2203572 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1247

2203572 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1247 (11 JUNE 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number: 2203572

Tribunal:Clyde Cosentino
Date:11 June 2025

Place:Brisbane
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 11 June 2025 at 12:17pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – religion – Christian – Protestant Christian – removal of cross from church – protests – detention – physical assault – credibility issues – exit procedures – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, s 106
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 5AAA, 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 56, 65, 367, 424, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
Selvadurai v MIEA (1994) 34 ALD 347
Any 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 1 March 2022 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a national of China, applied for the visa on 20 July 2021. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant does not engage Australia’s protection obligations under the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa) and does not satisfy any of the other criteria in s 36(2) of the Act.
On 14 March 2022, the applicant lodged an application for review with the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The applicant provided a copy of the delegate’s decision to the Tribunal as part of the review application.
On 14 March 2022, the Tribunal sent a letter by email to the applicant acknowledging receipt of his application for review. In that letter the applicant was invited to provide further material or written arguments for the Tribunal to consider, and that the applicant should provide it “as soon as possible”.
On 31 May 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising that his case was being prepared for allocation to a Tribunal Member.
On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). 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 Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT.
On 7 April 2025, the applicant was notified in writing in a Hearing notice that his matter had been constituted and that a Tribunal Member had been allocated to hold a hearing and make a decision about his review. He was notified his matter had been set down for hearing for 23 April 2025 at the Brisbane Registry. The applicant was asked to complete a ‘Response to hearing notice’ form (Hearing response form) and to provide any additional information or new information he wished the Tribunal to consider. The Hearing notice stated that if the applicant wished the Tribunal to make a decision without holding a hearing, he could request this in the Hearing response form. It was noted in the Hearing notice that if he were to 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 his absence, this does not guarantee he will receive a favourable decision.
On 12 April 2025, the applicant submitted (via email) a completed Hearing response form in which he stated in the form that he will not participate in the hearing and requests the Tribunal to make a decision on the papers without holding a hearing. In his covering email he also stated:
I HERE REQUEST THE ART TRIBUNAL TO MAKE A DECISION WITHOUT HEARING INTERVIEW, BUT ART TRIBUNAL PLEASE MAKE A DECISION ON PAPERS [the applicant’s email was in FULL CAPS]
The applicant also attached in his email a copy of his biometrics page of his Chinese passport issued [in] 2014. The applicant did not provide any further information or additional information in support of his claims.
The hearing was cancelled on 23 April 2025.
The Tribunal has considered that the circumstances in which it may reach a decision without a hearing are set out in s 106 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act). They include where an applicant requests the Tribunal to make its decision without holding a hearing of the proceedings: s 106(3) ART Act. On the basis of the information in the Hearing response form (coupled with the applicant’s covering email), the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has requested the Tribunal to make its decision without holding a hearing. The Tribunal is satisfied that the circumstances in s 106(3)(b)(ii) of the ART Act are met.
The Tribunal must also consider whether it appears that the issues for determination in the proceedings can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to the proceeding: s 106(3)(c) ART Act. In reviewing a decision to refuse to grant a protection visa, the issues which the Tribunal is required to determine are:
i.Whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution as outlined in s 5J of the Act with respect to their receiving country (s 36(2)(a) of the Act); and
ii.If they do not satisfy s 36(2)(a), whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant’s removal from Australia to their receiving country, there is a real risk they will suffer significant harm (s 36(2)(aa) of the Act)
In this case it appears to the Tribunal that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of a hearing. The evidence available to the Tribunal, as outlined below, allows it to determine the applicant’s identity and receiving country and form conclusions about whether he engages protection obligations under

s 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Act without seeking further evidence or submissions from the applicant.
The Tribunal finds that the requirements in s 106(3) of the ART Act are met and has therefore proceeded to make a decision without holding a hearing.
BACKGROUND
Evidence before the Department
According to his protection visa application, which was lodged on 21 July 2021:
·The applicant was born in [a location in Liaoning], China.
·He previously resided at [that location in Liaoning], China from [birth] to [August] 2019.
·He claims he has never studied and has never worked.
·He claims that he departed China at Beijing International Airport [in] August 2019.
·The applicant’s claims for protection are outlined below.
oIn response to the question of why he left his country he states:
§In my country there is a widespread of Protestant persecutions. I am a Protestant believer and I have been the victim of a recent malicious campaign which was orchestrated by the Chinese Communist Party. They have attempted to remove the cross from our Protestant church and employed construction workers to do so. After they were done, I went with all parishioners of the church to protest this horrible act because it defamed and defiled my church. However, I was beaten and humiliated by security guards who come to stop this protest. They have beaten me and have done the same to my friends in the protest and they took me to the police station afterwards. I was beaten more there for two weeks and humiliated by the police. They disgraced me and treated me like a traitor. This punishment showed me how much disrespect and dishonour the Chinese government have for Protestant believers and for this reason I have left my country.
oIn response to what harm he experienced in his country, he claims:
§I was beaten and humiliated by the police. I was also detained for two weeks. I was disgraced and treated like a traitor.
oIn response to whether he sought help within his country, he claims no. He claims:
§I did not seek help because it was risky and unsafe for me. I feared I would be punished again.
oIn response to whether he moved or tried to move to another part of the country to seek safety, he claims no. He claims:
§I did not move anywhere because I do not think this would have helped me in feeling safer or would have stopped the government from persecuting me as a Protestant.
oIn response to what he thinks will happen to him if he returns to his home country, he claims:
§I think I will be living a life of religious deprivation. A void life away from any meaningful religious faith.
oHe claims he will be harmed if he returns to China. He claims:
§I absolutely think I will be harmed by being beaten and locked in jail by the police.
oIn response to whether he thinks the authorities of his country can and will protect him, he claims:
§I do not believe so because they do not and are unwilling to protect me. This is the nature of the Chinese government as it is anti-religious.
oIn response to whether he would be able to relocate within his country to an area where he would not be harmed, he claims no. He claims:
§I did not move anywhere because I do not think this would have helped me in feeling safer or would have stopped the government from persecuting me as a Protestant.
In the delegate’s decision provided to the Tribunal by the applicant as part of his application for review, the delegate indicated that the applicant’s claims, contained in his protection visa application, lacked detail and supporting evidence. The delegate indicated that the applicant did not respond to the invitation under s 56 of the Act (s 56 letter) to provider further information and details and/or evidence to support his claims or provide an explanation of why he could not provide the information.
The delegate’s decision indicated that the s56 letter advised the applicant that his statement of claims lacked substantiating details such as dates and locations, and supporting documentation, in regard to his claims, and that he had not provided any details or documentary evidence to support his claims. This letter also invited the applicant to provide more information about what happened to him in China, including dates and locations of events, to assist the delegate in deciding whether to accept that his claims were genuine.
The s 56 letter invited the applicant to provide specific details and supporting documents relating to these claims. This letter also advised the applicant that, if he could not provide copies of documents as invited, he should provide a detailed explanation of why he could not provide them, and of the efforts he made to obtain them.
The s 56 letter informed the applicant that if he did not respond to the invitation within the prescribed timeframe, the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) could decide the application with the information it had at that time without inviting further information from him again. The letter also advised the applicant that, if he could not respond to the invitation by the date given to him, he should contact the Department through email or his ImmiAccount, attaching a letter explaining why he could not respond by that date, and requesting more time to provide the information.
The delegate indicated in their decision (which was provided to the Tribunal by the applicant at the time of lodgement of his review application) that, as at the date of assessment, the applicant had not provided additional information in relation to his claims including the additional information specified in the s56 letter, nor did he attempt to contact the Department to provide further information about his claims or request additional time to respond to the s56 letter.
The delegate indicated in their decision that they considered that the applicant had been given a reasonable opportunity to provide additional information and evidence to substantiate his claims and that, as advised in the s56 letter, they would proceed with a decision based on the information before the Department.
In the delegate’s finding of fact (which was in the delegate’s decision provided to the Tribunal by the applicant at the time of lodgement of his review application), they indicated that the applicant claimed he was unable to return to China as he was a Protestant Christian. The delegate indicated that the applicant’s initial claims contained in his protection visa application lacked detail and supporting evidence. The delegate indicated that the applicant did not respond to the invitation under s56 of the Act to provide further information details and/or evidence to support his claims or provide any explanation of why he could not provide the information.
The delegate indicated that the applicant claimed that as a Protestant Christian he was persecuted by security guards and police officers, that he was arrested because of his religion and while arrested (and detained) was beaten, humiliated and treated as a traitor.
In the delegate’s assessment (which was in the delegate’s decision provided to the Tribunal by the applicant at the time of lodgement of his review application), the delegate indicated that the applicant was given an opportunity to provide more information to the Department to establish his protection claims.
The delegate indicated in their assessment that they had the following concerns regarding the applicant’s claims relating to being a Protestant Christian in China and Australia:
·The applicant had not provided detailed information about how he practiced his religious beliefs or how he expressed his beliefs or practices. Although the applicant claimed to be a Protestant Christian, he did not provide a detailed account of his religious practice or show how it relates to him personally.
·The applicant had not provided details about where he practised in China, who he practised with, where he learnt about his religious beliefs and when and with whom he became a Protestant Christian.
·The applicant had not provided details about how or where he practiced his religion in Australia, including:
owho he practiced with.
oif he attended practices outside of his home.
ohow regularly he attended such practices.
·The applicant had not provided any letters of support from Australian religious organisations, religious leaders or members of his claimed religion.
·The applicant had not provided details of charges or convictions in China related to being a Protestant Christian and had not provided detailed information about how Chinese authorities had persecuted or harmed him for reason of his claimed Protestant Christian religion. The delegate assessed that these factors indicated that the applicant was not likely to be of adverse interest to the Chinese authorities as a result of any religious activities he might have engaged in before he departed.
·The applicant was issued a passport by the Chinese authorities and departed China legally. His passport was not cancelled or confiscated, and he was not stopped from boarding a plane and departing China. The applicant’s ability to obtain a passport then depart the country while still holding a passport also indicated that the applicant may not have been of adverse attention to the Chinese authorities at the time he departed the country.[1]
[1] 'DFAT Country Information Report - People's Republic of China', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 22 December 2021, 20211222100210, pp. 40-41
The delegate indicated that, in light of these concerns, they were “not satisfied” that the applicant is a Protestant Christian as claimed.
In the delegate’s decision (which was provided to the Tribunal by the applicant at the time of lodgement of his review application), under the heading “Refugee criteria assessment and finding – s 36(2)(a) of the Act”, the delegate indicated that they did not accept that the applicant is a Protestant 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. The delegate indicated that they were not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution as defined in s5J of the Act for any of the reasons in s5J(1)(a) if returned to China. The delegate indicated, therefore, they were not satisfied that the applicant meets the criteria in s5H(1) of the Act and is therefore not a refugee. The delegate indicated that they were satisfied the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as provided for in s36(2)(a) of the Act.
In the delegate’s decision (which was provided to the Tribunal by the applicant at the time of lodgement of his review application), under the heading “Complementary protection criteria assessment and finding — s36(2)(aa) of the Act”, the delegate indicated that they did not accept that the applicant is a Protestant Christian as claimed, or that they have a profile that would be of adverse interest to the Chinese authorities or anyone else if he returned to China. The delegate indicated that they were not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed to China, there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm as outlined in s36(2)(aa) of the Act. The delegate indicated that he was not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as provided for in s36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Evidence before the Tribunal
On 14 March 2022, as indicated above, the applicant made an application for review of a decision made by the delegate to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. Attached to that application for review was the delegate’s decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
On 14 March 2022, as indicated above, the Tribunal sent a letter by email to the applicant acknowledging receipt of his application for review. In that letter the applicant was invited to provide further material or written arguments for the Tribunal to consider, and that the applicant should provide it “as soon as possible”. No further material or written arguments were provided to the Tribunal to consider.
On 31 May 2023, as indicated above, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising that his case was being prepared for allocation to a Tribunal Member.
On 7 April 2025, as indicated above, the applicant was sent a hearing invitation by the Tribunal to attend a hearing on 23 April 2025 about the application for review of the delegate’s decision to refuse the grant of a protection visa. In that Hearing notice, the applicant was asked to provide any evidence to support his case. It also referred him to the decision of the Department which had set out its reasons and that he should have regard to this and any change of circumstances.
As indicated above, on 12 April 2025, the applicant submitted a completed Hearing response form (with a confirming email) in which he stated that he will not participate in the hearing and requests the Tribunal to make a decision on the papers without holding a hearing. No further information or material was provided in support of his claims.
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, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
The issue in this case is whether the applicant
engages Australia’s protection obligations under the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion in

s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Assessment
As outlined in s 5AAA of the Act, it is the responsibility of the applicant to specify all particulars of their claim and to provide sufficient evidence to establish the claim. The Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any or all of the allegations made by an applicant. Further, the Tribunal is not required to have rebutting evidence available to it before it can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been made out.[2]
[2] Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at [451] per Beaumont J; Selvadurai v MIEA (1994) 34 ALD 347 at [348] per Heerey J; Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547.
The Tribunal has considered the available evidence before it as outlined above. For the reasons given below, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claims to be credible. The Tribunal has had regard to the concerns raised by the delegate to the applicant in writing and which formed part of the delegate’s reasons for refusing the application. The applicant was notified of the concerns by the delegate and was asked to provide information to clarify those concerns by the delegate. The applicant did not provide any information at all to remove the delegate’s concerns. The applicant was aware of the delegates concerns relating to the credibility of his claims (and outlined in the delegate’s decision) given that the applicant provided the Tribunal with a copy of the delegate’s decision when lodging his application for review. The applicant has provided no additional information to the Tribunal addressing these issues, when given the opportunity to do so on several different occasions throughout the review process. The applicant was reminded in the Tribunal’s Hearing notice that he should have regard to the reasons given in the delegate’s decision to refuse to grant him a protection visa where the credibility of the applicant’s claims was a significant issue. The applicant did not respond or make comment or provide any information to counter these credibility concerns.
The Tribunal finds the applicant’s claims of being a Protestant believer, or a Protestant Christian or Christian either in China or in Australia as not credible given that that the applicant has not provided any comments or information whatsoever to counter the delegate’s credibility findings and has continued not to comment or provide information when the Tribunal has invited the applicant on several occasions to do so in support of his claims. Further, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s claims not credible given that the delegate’s decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa centred around deficiencies to the specifics in his claims, lack of detail and his failure to provide further information and evidence. Further, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s claims not credible given that the applicant was made aware in the Hearing notice that he should have regard to the decision of the Department which had set out its reasons and found his claims not to be credible.
The applicant has made vague and non-specific claims in his protection visa application that, as a Protestant believer, or a Protestant Christian or Christian in China, he was the victim of a “recent malicious campaign” which was “orchestrated by the Chinese Communist Party”. He claims that as a result of his protests at his local Church, he was “beaten and humiliated by security guards”. He was “taken to the police station afterwards”. He was “beaten more there for two weeks and humiliated by police”. He was “disgraced” and treated “like a traitor”. The applicant was put on notice by the Department that it had concerns about his claims when the applicant was sent a s 56 letter by the delegate inviting the applicant to comment and provide more specific details and supporting documents relating to his claims.
The applicant was put on notice in the s 56 letter that the delegate had concerns about the applicant’s claims in that his statement of claims lacked substantiating details such as dates and locations and supporting documentation and evidence and that, if he could not provide supporting documents or evidence, that he should provide an explanation of why he could not provide them and of the efforts he made to obtain them. The applicant was invited in the s 56 letter that he should provide more information about what happened to him in China, including dates and locations of events, to assist the delegate in deciding whether to accept his claims as genuine. The applicant did not comment on or provide any information or evidence to the delegate in response to the s 56 letter. The Tribunal finds that the applicant was well aware of the credibility concerns raised by the delegate in the s 56 letter as the letter was sent to his authorised email address but that he provided no further information or comments or evidence to alleviate these concerns in any way.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant continued to remain aware of the credibility concerns about him being a Protestant believer, or a Protestant Christian or Christian and practicing as a Protestant believer, or a Protestant Christian or Christian in China as raised by the delegate given that he validly applied for review of the delegate’s decision and proactively attached the delegate’s decision to the review application which outlined its credibility concerns about his claims. However, he did not present any evidence to alleviate or counter these concerns. The delegate’s decision clearly outlined a number of concerns in the applicant’s claims of persecution in China which were lacking in detail such as the applicant giving no detailed information about how he practiced his religious beliefs in China or expressed his beliefs in practice, or where he practiced in China or who he practiced with in China, or when he became a Protestant believer, or a Protestant Christian or Christian. The delegate’s decision clearly outlined that the applicant gave no details about his charges or convictions in China relating to being a Protestant believer, or a Protestant Christian or Christian and no details about how the Chinese authorities had persecuted him for reason of his claimed Protestant Christian religion or beliefs. Given that these credibility concerns remain in play; and given that the Tribunal has considered the lack of detail or evidence provided by the applicant in alleviating or countering these concerns when he was given several opportunities to do so, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s claims not to be credible.
These credibility concerns about the applicant being persecuted for reason of him being a Protestant Christian or Protestant believer or Christian in China are further brought to the fore in the delegate’s decision (which the applicant was made aware of in the decision which he attached to his application for review), relating to the grant of a Chinese passport by the Chinese authorities to the applicant and his legal departure from China. As indicated by the delegate, his passport was not cancelled or confiscated, and he was not stopped from boarding a plane and departing China. As raised as a concern by the delegate, the applicant’s ability to obtain a passport only to then depart the country while still holding a passport also indicated that the applicant did not draw adverse attention from the Chinese authorities at the time he departed the country, as supported by the then current Department of Foreign Affairs report in China in effect when the applicant departed China.[3] The applicant was aware of this adverse finding in the delegate’s decision that he provided to the Tribunal. This adverse finding was not addressed by the applicant in any way when he was invited by the delegate in the s 56 letter to provide comments to this, when he was invited to provide further evidence or information to the Tribunal and when he was advised in the Hearing notice that he should be aware of the Department’s decision which set out its reasons and that he should have regard to this. The Tribunal finds this independent country report to be inconsistent with the applicant’s claims that he was being targeted by Chinese authorities because of events that happened to him in the past in China (and therefore going to the credibility of the applicant’s claims) resulting in him being of adverse interest to the Chinese authorities.
[3] 'DFAT Country Information Report - People's Republic of China', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 22 December 2021, 20211222100210, pp. 40-41
Given the Tribunal’s findings above, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s claims of being of adverse interest to the Chinese authorities because of him being a Protestant believer, or Protestant Christian or Christian as not credible at all.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant was put on notice by the delegate that they had concerns about his claims as a Protestant Christian or Protestant believer or Christian in Australia as he had not provided any details about how and where he practiced his religion in Australia including who he practiced with, if he attended practices outside of his home and how regularly he attended such practices. The applicant was put on notice that this was a concern of the delegate which the applicant provided no evidence for or no further information about.
The Tribunal finds on the evidence before it that the applicant was clearly aware of the concerns of credibility about his claims of being a Protestant Christian or Protestant believer or Christian and his claims of being persecuted for reason of his being or practicing as a Protestant Christian or Protestant believer or Christian in China or the credibility concerns that he will be persecuted for reason of being a Protestant Christian or Protestant believer or Christian were he to return to China in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal finds on the evidence that the applicant was given the opportunity by the delegate to provide comments or information to counter the delegate’s concerns about the credibility of the applicant’s claims above. The applicant failed to do so on the several different occasions he was invited to do so. The Tribunal finds on the evidence before it that the applicant was well aware of the concerns raised about his claims and that he had been given every available opportunity to provide clarification or support of further information about his claims which he did not do either with the delegate or during the Tribunal process. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has been active in not providing any further information or supporting evidence relating to his claims given that, after receiving the delegate’s decision, he was able to make a valid application for review attaching the delegate’s decision, with the delegate’s concerns, to that review.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant has, since lodging his review application, continued to intentionally not engage with the Tribunal in its attempts seeking further information or supporting evidence in relation to his claims. The Tribunal has invited the applicant to a hearing to hear his evidence in support of his claims, even referring him (in the Hearing notice) to the Department’s decision which had set out its reasons and that he should have regard to those reasons and any change of circumstances. The applicant has instead chosen to seek in writing that the Tribunal make a decision on the papers without addressing further these concerns about credibility.
Having considered all the evidence together, and all the material before it, the Tribunal does not accept as credible his claims that he is a Protestant believer, or a Protestant Christian or Christian generally. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant left China because he suffered serious harm or any harm for reason of his being a Protestant believer, or a Protestant Christian or Christian from state police or state security guards or state authorities. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept as credible his claims that he has been a victim of a malicious campaign orchestrated by the Chinese Communist Party. It does not accept as credible his claims that he protested at a Church, was beaten by security guards, that he witnessed his friends beaten at the protest, that he was taken to the police station, that he was beaten at the police station for two weeks and humiliated by the police, or that he was disgraced by the police and treated like a traitor. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept as credible that the applicant has practiced in any way as a Protestant believer, or a Protestant Christian or Christian in China.
On the country information before it, the Tribunal finds that the applicant was able to successfully depart China at Beijing International airport because he was not of any adverse interest to the authorities upon departure. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has practiced as a Protestant believer, or a Protestant Christian or Christian in any way in Australian nor has he expressed any Christian beliefs or practices in Australia.
Looking to the reasonably foreseeable future, were the applicant to return to China, the Tribunal does not accept, on the evidence before it, that he will be targeted in any way by Chinese authorities or police or security for being a Protestant believer, or a Protestant Christian or Christian or for any reason, given its findings that it does not accept his claims as credible that he is a Protestant believer or Protestant Christian or Christian either in China or in Australia.
Refugee and complementary protection assessment
The Tribunal finds the applicant’s ‘home area’ or place of likely return to be [the location in Liaoning], China given this was his primary place of residence and the area where he resided continually before coming to Australia.
Having considered its findings above, the Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance that that the applicant will face serious harm (or any harm) from the police or state authorities or security forces for reasons of his religion (or for any of the listed criteria in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act) were he to return to China. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for reason of his religion or for any of the listed criteria in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act and is not a refugee as defined in s 5H(1) of the Act.
Having considered all the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively, and looking to the reasonably foreseeable future, the Tribunal finds on the evidence before it that there is not a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm or any harm for any of the listed criteria in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act were he to return to China.
The Tribunal has therefore considered the complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa) which requires substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm. ‘Significant harm’ is exhaustively defined in s 36(2A) of the Act to mean that a person will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; the death penalty will be carried out on them; or they will be subjected to torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or degrading treatment or punishment.
The real risk threshold for complementary protection has been held to equate to the real chance threshold under the refugee criterion.[4] For the same reasons discussed above, given that the Tribunal does not accept at all that the applicant is a Protestant believer or Protestant Christian or Christian either in China or in Australia, the Tribunal finds that there is not a real risk that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to China, the applicant will suffer significant harm from the police or state authorities or security forces.
[4] MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
The applicant has not claimed to fear harm for any other reason if he returns to China and the Tribunal finds that no other protection claims arise on the accepted facts.
CONCLUSION
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).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).

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 not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
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.
…