China Refugee Applicants
PRC
Recent decisions before the RRT have concerned applicants from China. Two recent successful applicants involved a Christian and a Falun Gong member respectively.
PRC & Christianity
In 0801582 [2008] RRTA 129 (13.5.08) the RRT accepted a sur place Christianity claim from a PRC applicant:
•65. The [RRT] finds.. the applicant was not a Christian in the PRC The [RRT] is not satisfied.. the applicant engaged in his religious conduct in Australiaotherwise than for the purpose of strengthening his claim to be a refugee. However, these findings do not effect the outcome.. decision.
•66. .. the [RRT] is satisfied.. there is a real chance of persecution occurring to the applicant in the reasonably foreseeable future, if he were to return to the PRC. The [RRT] is satisfied.. the applicant faces the prospect of persecution in the nature of serious harm on his return to the PRC in accordance with s. 91R(1)(b) of the Act. This harm would involve arrest and detention. The [RRT] is satisfied that the applicant’s political opinion is the essential and significant reason for the persecution which he fears, as required by s. 91R(1)(a)… The[RRT] further considers that the persecution which the applicant fears involves systematic and discriminatory conduct, as required by s. 91R(1)(c), in that it is deliberate or intentional and involves selective harm for a Convention reason.
The [RRT] finds.. the applicant would be arrested and detained for assisting Mr A & Mr B. As a result, relocation.. would not be meaningful, and.. is not a reasonable option.
Falun Gong
In 0800572 [2008] RRTA 128 (29.4.08) the RRT concluded:
•51. The [RRT] found the applicant to be a credible witness. The applicant was knowledgeable about the theory and practice of Falun Gong and the [RRT] is satisfied that she is a genuine practitioner. This is supported by the statement from the group leader Further, the [RRT] is satisfied for the purposes of s. 91R(3) that the applicant’s conduct in practising Falun Gong in Australia has been engaged in otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening her claims. The [RRT] accepts the applicant’s explanation as to how she became involved in Falun Gong and the benefit she believed she obtained from the practise of Falun Gong in relation to her health as her explanation is typical of the accounts given by genuine Falun Gong practitioners. The Tribunal is satisfied.. the applicant was arrested, detained and tortured due to her practise of Falun Gong at her business in PRC. The [RRT] accepts that by paying a bribe she was able to obtain a passport.
•52. The [RRT] is satisfied that if the applicant returns to PRC now or in the reasonably foreseeable future she would continue her practice of Falun Gong and.. now and in the reasonably foreseeable future there is a real chance.. she would be detected, arrested and tortured for reasons of her belief. The [RRT] also finds.. the persecution the applicant would suffer due to her religion (her belief in Falun Gong) would involve serious harm as required by s. 91R(1)(b).. in that it involves a threat to her life or liberty or significant physical harassment or ill-treatment. The [RRT] finds that the applicant’s religion is the essential and significant reason for the persecution as required by s. 91R(1)(a). Further, the [RRT] finds that the persecution the applicant fears involves systematic and discriminatory conduct, as required by s. 91R(1)(c) as it is deliberate or intentional and involves selective harassment for a Convention reason, that is her religion.
PRC farmer’s claim rejected
In 0800755 [2008] RRTA 136 (14.5.08) the RRT rejected a protection claim from a PRC person who claimed to be involved in protests against confiscation of farming land in China. But the application turned on credibility:
For all the above reasons, the applicant did not impress the [RRT] as a credible witness. The totality of the applicant’s evidence shows a propensity to tailor his evidence in a manner which achieves his own purpose. The [RRT], therefore, does not accept the key claims on which the applicant’s case depends. It does not accept that the applicant had led other farmers to air complaints and demand justice.