2311018 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming to be a Christian who had been arrested for proselytising in China, detained, and subjected to mistreatment. The delegate of the Department of Immigration was not satisfied that the applicant faced persecution in his home country, leading to the decision under review. The applicant's claims were made with the assistance of a friend, and the applicant stated that his primary reasons for wishing to remain in Australia were financial and a general preference for living there.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations. This involved assessing whether the applicant met the criteria for being a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), or alternatively, whether he met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, which requires substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was raised as a Buddhist and continued to identify as Buddhist, attending a Buddhist temple in Australia. He explicitly stated he was not Christian, had not proselytised, and had never been in trouble with authorities for religious or any other reasons. The applicant also indicated that his initial claims were written by a friend, and he was unaware of the specific claims made, having only discussed his desire to stay in Australia for financial reasons and personal preference. Given these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion or any other protected ground, nor did he establish a real risk of significant harm upon return to China.

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