2211598 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of China. The applicant arrived in Australia in 2012 and became actively involved with the Salvation Army, including attending services, Bible studies, and participating in outreach activities. She claimed she could not return to China due to her religious practice and fear of persecution. The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant did not have a profile of adverse interest to Chinese authorities and was not at real risk of harm based on her religious claims. The applicant's child, who had been estranged from her, later returned and also pursued a protection visa application.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which requires the Minister to be satisfied that Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee. This involved assessing whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, as defined by section 5J of the Act, and whether effective protection measures were available in China, or if reasonable steps could be taken to modify her behaviour to avoid persecution. The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) as an alternative basis for protection.

The Tribunal considered country information indicating that local branches of the Salvation Army in China were permitted only as charities with a strict non-political policy. It found that the applicant's active and public participation in the Salvation Army, including leadership training and evangelising, meant that relocation or modification of her behaviour to avoid persecution would not be reasonable, as it would conflict with fundamental aspects of her identity and conscience. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion and that Australia had protection obligations towards her.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant satisfies section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act*.