My father would always pay the fine as he was afraid of what the PSB might do to my family. My father suffered punches, threats, and being hit with a club. Once my father could not pay the fine and I was taken away to the local police station where I was confined to a small room where I was given no food or water, and where an officer used his cigarette to burn my right foot (from which I still have a scar) when I would not stop crying. I was detained for four to five hours and only released after my parents paid the fine having borrowed money.
· My father chose to move us to another city to get away from the PSB harassment so that I and my siblings would be safer. We had some friends who were former residents of our village who had also moved there, so we moved there around the end of 2007 or the start of 2008 (that is, when the applicant was around [age]-years-of-age). In the new city my family shared a two-level building with another family; my family lived downstairs. Initially my family generally prayed at home but as we got to know more and more Christians in the area, we began to hold services together at our home and also at the home of those friends. Services were held weekly, and were moved to try to avoid detection, with services at my home occurring once every month or every two months.
· After a few months the local PSB started paying attention to the services at my home. The first time they warned us to stop holding unauthorised church services. They said they wanted to ban our illegal church, and they forced people to surrender their Bibles, and some of the congregation argued with the officers and were arrested and taken away. The PSB continued to come and randomly search my family’s home. They smashed our property and stole from us. Despite this harassment my family continued to worship at home and hold church services. Another time officers claiming to be from the Local National Protection Bureau came and searched and ransacked our house.
· Our family moved a few times when I lived in the new city in an attempt to get away from the harassment from the PSB. For a while my family was not visited by the PSB, but after a while the harassment started again. My parents did not want me to suffer any more harm from the authorities for being a Christian and began to think about where I might be safe. They decided I should escape by applying to study in Australia. With the help of a family friend who was an official at the passport office, I was able to obtain a genuine passport in my own name, and with the help of an agent I obtained a student visa for Australia. [In] October 2017 (that is, when the applicant was around [age] years-of-age) I arrived in Australia on a visitor visa. After my arrival in Australia, I have continued to worship and attend church services.
On 19 May 2025 the Tribunal emailed the applicant and advised him that his file was being prepared to be given to a Tribunal Member. He was asked to assist the Tribunal by completing a pre-hearing information form, and then returning this to the Tribunal within 14 days. The Tribunal received no response from the applicant to this.
On 13 June 2025 the Tribunal again emailed the applicant and notified him that a Tribunal Member had been allocated to hold a hearing and make a decision about his review. He was notified that his hearing was scheduled to start at 1:00pm on 1 July 2025 at the Tribunal’s Sydney office. He was asked to read and complete an enclosed ‘Response to hearing notice’ form and return it to the Tribunal within seven days. He was advised to provide all documents he intended to rely on to support his case by 24 June 2025. The applicant was also notified that he could use the ‘Response to hearing notice’ form to request the Tribunal to make a decision without a hearing. The applicant was also notified: Please note that if you request the Tribunal to make a decision without a hearing, and the Tribunal proceeds to make a decision because it considers the issues can be determined in your absence, this does not guarantee you will receive a favourable decision.
On 25 June 2025 the Tribunal received an email from a previously unknown email address which was in the applicant’s name, and which presented as being from the applicant (and which referenced the correct Tribunal case number for the applicant’s matter), and in which he indicated that he wished to update his details. The email included an image of the biodata pages from the applicant’s passport, and also a change of contact details form (providing a new residential address, mobile telephone number, and which indicated the applicant’s new email address as per the address via which all of this had been sent) which had been signed with the applicant’s signature. It also attached a completed ‘Response to hearing notice’ (carrying the details of the hearing scheduled for 1 July 2025 as per the Tribunal’s notification of 13 June 2025) and which had likewise been signed by the applicant. Given all of this, I am satisfied that the email of 25 June 2025 was sent by the applicant.
Relevantly, in his completed ‘Response to hearing notice’ the applicant had marked the checkbox for indicating that he would not participate in the hearing, and that he requested that the Tribunal make a decision on the papers without a hearing. I note, in this regard that he also marked the checkbox for indicating that there was no issue (such as a health problem or disability) that would affect his ability to participate in the hearing. He also marked the checkbox for indicating that he did not believe that he would experience difficulty in participating in the hearing or that the hearing could not be conducted as per the hearing notice. He also marked the checkboxes for indicating that he did not intend to rely on any documents at the hearing, or to make a request for the Tribunal to take oral evidence from any witnesses.
Section 106 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (the ART Act) sets out the circumstances in which the Tribunal may reach a decision without a hearing. Section 106(3) applies to reviews where the only parties are the applicant and a non-participating party, which is the case here. It provides that the Tribunal may make a decision without a hearing where the applicant requests the Tribunal to make its decision without holding the hearing of the proceeding, and it appears to the Tribunal that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties.
I am satisfied that the applicant has made a request that the Tribunal make a decision without holding a hearing of the proceeding within the meaning of s.106(3)(b)(ii) of the ART Act. The issues to be decided in this review are whether the applicant meets the criteria for a protection visa, and specifically whether he satisfies the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act or, if not, whether he satisfies the complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa). As has been noted above, the applicant has been provided several opportunities (first by the Department, and subsequently by the Tribunal) to provide further claims and/or evidence and information in support of his case since he lodged his protection visa application on 28 December 2017. He has not done so, nor has he indicated that he wishes to do so, nor has he requested to be allowed further time to do so. The material before the Tribunal includes the applicant’s protection claims (in his Protection Statement), and his claim to be a national of China, along with a copy of his passport passport, and the information he has provided in his protection visa application about his identity and personal history. I also have before me country information about China, including the relevant country information assessments prepared by DFAT. I consider, as per s.106(3)(c) of the ART Act, that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of a hearing.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Criteria for protection visa
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs (the Department), and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
Receiving Country
The applicant presents as a citizen of the People’s Republic of China (China). The Nationality Law of the People’s Republic of China 1980 (Article 4) provides that: Any person born in China whose parents are both Chinese nationals or one of whose parents is a Chinese national shall have Chinese nationality.[2] The applicant has indicated that he was born in China to parents who were both Chinese nationals. He has provided a copy of his People’s Republic of China issued passport and this indicates that the applicant was born China (in China’s Zhejiang Province), and it presents his nationality as Chinese. I accept that the applicant is a citizen and a national of China, and I find China to be his receiving country for the purpose of this review.
[2] Low, C.C. 'Report on Citizenship Law: China and Taiwan', Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, October 2016, 20190212133821, p.9.
Protection claims
The applicant claims to fear that if he were to return to China he would be unable to freely practice his faith of Christianity because the state sanctioned churches in China are a tool of manipulation and control and are not genuine churches, and if he sought to practice his faith by way of staging and attending church services at his home and/or in the homes of other Christians in the local area he would face harassment from China’s authorities.
Background: China, Christianity, and criticising the CCP
Although China’s governing Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officially promotes atheism,[3] the country nonetheless officially recognises five religions: Buddhism, Daoism (Taoism), Catholicism, Islam and Protestantism; but official recognition requires registration as part of one of the ‘patriotic associations’ administered by the CCP.[4] In the case of Protestant Christianity (which in the context of China largely takes in all forms of Christianity other than Catholicism) this means that a given church is required to register with the Three-Self Patriotic Movement or TSPM.[5] The Chinese government has estimated that the TSPM has 23 to 30 million members,[6] out of the total estimated 38 million Christians in China.[7] More broadly it is reported that the size of the Christian population in China is much higher, with some sources estimating that the number Christians in China, or even the number of Protestants alone, exceeds 70 million;[8] and it is estimated that somewhere between 80 to 90 percent of China’s Christians are Protestants (while the remainder are largely Catholics).[9]
[3] Pew Research, ‘Chinese Communist Party promotes atheism, but many members still partake in religious customs’, 2 September 2023,
[4] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: China’, 27 December 2024, 2025010208414, 3.49; DFAT, 'DFAT Country Information Report: China', 22 December 2021, 20211222100210, 3.22, 3.25; DFAT, 'DFAT Country Information Report: China', 3 October 2019, 20191003160550, 3.37, 3.39.
[5] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: China’, 27 December 2024, 2025010208414, 3.82; DFAT, 'DFAT Country Information Report: China', 22 December 2021, 20211222100210, 3.22.
[6] DFAT, 'DFAT Country Information Report: China', 22 December 2021, 20211222100210, 3.28.
[7] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: China’, 27 December 2024, 2025010208414, 3.64; DFAT, 'DFAT Country Information Report: China', 3 October 2019, 20191003160550, 3.84.
[8] Hackett, C. & Y. Tong, ‘The Growth of Christianity in China May Have Come to an End’, Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 10 January 2025, ; DFAT, 'DFAT Country Information Report: China', 22 December 2021, 20211222100210, 3.28; USDOS, 'International Religious Freedom Report for 2023 - China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, and Xinjiang)', 26 June 2024, 20240628112222, p.6.
[9] Pew Research Center, 'Measuring Religion in China', 30 August 2023, 20230913092014, pp.61-62.
In-country sources told DFAT in 2023 that official church services were required to begin with patriotic messages to ‘love the Party, love the homeland and love socialism’. While Chinese Communist Party (CCP) approved Bibles were available for personal use, all content contradicting socialism was censored. Those who sold or distributed non-CCP approved bibles without authorisation faced arrest and prolonged detention.[10] Some Christian advocacy groups like ChinaAid have alleged that there have been some instances of certain church leaders being subjected to torture while under interrogation.[11]
[10] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: China’, 27 December 2024, 2025010208414, 3.65.
[11] USDOS, 'International Religious Freedom Report for 2023 - China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, and Xinjiang)', 26 June 2024, 20240628112222, pp.14-15.
Many Christians in China attend TSPM churches but it is reported that most worship in unofficial ‘house’ churches, and that these ‘underground’ churches may literally be in a house, or can be large gatherings in, for example, commercial office space.[12] The latter kind of ‘house’ churches have sometimes grown to have hundreds or even thousands of congregants, though house churches with thousands of members (known as megachurches) are increasingly less common owing to the manner in which over recent decades the authorities have pressured such larger house churches to join the TSPM; and with those which refuse to do this seeing their membership dwindle as a result of having their leaders detained and their operations disrupted (examples include the Shouwang Church, the Golden Lampstand Church, and the Zion Church).[13] Other house churches, and in particular smaller, house churches, may be tolerated so long as they do not cross any other red-lines such as engaging in contact with foreign Protestant organizations (such contacts are authorized only if managed by the Three-Self Church and approved by the CCP) or criticising the CCP (the Early Rain Covenant Church is an example of a church which has crossed the latter red-line).[14]
[12] DFAT, 'DFAT Country Information Report: China', 22 December 2021, 20211222100210, 3.33.
[13] Hernández, J.C. 'As China Cracks Down on Churches, Christians Declare ‘We Will Not Forfeit Our Faith’', Javier C. New York Times, The, 25 December 2018, 20181228140254Introvigne, M. ‘Shouwang Church: The Rise and Fall of Beijing’s Largest Megachurch’, 30 March 2019, ; 'Police in China's Shanxi Detain Nine Protestant House Church Members', Radio Free Asia (RFA), 09 August 2021, 20210813125332; Zhipeng, W. 'Beijing Shouwang Church: The House Church That Refuses to Die', Bitter Winter, 14 February 2023, 20231006182546; China Aid, 2023 Annual Persecution Report, March 2024, 2024070212491, pp.29, 32, 43-44, .
[14] Introvigne, M. ‘Is There a Selective Persecution of House Churches in China?’, Bitter Winter, 31 January 2019, ; 'China Detains 17 Protestant Christians Who Prayed For Tiananmen Massacre Victims', Radio Free Asia (RFA), 05 June 2018, CXBB8A1DA34734; 'No Reports on Chengdu Church Crackdown', China Digital Times (CDT), 10 December 2018, CXBB8A1DA40198; China Aid, 2023 Annual Persecution Report, March 2024, 2024070212491, pp.49-55.
There are also some fringe Christian movements which China’s government classifies as being ‘xie jiao’ (which is commonly translated as ‘evil cult’, but which is reportedly closer in meaning to ‘heterodox teachings’).[15] These include groups like The Church of Almighty God (COAG or CAG, and also known as Eastern Lightning; and which is known for preaching that a “female Christ” who will reign over a new age in which humankind will be judged and only believers will survive, and for calling on members to slay the CCP which they call the ‘great Red Dragon’),[16] and also The Shouters (a pejorative term derived from this group’s loud and energetic worship practices).[17] Others include the Society of Disciples (Mentu Hui), Full Scope Church (Quan Fanwei Jiaohui), Spirit Sect, New Testament Church, Three Grades of Servants (San Ban Puren), Association of Disciples, Established King Church, Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (Unification Church), Family of Love, and South China Church.[18] DFAT has reported that Membership in a xie jiao is illegal in China, and the profile of a person who is a member – whether they are a leader or an ordinary believer – was not relevant in 2023 to the chances of arrest once detected. Even low-profile worshippers in a xie jiao were subject to arrest to in 2023.[19]
[15] Zoccatelli, P.L. 'Anti-cult campaigns in China and the case of the Church of Almighty God. An introduction', CESNUR, January 2018, CIS7B8394110606, p.4.
[16] Dui Hua Foundation, 'The Persecution of Unorthodox Religious Groups in China', 29 March 2022, 20220407134713, p.12; DFAT, 'DFAT Country Information Report: China', 22 December 2021, 20211222100210, 3.101-3.102.
[17] DFAT, 'DFAT Country Information Report: China', 22 December 2021, 20211222100210, 3.118-3.112; Dui Hua Foundation, 'The Persecution of Unorthodox Religious Groups in China', 29 March 2022, 20220407134713, pp.24-25.
[18] USDOS, 'International Religious Freedom Report for 2023 - China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, and Xinjiang)', 26 June 2024, 20240628112222, p.10.
[19] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: China’, 27 December 2024, 2025010208414, 3.99.
Excepting the situation of Christians engaging with churches deemed to be xie jiao by the authority, DFAT assesses that Christians in China face a moderate risk of official discrimination when attempting to practice their faith, in accordance with established religious doctrine, when it conflicts with CCP approved practice. DFAT assesses that Christians in China face a low risk of official discrimination on the basis of their religion when accessing public and social services, housing, government employment and education. DFAT assesses official discrimination would likely relate to an individual’s activism or failure to comply with CCP directives, rather than anything specifically related to their Christian faith, and DFAT is not aware of violence perpetrated against Christians because of their religion.[20] DFAT assesses that Protestant Christians face a low risk of official discrimination on the basis of their religion alone, however leaders of non-TPSM affiliated, unregistered Protestant churches (pastors and congregation elders) face a moderate risk of official discrimination on the basis of religion in the form of harassment and possible detention for religious-related offences.[21]
[20] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: China’, 27 December 2024, 2025010208414, 3.66.
[21] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: China’, 27 December 2024, 2025010208414, 3.86.
DFAT assess that, overall, an individual’s ability to practise religion is dependent on whether they worship in registered or unregistered institutions, whether they practise openly or privately, and whether an individual’s religious expression or the religion itself is perceived by the CCP to be closely tied to other ethnic, political and security issues.[22]
[22] DFAT, ‘DFAT Country Information Report: China’, 27 December 2024, 2025010208414, 3.61.
The UK Home Office has similarly assessed that Christians in China (whether they belong to a state-registered church or not) are in general unlikely to be at risk of persecution or serious harm on the basis of their faith alone. In state-registered churches: dissident bishops or prominent Christians who challenge, or who are perceived to challenge, public order and the legal conditions under which churches and leaders may operate, may be at risk of persecution or serious harm. Christians who worship in unregistered churches or as part of an illegal cult and conduct themselves in such a way as to attract the local authorities’ attention to them, or their political, social or cultural views, may face a real risk of persecution or serious harm; but each case must be considered on its facts, and the evidence is that the many millions of Christians worshipping within unregistered churches are able to meet and express their faith as they wish to do and, in general, any adverse treatment of Christian communities by the Chinese authorities is confined to closing down church buildings where planning permission has not been obtained for use as a church, and/or preventing or interrupting unauthorised public worship or demonstrations.[23]
The applicant’s protection claims and evidence
[23] UK Home Office, 'Country Policy and Information Note China: Christians', 4 April 2024, 20240405142424
All this noted, it is difficult to believe that the applicant was himself a Christian, or that he had any problems in this regard in China. There is, at the outset, the problem that of how little detail is provided in the Protection Statement with respect to when and where past experiences of harassment are claimed to have occurred. In the Protection Statement it is claimed that when the applicant and his parents and siblings were residing in Jiangshan he was once detained for four-to-five hours (and subjected to physical mistreatment) following an incident in which his father had been unable to pay a fine for engaging in unauthorised church activities. But there is no indication of the approximate month or even the year for when this purported event occurred; with the Protection Statement offering no more than that this event occurred at some point after the applicant reached [age]-years-of-age (that is, at some point after October 1997) and prior to the end of 2007 or the start of 2008 (at which time the applicant claims his father moved the family to another city to get away from the PSB harassment so that the applicant and his siblings would be safer). That is to say, that this event occurred at some point over the course of a decade. I note also that in the Protection Statement it is claimed that the applicant’s parents decided to send the applicant to Australia because of how the PSB continued to randomly search the family home after they had moved to another city, and even after the applicant and his parents had moved a few times in this new city. But the Protection Statement gives no indication of when these moves occurred, or of when the applicant had his most recent encounter with the PSB prior to his leaving China, or even the name of the new city.
As has been noted above, the delegate wrote to the applicant and invited him to provide further information about his claims, including further detail as to the specific dates and locations involved with respect to the events which the applicant claimed had led him to depart China. The applicant did not seek to provide such details to the delegate and, even though this lack of clarification was the delegate’s foremost reason for why the delegate rejected the applicant’s claims, the applicant subsequently made no effort to provide any further such information to the Tribunal, or an explanation of why he disagreed with the delegate’s decision (even though the Tribunal expressly invited the applicant to provide such further information as he might wish as soon as possible).
There are, moreover, other aspects to the applicant’s evidence which strongly suggest that the claims put forward in his Protection Statement are not credible. For, in his responses to the questions asked of him in the protection visa application form, the applicant has provided information which indicates that his personal history in China was very different to that which is presented in his Protection Statement.
In his responses to the questions asked by the protection visa application form, the applicant does indicate (as per his Protection Statement) that he was born and raised in Jiangshan; with the applicant indicating that he attended primary and then middle school in Jiangshan’s [Town 1] [between specified years], and then high school in Jiangshan’s [Village 1] between [later years]. But whereas in his Protection Statement it is indicated that the applicant and his parents and siblings left for another city some [number] years later (that is, at the end of 2007 or the start of 2008; when the applicant would have been [age]-years-of-age), in his protection visa application form responses the applicant has indicated that he left Jiangshan in September 1997 (that is, when he was still [age]-years-of-age and immediately after [a specified phase of schooling]) and that he did so to take up residence at [College 1] in [City 1] where he [studied] [Details deleted].[24] What is more, after the applicant completed his studies at the [College 1] (in [specified year]), he returned to Jiangshan and (from [then] until he departed China) he resided in Jiangshan at the same address on [Address 1] in Jiangshan City. From [year] until June 2017 the applicant earned a livelihood by running his own [business] out of this home address. From June 2017 until his October 2017 (that is, until he departed China for Australia) he was employed as [an occupation 1] at a [business 1] (also located in Jiangshan), but his residential address remained at the same location on [Address 1] in Jiangshan City. Moreover, in his December 2017 protection visa application the applicant indicated that this continued to be his residential address in China, and that this was where his wife and [children] were residing.
[24] ChinaMaps.org, ‘China Zhejiang Map’, undated,
Given all of this, it is difficult to believe that at the end of 2007 or the start of 2008 the applicant moved from Jiangshan to another city to avoid persecution because of his Christian faith, and that after arriving in this new city the applicant and his parents and siblings had together moved a few times within the new city to get away from harassment from the PSB.
I note, moreover, that the applicant’s Protection Statement gives the impression that the applicant’s immediate family (from the time of his birth until his departure from China) consisted of no one other than himself and his parents and his siblings; with the applicant’s parents deciding where the family (including the applicant) should go for their safety (even though the applicant was some [age]-years-of-age when it was purportedly decided for him that he should leave China for Australia), and without there being any mention of the applicant having a wife or any children of his own. Yet it is apparent from the applicant’s responses to his protection visa application that he married in August 2001, and that he then had [specified children] ([born] in Jiangshan in [specified years]). I note also that the applicant’s Protection Statement submits that when his parents decided that he should go abroad, they decided that he should escape by applying to study in Australia, and it is then stated that the applicant obtained a student visa for Australia. I note, however, that the applicant arrived in Australia as the holder of a visitor visa rather than a student visa (and this is expressly stated further on in the Protection Statement but without any explanation of why the Protection Statement previously referred to the obtaining of a student visa for this purpose). What is strongly suggested by all of this is that the Protection Statement was not written by or about the applicant, and that it is instead a fictional account of events which was written by an undisclosed third party, and which has had some (though not all) or its original details altered in an attempt to better align itself with the circumstances of the applicant (albeit unconvincingly).
There is, further to this, the matter of the applicant’s claim that following his arrival in Australia he has continued to worship and attend church services. Yet the applicant has never provided any documentary evidence of this, or even any indication of where or with whom he is purported engaging in such worship and church services here in Australia.
Given all of this I am not satisfied, and I do not accept, that the applicant has ever experienced any adverse attention from the PSB or any other state authorities or any other actor in China, nor do I accept that the applicant is or that he has ever been of the Christian faith, or that he has any interest in engaging in the practice of the Christian faith (including by way of attending Christian worship and church services or in staging such services). Given this, I am not satisfied that the applicant would face a real chance or a real risk of harm of any kind in China were he to return to Jiangshan or indeed anywhere else in China.
Does the applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?
For the reasons given above, I am not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning set out in s 5J. I am not satisfied that the applicant is a refugee within the meaning set out in s 5H.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Does the applicant satisfy the complementary protection criterion for protection?
For the reasons given above, I am not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to his receiving country, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
Other considerations
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a) severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b) pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d) arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b) that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a) for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b) for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c) for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d) for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e) for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a) a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b) if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a) in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b) in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note: For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a) the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b) there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c) the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note: For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note: For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a) conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b) conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c) without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a) that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b) the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c) the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a) a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b) significant physical harassment of the person;
(c) significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d) significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e) denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f) denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a) a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b) the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c) any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d) the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b) the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a) the person can access the protection; and
(b) the protection is durable; and
(c) in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36 Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a) a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a) the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b) the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c) the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d) the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e) the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a) it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b) the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c) the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…
1
0
0