2304290 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of China. The applicant claimed to fear harm due to his disapproval of the Chinese government's stance on Islam. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, considering both refugee and complementary protection grounds.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of harm for a Convention reason, specifically political opinion, and whether he had provided sufficient evidence to support his claims. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's responsibility to specify the particulars of his claim and provide adequate supporting evidence. The Tribunal was guided by Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information assessments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish his claims. He did not respond to the Tribunal's invitation to attend a hearing or provide further evidence, nor did he attend the scheduled hearing. The Tribunal noted that the mere assertion of a fear of harm does not establish its genuineness or well-foundedness. Crucially, the applicant did not provide sufficient detail to satisfy the Tribunal that he disapproved of the Chinese government's stance on Islam, or that he would be suspected or imputed of holding such a view. The Tribunal reiterated that the onus is on the applicant to supply the relevant facts and evidence necessary to establish their claim, and a decision-maker is not required to construct the applicant's case.

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