1319842 (Refugee)

1319842 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 3767 (23 April 2016)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1319842
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Sri Lanka
MEMBER:George Haddad
DATE:23 April 2016
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 23 April 2016 at 12:15pm
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Sri Lanka, applied for the visa [in] April 2013 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] December 2013.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 15 April 2015 to give evidence and present arguments. . The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Tamil (Sri Lankan) and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
The issues in the present case are whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for one or more of the five reasons contained in the Refugee Convention; and if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Sri Lanka, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.
For the following reasons the Tribunal has concluded that the decision of the delegate should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Does the applicant have a well-founded fear of being persecuted for one or more of the five reasons set out in the Refugee Convention in Sri Lanka?
The applicant set out his claims in a statement attached to the protection visa application. He was interviewed by an immigration officer on arrival and again in relation to his protection claims in April 2013.
The applicant’s representative provided written submissions to the Tribunal dated 2 April 2015 with reference to country information from several sources including the UNHCR Handbook on determining refugee status; UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines (December 2012); other UNHCR guidelines; RRT Complementary Protection Training Manual (January 2012) Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) reports (16 February 2015); US Department of state reports on human rights practices– Sri Lanka, dated 2007 and 2014; UK Home Office; The UK Upper Tribunal decision[1]; and several judgement by Australia and foreign courts and news reports.
[1] GJ v Secretary of State for the Home Department (post civil war: returnees) Sri Lanka CG [2013] UKUT 319 (IAC).
In assessing the applicant’s claims, I have had regard to the Department’s file relating to the protection visa application, the written submissions from the applicant’s representative and country information referred to in those submissions and that which I discussed during the hearing; including country reports from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) on Sri Lanka and the Procedures Advice Manual 3 (PAM 3) published by the minister’s Department. I have also considered the DFAT report on Sri Lanka of 18 December 2016.
Country of reference for assessment of claims
The Tribunal finds the applicant is a national of Sri Lanka. He has provided a number of Sri Lanka ID documents including one bearing a photograph of him and consistently maintained that he is an ethnic Tamil, born in [Jaffna] District, Sri Lanka. There is no evidence to suggest that he is a national of any other country and he made no claim to be a national of any other country. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s claims should be assessed against Sri Lanka for the purposes of the Convention in s.36(2)(a) and as the receiving country for the purposes of the complementary protection obligations in s.36(2)(aa). In making the below findings, the Tribunal has considered the applicant’s home town, in Jaffna District the place he resided prior to departing Sri Lanka (and where his family continue to reside), to be his home region.
The applicant’s claims
The applicant set out his claims in a written statement provided with his protection visa application and is held on the Department’s file which may be summarised as follows:
He was born in [Jaffna] District, Sri Lanka.
His ethinicity is Tamil and religion Catholic
He is married and has one child; they remain in Sri Lanka.
He fears returning to Sri Lanka because the CID and Sri Lankan army were harassing him and threatening him on suspicion of being involved with the LTTE.
He lived with his family in an army camp from October 2009 to November 2010.
He left the camp in November 2010 and built a small house on a piece of land owned by his wife’s family in [Town 1] in Vanni Province. Every night the CID came to interrogate him about involvement with the LTTE and questioning him about his wife’s [relative] who had left the country but the applicant did not know that he had left the country. One night they did not believe him that he had no involvement with the LTTE, they hit him in the stomach with a rifle. They said they would be back to ask about his[wife’s relative].
He immediately left to stay with his mother in Jaffna leaving his wife and child at the house.
His wife told him that the CID came the following day and threatened her that he cannot just move away and must stay in the same place. They said if he did not return they would circulate his photograph.
He stayed in Jaffna for one week as he was afraid he would have to register with the authorities. He went to his wife’s mother’s house [where] his wife joined him. He remained there in hiding until around February or March 2011.
In April 2011 he returned to their house in [Town 1]. The following day the CID came to his house and told him that he was to report to the army camp 3 – 4 times per week.
He continued to report to the army from April 2011 until October 2011. Every week the CID continued to go to his house to interrogate him about his involvement with the LTTE and about his [wife’s relative].
In October 2011 he thought about fleeing Sri Lanka and stayed at different places and never stayed at home. The CID continued to come around and interrogate his wife as to his whereabouts. She told them he was away looking for work.
He remained in hiding from the CID from October 2011 until he left Sri Lanka in July 2012.
His wife and [child] are currently living with her [mother]. Their house in [Town 1] is locked up. His wife went to visit their house and the relatives told her that the army came around looking for the applicant.
He fears that if he were to return, he would be arrested detained, tortured and killed. He fears that he will suffer arbitrary arrest and detention, imprisonment, physical assault and torture, possibly death at the hands of the Sri Lankan authorities because of his ethnicity as a Tamil, the imputed political opinion that he has an association with the LTTE and also because he has sought asylum in a Western country.
The review
At the hearing the applicant confirmed his personal details and stated that his [child] is [age] years old and attends school. He described his family as:
His father is a fisherman; his mother is a homemaker; one [sibling] works in a shop; another [sibling] is a student; [a few siblings] are married [or] single. All but one married [sibling] live in one house in a suburb of Jaffna. with their parents.
The applicant said he is in contact with his wife every day and also talks to his siblings. He has had a quarrel with his father and they do not talk.
He completed [schooling] and took casual work 2-3 times a week in whatever area he was [offered].
I asked the applicant to confirm his claims of fearing to return to Sri Lanka; he replied that the claims are:
a.Young Tamil male
b.Imputed political opinion, LTTE
c.Particular social group ‘returned asylum seeker.
The applicant confirmed that he has:
a.had no political involvement
b.had no involvement with the LTTE
c.not been arrested or detained.
The applicant stated that the scarring he has suffered was from general shelling during the civil war.
The applicant then told of his period in the army camp, in summary he said:
Within a very short time of the end of the civil war in 2009, the whole family was taken into army camps. Many people were displaced, As his family were not together they were placed in different camps. He was in a camp with his wife and child.
He was registered and photographed. He was questioned by CID and military personnel. Sometimes there would be a masked man involved in the questioning. The masked man was taken to be a collaborator engaged to identify those with LTTE association.
He was released from the camp and was taken to his home area. The CID and army re-registered them in their home area, photographed them, placed ID numbers on their houses and let them go home.
The CID ‘kept an eye’ on them once every two weeks. They were local officer, different from those in the camp. They questioned him whether he had helped the LTTE or if he was a member. They threatened to take him to HQ in the South. He was assumed to be associated with the LTTE because he was a young Tamil; and Tamils were generally treated badly and presumed to be enemies of the State.
Two or three weeks after returning home, at the fortnightly visits they (the Tamils) were sometimes randomly given forms to report at a camp. He recalls going to the camp on 6-7 occasions. They would strip him and check for scars and check his knuckles for signs of torture (which might indicate involvement with the LTTE).
The last time he reported to a camp was one month before leaving Sri Lanka for Australia. He begged them to stop this ‘torture’ they warned him that if he did not report when asked, they would take him to the South and might even shoot him.
He could not stand it anymore. He said to his wife he was leaving to save his life; and that as a woman she could live safely with her mother.
His wife has told him that since he left Sri Lanka the CID have come and asked for him at least 3 times. They told his wife that they know he has gone to Australia and wanted to know why; and whether he has connections. She told them that because of their questioning and not believing him, he became scared and fled.
I indicated to the applicant that he has not referred to his claims about his [wife’s relative]. He said that they did question him when he was living at home. He told them that he left sometime after the war ended and they have had no contact or connection with him.
I asked the applicant what it is that he fears now if he were to return to Sri Lanka. He replied that he fears registration and his previous record. He would be stopped immediately and taken to the camp in the South where LTTE suspects are held. He fears that his life would be taken arbitrarily.
I discussed with the applicant that as he was kept in the camp for 6-7 months immediately after the end of the war, questioned and released, it may suggest that he was not of any interest to the authorities.
I also indicated that I had noticed a significant inconsistency in his evidence: in his written statement of claims he stated that he was again required to report at the camp from April 2011 but in October 2011 he decided to go into hiding and not report; he remained in hiding from October 2011 until he left Sri Lanka in July 2012. In oral evidence he stated that the last time he went to the camp was one month before he departed Sri Lanka. And in his written statement he provided that he was reporting 3-4 times a week; in oral evidence he said that he reported a total of 6-7 times over the whole period. I indicated that I may have some difficulty with the credibility of his evidence as I consider this inconsistency to be significant.
The applicant replied that in his written statement he gave a full description, in his oral evidence he gave a summary. I considered his response but indicated that it may not explain the differences between the two accounts – one account placing his last report to the camp one month before departure and another placing it some 8-9 months before departure.
I indicated in addition, that even if I accept all his account of past experience, I may not accept that which he experienced rises to the level of serious or significant harm. At the times he was required to report, all Tamils were required to report. Tamils who were involved with the LTTE received different treatment. On his evidence, he was one of many Tamils that were required to report. I am not satisfied that the applicant is of any interest to the authorities and I do not accept the claim that after he was told he could leave the camp, the authorities went to his house every night to interrogate him or that they continue to ask his wife about his absence. I also considered his evidence that after a few months in hiding and failing to report as he claims he was required, he returned home in [Town 1] and the authorities reaction was to simply ask him to return to his reporting regime. I indicated that I find this to be an implausible reaction by the authorities in the circumstances the applicant describes. I do not accept that he went into hiding from the authorities, or that the authorities visited his house to ask of his whereabouts or why he went to Australia. I find this claim, of ongoing interest by the authorities, to be an embellishment to strengthen a claim for protection.
Tamil ethnicity, young Tamil male, imputed LTTE political opinion.
While I had concerns about discrepancies in the applicant’s evidence which were not resolved to my satisfaction. I do not discount his evidence that soon after the war ended in 2009 he was required to register, to be photographed, he was questioned repeatedly about any involvement with the LTTE that the authorities monitored him, as they did all Tamils, and that he was required to report regularly at camps controlled by the authorities.
Independent sources indicate that between 1983 and May 2009, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) waged a military campaign against the Sri Lankan authorities with the main aim of establishing a separate Tamil state in the north and east, leading to a serious civil conflict which lasted until May 2009 when the Government announced its military victory over the LTTE and complete territorial control over Sri Lanka. DFAT reports that at its peak in 2004, the LTTE exercised effective control of approximately three-quarters of the territory in the north and the east of Sri Lanka, with an armed force of approximately 18,000 combatants. DFAT reports that over the course of the conflict hundreds of thousands of people were displaced and tens of thousands of people were killed. The UN found credible allegations that both sides committed crimes against civilians. Other sources indicate that the peace that was established with the defeat of the LTTE in May 2009 continued uninterrupted through 2013, with not a single terrorism related incident reported through 2012[2]
[2] South Asia Terrorism Portal Sri Lanka Assessment 2014 cited in UK Home Office Operation 2014 Country Information and Guidance about Tamil Separatism in Sri Lanka dated 28 August at 2.1.4
DFAT advice[3] provided:
[3] DFAT Thematic Report - People with Links to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam 3 Oct 2014
2.8 DFAT assesses that, as of October 2014, the LTTE does not exist as an organised force and any former LTTE members within Sri Lanka would have only minimal capacity to exert influence on civilians or those returning from abroad.
Imputed membership of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
2.9 The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHCR’s) December 2012 Eligibility Guidelines for Sri Lanka note that a person’s real or perceived links with the LTTE may give rise to a need for international refugee protection. Although the nature of these links can vary, this may include:
1) Persons who held senior positions with considerable authority in the LTTE civilian administration, when the LTTE was in control of large parts of what are now the northern and eastern provinces of Sri Lanka;
2) Former LTTE combatants or “cadres”;
3) Former LTTE combatants or “cadres” who, due to injury or other reason, were employed by the LTTE in functions within the administration, intelligence, “computer branch” or media (newspaper and radio);
4) Former LTTE supporters who may never have undergone military training, but were involved in sheltering or transporting LTTE personnel, or the supply and transport of goods for the LTTE;
5) LTTE fundraisers and propaganda activists and those with, or perceived as having had, links to the Sri Lankan diaspora that provided funding and other support to the LTTE;
6) Persons with family links or who are dependent on or otherwise closely related to persons with the above profiles.
2.10 Accurately identifying people according to these categories can be difficult. However, depending on their risk profile, former LTTE members may be subject to monitoring, arrest, detention or prosecution by Sri Lankan authorities.
High-profile former LTTE members
2.11 Those at highest risk of monitoring, arrest, detention or prosecution include the LTTE’s former leadership, regardless of whether they performed a combat or civilian role during the conflict. Although most of the LTTE’s military, political and administrative leadership were killed during the conflict, a number of others either surrendered or were captured and sent to rehabilitation centres or prosecuted. Some former leaders may have left Sri Lanka before, during or after the conflict (see also ‘Former LTTE members living outside of Sri Lanka’, below). In addition to the LTTE’s former leadership, a number of other former members were suspected to have committed terrorist or serious criminal acts during the conflict, or to have provided weapons or explosives to the LTTE.
2.12 DFAT assesses that these high-profile (‘high risk’ or ‘hardcore’) former members would likely be arrested, detained and prosecuted through Sri Lanka’s criminal courts, often following a period of detention in a rehabilitation centre. Although many high-profile members may have already been released following their detention and prosecution, any other high-profile members who remain at large or return to Sri Lanka would likely be arrested, detained and prosecuted in this way. Following their release from rehabilitation or prison, high-profile former LTTE members are likely to be intensely monitored by Sri Lankan authorities.
Low-profile former LTTE members
2.13 In addition to a relatively small number of high-profile LTTE members, many thousands of LTTE members have been arrested and detained in rehabilitation centres since the end of the conflict. Generally, this would include former combatants, those employed in administrative or other roles and those who may have provided a high level of non-military material support to the LTTE during the conflict.
2.14 DFAT assesses that, although the great majority of these low-profile (‘low-risk’) former members have already been released following their detention, any other low-profile LTTE members who came to the attention of Sri Lankan authorities would be detained and may be sent to rehabilitation centres. Following their release from rehabilitation centres, low-profile former LTTE members may be monitored but generally are not prosecuted.
Former LTTE members living outside of Sri Lanka
2.15 Although Sri Lankan Tamils have emigrated abroad since independence in 1948, the number of Tamils who left Sri Lanka grew quickly after the start of the civil conflict. There are at least one million Sri Lankan Tamils living outside of Sri Lanka, including in Canada, the UK, the Indian State of Tamil Nadu, France, Germany, Switzerland, Australia, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark. Members of the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora may be citizens of those countries, dual-nationals or will have arrangements to stay legally in their country of residence. Many members of the Tamil diaspora return to Sri Lanka to visit family members, for holidays and for business. Remittances from Tamil diasporas have traditionally been, and continue to be, an important source of income for family and community members in Sri Lanka.
2.16 Some members of the Tamil diaspora played a central role during the conflict, particularly as a source of funding, weapons and other material support for the LTTE, but also as political advocates for a separate Tamil state in Sri Lanka. Many countries’ designation of the LTTE as a terrorist organisation after September 2001 made it more difficult for the organisation to raise funds from Tamil diaspora communities.
2.17 Some Tamil diaspora groups have traditionally held and continue to hold public demonstrations in their countries of residence to support a separate Tamil state in Sri Lanka. High-profile leaders of pro-LTTE diaspora groups may come to the attention of Sri Lankan authorities as a result of their participation in such demonstrations.
2.18 In general, DFAT assesses that Sri Lankan authorities may monitor any member of the Tamil diaspora returning to Sri Lanka, depending on their risk profile.

There is no evidence or claims or submissions that the applicant was involved in activities such as described above by the Tamil diaspora since he left Sri Lanka.
The DFAT Country Report on Sri Lanka 16 February 2015 provides information on the situation in the North and East as follows:
2.37 The security situation in the north and east has greatly improved since the end of the military conflict. With the cessation of fighting, the humanitarian situation in these areas has also improved. The end of the conflict has allowed reconstruction to occur, including the repair of the main highway, railway and ports linking northern Sri Lanka to the rest of the country. In turn, this has helped to reduce the cost of transport and of basic goods in northern Sri Lanka.
3.5 Overall, DFAT assesses that there are currently no official laws or policies that discriminate on the basis of ethnicity or language (‘official discrimination’) including in relation to access to education, employment or access to housing. DFAT further assesses that there is only a low-level of discrimination in the implementation of laws and policies. More generally, there is a moderate level of discrimination between particularly ethnic groups (‘societal discrimination’), largely as a result of the civil conflict and its causes.
3.9 In practice, Tamil speakers who speak no other language can face difficulties, including in the Tamil-majority Northern Province. For example, Tamils can sometimes have difficulty communicating with the police, military and other Government authorities. DFAT assesses that these practical difficulties are not due to official discrimination as such, but are the result of a lack of qualified language teachers, the disruption to civilian life caused by the conflict and the legacy of previous discriminatory language policies.
Monitoring, harassment, arrest and detention
3.10 Many Tamils, particularly in the north and east, expressed a fear of monitoring, harassment, arrest and detention by security forces under the Rajapaksa government. For example, during the civil conflict, more Tamils were detained under emergency regulations and the PTA than any other ethnic group. This was largely due to LTTE members and supporters almost all being Tamil. However, there were also likely instances of discrimination in the application of these laws with LTTE support at times imputed on the basis of ethnicity (see also October 2014 Thematic Report on People with Links to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam). There are no published statistics on the numbers or ethnicity of those arrested under the PTA. However, DFAT assesses that there are currently fewer individuals detained under the PTA than there were during the conflict. The new Sirisena government has reportedly asked for a list of all detainees held under the PTA for review, and has said it is willing to work with the International Committee of the Red Cross in providing greater access to detainees and establishing a comprehensive database on detainees.
3.11 A number of those intending to leave Sri Lanka and travel to Australia by irregular means surveyed by the Australian National University’s Development Policy Centre, cited persecution and torture as reasons for leaving. This included 37 per cent who said they wanted to leave Sri Lanka because of ‘persecution in Sri Lanka’ and 36 per cent who cited ‘torture in Sri Lanka’. DFAT assesses that these fears are significant ‘push factors’ for external migration.
3.12 However, the cessation of the forced registration of Tamils suggests the trend of monitoring and harassment of Tamils in day-to-day life has generally eased since the end of the conflict. According to the United Nations’ High Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHCR) eligibility guidelines released in July 2010, due to the improved human rights and security situation there was ‘no longer a need for group based protection mechanisms or for the presumption of eligibility for Sri Lankans of Tamil ethnicity originating from the north of the country’.
The applicant indicated that he was concerned about his past registration; however forced registrations have ended and the situation in the North since the election of the Srisena government has improved significantly. For example the governor in the north, a former retired army officer, has been replaced by a former diplomat. Restrictions on journalists operating and foreigners moving through the area have been lifted. Reports indicate that these changes are seen as having significantly improved and normalised the situation for Tamils.[4] I have noted the argument in the representative’s submission regarding the situation for the Tamils after the election of the Sirisena government and the references to articles and comments. However, the DFAT and other reports continue to show international recognition for significant improvement.
[4] Refworld.org. Group 22 – Information Centre Asylum and Migration Briefing Notes 26 January 2015 p8-9; and
I have also considered the claim that in part the applicant fears persecution on the basis of perceived political opinion because his [wife’s relative] fled to [a western country] from Sri Lanka and is now a permanent resident. Alongside this I also took into account the applicant’s claim that when he was repeatedly visited by the authorities after he was allowed to leave the camp, the authorities asked him of his[wife’s relative]’s whereabouts. I have found earlier significant discrepancies and inconsistencies in his evidence and rejected the applicant’s claims of regular visits to him by the authorities and claims that he went into hiding and that he was required to report regularly as embellishment. I accept he was questioned, as all the Tamils in the North were soon after the end of the war, he might have been asked about his [wife’s relative]. I accept also at face value that his [wife’s relative] is a permanent resident in[a western country]. Country information indicates that the numbers of Tamils leaving Sri Lanka grew during the civil war and there is at least one million living outside Sri Lanka. There is no other evidence or submissions that would suggest any other reason that would give rise to a connection with the applicant or his [wife’s relative] to be of concern that it represents a real chance or risk of harm to the applicant.
I also noted the reference in the submission in relation to a letter the applicant provided from his parish priest in Sri Lanka and I am asked to not take negative inference from the lack of reference in it to the applicant’s claimed fears. I do not.
I have also considered the UNHCR assessment is that protection should no longer be presumed as being needed for Sri Lankans of Tamil ethnicity from the north of the country. Other sources indicate that the focus of the Sri Lankan government’s current concern is on persons perceived to be a threat to the integrity of Sri Lanka as a single state because of any perceived significant role in post-war separatist activities or renewal of hostilities (see UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines; DFAT Report – Sri Lanka 16 February 2015.
I have also had regard to and considered the country information referred to in submissions from the applicant’s representative. In these submissions reference is made to the UNHCR reports in relation to Tamils and 2011 and 2013 reports by Minority Rights Group International being subjected to abduction, sexual abuse, arbitrary detention and other human rights concerns. However, the submission does not acknowledge elsewhere reported by the UNHCR of individuals with certain profiles of real or perceived links to the LTTE that may give rise to international refugee protection re-produced from the DFAT report above[5]. The applicant’s evidence of his past treatment does not identify him as fitting any of the categories of persons warranting protection.
[5] United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR’s) Eligibility Guidelines December 2012
I have also considered the Unites States reports on human rights practices in Sri Lanka; the United Kingdom Upper Tribunal decision[6] (upheld by the Court of Appeal in England and Wales[7]) and United Kingdom Home Office reports as well as several other sources.
[6] GJ v Secretary of State for the Home Department (post civil war: returnees) Sri Lanka CG [2013] UKUT 319 (IAC).
[7] MP and NT (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 829
I note that the UK Upper Tribunal decision comprehensively reviewed all information on Sri Lanka and concluded that the approach by authorities in Sri Lanka was based on sophisticated intelligence with regards to activities within Sri Lanka and abroad. The list in that decision identifies the profile of persons likely to be at risk as:
The current categories of persons at real risk of persecution or serious harm on return to Sri Lanka, whether in detention or otherwise, are:
(a) Individuals who are, or are perceived to be, a threat to the integrity of Sri Lanka as a single state because they are, or are perceived to have a significant role in relation to post conflict Tamil separatism within the diaspora and/or a renewal of hostilities within Sri Lanka.
(b) Journalists (whether in print or other media) or human rights activists, who, in either case, have criticised the Sri Lankan government, in particular its human rights record, or who are associated with publications critical of the Sri Lankan government.
(c) Individuals who have given evidence to the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission implicating the Sri Lankan security forces, armed forces or the Sri Lankan authorities in alleged war crimes. Among those who may have witnessed war crimes during the conflict, particularly in the No-Fire Zones in May 2009, only those who have already identified themselves by giving such evidence would be known to the Sri Lankan authorities and therefore only they are at real risk of adverse attention or persecution on return as potential or actual war crimes witnesses.
(d) A person whose name appears on a computerised “stop” list accessible at the airport, comprising a list of those against whom there is an extant court order or arrest warrant. Individuals whose name appears on a “stop” list will be stopped at the airport and handed over to the appropriate Sri Lankan authorities, in pursuance of such order or warrant.
Having regard to all of the above I am satisfied and find that the applicant does not come within any of the categories of persons identified by the UNHCR or Upper Tribunal as would be at real risk of persecution or serious harm on return to Sri Lanka.
The Tribunal does not treat the lists in these reports as exhaustive nor that there ought to be a requirement of presumption of eligibility. The Tribunal has acknowledged the applicant’s own circumstances and accepts that he was questioned, hit in the stomach with a rifle and was threatened that he would be taken to HQ and may be shot, around the end of the war. But the applicant on his own evidence, at a time of heightened security concerns and when most if not all the Tamil population was suspected of LTTE connections and reports of brutality against the Tamils was widespread the applicant consistently stated that he was not involved with the LTTE and while he was held, questioned and abused, he was released. DFAT advice indicates that Tamils that were suspected of LTTE involvement at that time were held in rehabilitation camps.
New claims
I have considered those described as ‘new claims’ in the representative’s submission of 2 April 2015. The applicant claims that authorities have visited his home on multiple occasions. On one visit in August 2013, the authorities asked about him and his [wife’s relative] and stated that the applicant must report on his return to Sri Lanka. He states that he did not report this to the delegate because he was not asked direct questions about it. It is argued that the explanation is plausible given especially the applicant’s lack of familiarity with Australian bureaucratic procedures. He further claims that his home has been visited on multiple occasions since the visit of August 2013. Earlier I rejected the applicant’s claim that he was of any ongoing interest by the authorities or that they visited his home or that he went into hiding and avoided reporting. I found this because of credibility concerns and significant discrepancies in his evidence. For the same reasons, and because I find it implausible that when his claims were being assessed by the delegate he did not report the visit in August 2013 because the delegate did not ask direct questions about it, I do not accept the new claims of ongoing visits or that the authorities stated that he is to report on his return to Sri Lanka.
Another new claim in the submission is that the applicant was forced to dig bunkers for the LTTE in the final stages of the war along with other residents of the village. I also find implausible that the applicant would mention this for the first time in a submission to the Tribunal in April 2015. Previously he maintained consistently, and at the hearing with the Tribunal he confirmed, that he had no involvement with the LTTE. I do not accept this claim and in my view it is another effort at embellishing or fabricating events to strengthen his claim for protection.
Another new claim is that a visible scar on his [body] he suffered from general shelling during the war while living in Sri Lanka, if discovered by the authorities will expose the applicant to risk of harm. The submission adds that the applicant has not previously disclosed this scar because of his fear that he will be thought to be a member of the LTTE because of this scar, and because relevant medical documents regarding the scar were home and not with him. Again I find the reasons for not raising this previously to be implausible. By raising it, it is reasonable to assess that it would be a helpful element of claim for protection. Given he is seeking asylum in Australia primarily as a Tamil and imputed political opinion and suspected of LTTE connections, the reasons he now gives for not raising it are puzzling. Additionally, in his oral evidence to the Tribunal he stated that when he was in the camp after the war ended; during questioning he was required to strip because the authorities checked for scars. Given this and that he was released and allowed to go home strongly indicates the authorities had no concerns or interest in him, I do not accept the claim that if the scar is ‘discovered’ by the authorities it will expose him to harm.
I have also considered the reports and country information from the several sources referred to in the representative’s submissions. I am satisfied that the risks of harm identified in the reports and country information do not apply to the applicant as I find that he does not have the characteristics, attributes or profile to which the reports refer.
Having considered all the evidence and country information, I am not satisfied that the applicant was or is of any interest to the authorities in Sri Lanka because of his Tamil ethnicity or an imputed political opinion connecting him to the LTTE.
I do not accept there to be a real chance the applicant will face persecution amount to serious harm now or in the reasonably foreseeable future if he were to return to Sri Lanka because of his ethnicity as a Tamil, or your Tamil or for actual or imputed political opinion or connection with the LTTE directly or because his [wife’s relative] departed Sri Lanka.
The applicant lists his religion as Catholic and part of his claim but does not advance any specific arguments or submissions. I have nevertheless considered his religion as a ground.
DFAT advice in the 16 February report on Sri Lanka provides:
The Sri Lankan Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and belief while giving Buddhism a ‘foremost place’. Attacking places of worship or religious objects is punishable with a fine and/or a maximum of two years imprisonment. Acts intending to insult religion are punishable by a fine and/or a maximum of one year imprisonment.
There is a place for religions other than Buddhism in public life. Prominent Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim and Christian leaders are invited to all national functions, although only Buddhist rituals are performed at most events. Government dignitaries host and attend important events for different religions and Sri Lanka recognises religious holidays for all four religions. In the current government, there are four Ministers each with portfolio responsibilities for the four major religions.
School students are able to study their choice of Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim and Christian religions in most public and private schools, depending on the availability of teachers. There are also public schools for Hindu and Muslim students.
DFAT assesses there is little official discrimination on the basis of religion. There are no official laws or policies that discriminate on the basis of religion.
Religious tension rose after mid-2012, although the new Sirisena government has publicly said it is committed to ethnic and religious reconciliation. In a 2013 report, the Centre of Policy Alternatives (CPA) listed 65 cases of attacks on places of worship throughout the country between May 2009 and January 2013. The majority of cases reported by CPA were against evangelical Christian churches. The majority of incidents, where perpetrators were identified, were instances of Sinhala Buddhist attacks on other religious places of worship.
According to the SLMC, the largest Muslim political party in Sri Lanka, there were at least 241 anti-Muslim attacks and 69 anti-Christian attacks during 2013, some of which involved physical violence or the destruction of property. While charges have been laid in some cases and other cases have been settled between the parties, many attacks were not investigated. In April 2014, the former Government established a special police unit to investigate ‘complaints relating to religious matters’. In the latter part of 2014, there was a drop in reported anti-Muslim attacks.
DFAT assesses that most members of religious groups in Sri Lanka are able to practise their faith unmolested. However, the risk of harassment or violence increases where practitioners attempt to proselytise or to carry out ‘unethical conversions’ which generally involves a financial inducement to convert religion.
On the basis of the above information and in the absence of any specific claims relating to being a Catholic, I find that the applicant may suffer low level discrimination on the basis of his Catholic faith but, noting the country information I referred to above I do not accept that it rises to the level of serious or significant harm.
I have also considered whether the applicant will face a real chance of serious harm if he were to return to Sri Lanka as a failed asylum seeker having departed Sri Lanka illegally.
Membership of a particular social group – returning as a failed asylum seeker.
The applicant also fears returning to Sri Lanka as a failed asylum seeker from a western country. I have considered the submission including cases reported by Human Rights Watch in 2012 of individuals who returned, some referred to returned in 2010 and faced questioning and torture; and the UK Border Agency acknowledged torture was widespread at that time; and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada also acknowledged reports of systematic monitoring of returnees and arrests of Tamils.
However, I noted earlier of the significant change of circumstances since those reports including from the UNHCR and UK Upper Tribunal. I referred to an example of significant change by the current government where the governor in the north, a former retired army officer, has been replaced by a former diplomat. Restrictions on journalists operating and foreigners moving through the area have been lifted. Reports indicate that these changes are seen as having significantly improved and normalised the situation for Tamils.[8]
[8] Refworld.org. Group 22 – Information Centre Asylum and Migration Briefing Notes 26 January 2015 p8-9; and

In relation to whether the applicant will face persecution if he were to return as a failed asylum seeker having departed Sri Lanka in 2012, I accept that the applicant entered Australia by boat without a visa. At the hearing I discussed with the applicant the country reports, notably the DFAT report which provides:
3.8 The cessation of the forced registration of Tamils suggests the trend of monitoring and harassment of Tamils in day-to-day life has generally eased since the end of the conflict.
3.9 DFAT assesses that monitoring and harassment of Tamils has decreased under the Sirisena government and, on a day-to-day basis, the Tamil community feels more confident to refuse or question the motives of monitoring activities undertaken by authorities, if such activities occur.
The DFAT advice includes reports of a small number of alleged torture or mistreatment by returnees to Sri Lanka as failed asylum seekers. Many of these allegations are made by third parties and have not been able to be verified, however, DFAT also notes that for the many thousands of returned asylum seekers since 2009 from Australia and other countries the assessment of risk of torture or mistreatment is low including for breaches of the departure laws.
The UNHCR has indicated that returnees may receive further contact from the authorities after arriving in their village of destination:
UNHCR post-return monitoring data indicate that in 2011, upon arrival in the village of destination, 75% of the refugee returnees were contacted at their homes by either a military (38%) or police (43%) officer for further “registration”. 26% of these returnees were again visited at home for subsequent interviews, with a handful receiving a number of additional visits by the police or military.[9]
[9] UN High Commissioner for Refugees, „UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Sri Lanka‟, 21 December 2012, p.8 CIS29707
I have also considered the representative’s submission in relation to the DFAT report and the argument that the reduction in monitoring and harassment does not signify a cessation of these activities. It also counsels that Australian decision makers need not be bound by these and other sources such as the UK Upper Tribunal decision in GJ and Others or the Court of Appeals of England and Wales interpretation of that decision[10]. I have considered other reports provided in the submission claiming that Tamil returnees face harm; but there are yet other sources that contest these claims. In 2012, the UK Home Office noted that these allegations lack substance and detail and that:
The principal focus of the authorities continues to be, not Tamils from the north (or east) as such, but persons considered to be LTTE members, fighters or operatives or persons who have played an active role in the international procurement network responsible for financing the LTTE and ensuring it was supplied with arms.[11]
[10] MP and NT (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 829
[11] UK Home Office, 2012, Country Policy Bulletin – Sri Lanka, October
I accept that monitoring and harassment of Tamils continues. I accept on return to his home region the applicant will be noticed for his absence and he is likely to be questioned by the Sri Lankan authorities. He is also likely to face low level discrimination and social and economic disadvantage. However, given my conclusions on the applicant’s profile not being of any interest to the authorities and the available country information discussed, I do not find that the monitoring and harassment, social or economic discrimination rises to the level of serious or significant harm within the meaning of s.36(2A).
I have considered the applicant’s closing remarks at the hearing after a short adjournment. He stated that he believes that the authorities have a “special interest in him”; he believes that they questioned him in a manner that is different from questioning others. He believes that they released him only to keep an eye on him and see whom he might contact. I have rejected the applicant’s claim of ongoing interest in him by the authorities. I have not accepted that the authorities continued to visit him every night or that they had interest in why he came to Australia or required him to report in the way he claimed. I do not accept that the authorities have questioned him in a different way and released him to see whom he might contact. I am satisfied that the authorities did not have any ongoing interest in the applicant.
I also discussed with the applicant the consequences of departing Sri Lanka illegally and indicated that reports including the DFAT report which provides the following information:
Treatment of Returnees
5.23 Returnees are generally considered to have committed an offence under the I&E Act if they depart Sri Lanka irregularly by boat. Where a returnee is travelling voluntarily on their own passport on a commercial flight they may not come to the attention of local authorities if they departed Sri Lanka legally through an official port on the same passport, because they have not committed any offence under the I&E Act.
Exit and Entry Procedures
5.24 Upon arrival in Sri Lanka, involuntary returnees, including those on charter flights from Australia, are processed by the Department of Immigration and Emigration (DoIE), the State Intelligence Service (SIS) and Airport CID. Officers of the Australian Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) based in Colombo endeavour to meet all commercial flights and charter flights with involuntary returnees from Australia on arrival. DIBP has observed that processing arrivals typically takes several hours, primarily due to the manual nature of the interview process and staffing constraints at the airport. Voluntary returns eligible for an Australian Government Assisted Voluntary Return package are usually met by the International Organization for Migration. Other voluntary returnees are usually met by DIBP staff based at the Australian High Commission in Colombo.
5.25 During the processing of returnees, DoIE officers check travel document and identity information against the immigration database. SIS checks the returnee against intelligence databases. Airport CID verifies a person’s identity to then determine whether the person has any outstanding criminal matters.
5.26 For returnees travelling on temporary travel documents, police undertake an investigative process to confirm the person’s identity, which would address whether someone was trying to conceal their identity due to a criminal or terrorist background, or trying to avoid, among other things, court orders or arrest warrants. This often involves interviewing the returning passenger, contacting the person’s claimed home suburb or town police, contacting the person’s claimed neighbours and family and checking criminal and court records. DFAT assesses that Sri Lankan returnees are treated according to these standard procedures, regardless of their ethnicity and religion–Tamil, Sinhalese and Muslim returnees are treated the same way on arrival in Sri Lanka. DFAT further assesses that detainees are not subject to mistreatment during their processing at the airport.
Offences under the Immigrants and Emigrants Act
5.27 Most Sri Lankan returnees from Australia are questioned by police on return and, where an illegal departure from Sri Lanka is suspected, are charged under the I&E Act. DFAT understands that in most cases, these individuals have been arrested by the police at Colombo international airport. As part of this process, most returnees will have their fingerprints taken and be photographed. They are transported by police to the Magistrates Court in Negombo at the first available opportunity after investigations are completed, when custody and responsibility for the individual shifts to the courts or prison services. The Court makes a determination as to the next steps for each individual. Those arrested can remain in police custody at the CID Airport Office for up to 24 hours. Should a magistrate not be available before this time–for example, because of a weekend or public holiday–those charged are held at the nearby Negombo Prison.
The Magistrates Court in Colombo typically levies fines of around 5,000 Sri Lankan Rupees (around AUD 40) for persons attempting to depart Sri Lanka irregularly on boats. However, in Negombo, the magistrate, who handles a large number of these cases, typically levies fines of around 50,000 Sri Lankan Rupees (around AUD 400) to act as a deterrent. In most cases, returnees have been granted bail on personal recognisance immediately by the magistrate, with the requirement for a family member to act as guarantor. Sometimes returnees then need to wait until a family member comes to court to collect them.
I accept that on returning to Sri Lanka the applicant will face questioning at the airport about his activities during the time he has been outside of Sri Lanka. I accept that he will be charged and may be convicted under Sri Lanka’s departure laws. The information from DFAT is that returnees have been granted bail on personal surety immediately by magistrates. I note the applicant has family in Sri Lanka who would be able to come and collect him from court. While I accept reports indicate that prison conditions in Sri Lanka are generally poor but as noted earlier, the DFAT report indicates that all Sri Lankans are treated the same way regardless of religion or ethnicity and there is no evidence or information to indicate mistreatment of returnees held on remand. Given also my findings regarding the applicant’s profile being of no interest to the authorities, the Tribunal finds that the applicant will not be treated differently because of being convicted of breaches of departure laws for any Convention reason.
In addition as early as August 2011, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRBC) reported on the treatment of Tamils returning to Sri Lanka, including failed asylum seekers. The report cited information provided by the Canadian High Commission in Colombo, which noted that ―[t]he screening process is the same for all persons returning to Sri Lanka – whether voluntary or by escort. The process is not impacted by ethnicity.[12]
[12] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, ‘Information on the treatment of Tamil returnees to Sri Lanka, including failed refugee applicants; repercussions, upon return, for not having proper government authorization to leave the country, such as a passport’, LKA103815.E, 22 August 2011 CIS29896
I have also considered the Department’s Complementary Protection Guidelines as required by Ministerial Direction No. 56. I find that any short term detention or fine does not amount to persecution for a Convention reason because it is the enforcement of generally applicable laws which are not applied with discriminatory intent or effect; nor are they applied selectively or in a discriminatory manner for a Convention reason or non-convention reason. Having regard to the DFAT Country Report on Sri Lanka to which I referred above, the Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance that the applicant will face serious harm at the airport on the basis of illegal departure or returning as a failed asylum seeker now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
I have considered whether the applicant will face a real chance of serious harm on the basis of his claims separately and cumulatively – if the effect of each claim separately or the combined characteristics of being imputed with political opinion in support of the LTTE, as a member of a particular social group ‘failed asylum seekers’ or for having departed illegally and returning involuntarily as a failed asylum seeker from Australia would mean that there is a real chance of facing serious harm. Having regard to available country information I find that he does not face any serious or significant harm on these bases. Given the above findings I do not accept that there is a real chance the applicant will face serious harm for reasons of ethnicity as a Tamil or young Tamil male or actual or imputed political opinion, or any other Convention reason if he were to return to Sri Lanka now or in the foreseeable future.
I have not accepted there to be a real chance that the applicant will face serious harm if he were to return to Sri Lanka. I have accepted that he will be questioned on arrival at the airport and in his village; that he will be charged under Sri Lanka’s departure laws and would be bailed. To the extent that there is a risk the applicant may suffer harm as a result of this process; s.36(2B)(c) qualifies that it is not taken to be a real risk as it is a risk faced by the population generally and not by the applicant personally. The reasoning in SZSPT v MIBP[13], suggests that the ‘faced personally’ element of the qualification in s.36(2B)(c) requires the individual to face a risk of differential treatment. On the basis of my findings that the applicant is of no interest to the authorities in Sri Lanka, I am satisfied that the risk he is likely to face is one that would be faced by the population generally.
[13] [2014] FCA 1245 (Rares J, 3 November 2014). In this regard, the Court observed that there was no differential treatment as the law was one of general application and was not applied in a discriminatory manner: at [12]-[14].
I have found that he will not face a real chance of serious harm if he were to return to Sri Lanka now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. In MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33, The Full Court of the Federal Court held that the ‘real risk’ test imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test in the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’. I have also had regard to the Procedural Advice Manual. As I did not accept the applicant has experienced any harm in the past and I have not accepted the submissions from the applicant’s representative as establishing a basis for serious or significant harm; while I have found that he will be charged and convicted under Sri Lanka’s departure laws, I do not find the harm to amount to serious harm. Having regard to the definition of significant harm, I do not find the harm I have accepted amounts to significant harm within the meaning of s.36(2A).
There is no other basis before me to support that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Sri Lanka, there is a real risk that he will be arbitrarily deprived of his life, that the death penalty will be carried out on him, that he will be subjected to torture, that he will be subjected to cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment or that he will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment as defined. Accordingly I do not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Sri Lanka, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm as that term is defined in s36(2A).
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 the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in 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.
George Haddad
Senior Member

ATTACHMENT
RELEVANT LAW
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (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, the applicant 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.
Refugee criterion
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 under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).
Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
Sections 91R and 91S of the Act qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the Regulations to a particular person.
There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.
Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s.91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve ‘serious harm’ to the applicant (s.91R(1)(b)), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s.91R(1)(c)). Examples of ‘serious harm’ are set out in s.91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.
Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors.
Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition - race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase ‘for reasons of’ serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s.91R(1)(a) of the Act.
Fourth, an applicant’s fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a ‘well-founded’ fear. This adds an objective requirement to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution under the Convention if they have genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted for a Convention stipulated reason. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.

In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. The expression ‘the protection of that country’ in the second limb of Article 1A(2) is concerned with external or diplomatic protection extended to citizens abroad. Internal protection is nevertheless relevant to the first limb of the definition, in particular to whether a fear is well-founded and whether the conduct giving rise to the fear is persecution.
Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.
Complementary protection criterion
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 a protection 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 the applicant 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’).
‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s.36(2A): s.5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s.5(1) of the Act.
There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s.36(2B) of the Act.
Section 499 Ministerial Direction
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration –PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and any country information assessment 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.

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration
Administrative Law
Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review
Procedural Fairness
Statutory Construction
Jurisdiction
Natural Justice
Standing

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

1319842 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 3767

Cases Citing This Decision

Cases Cited

Statutory Material Cited

SZSPT v MIBP [2014] FCA 1245

[2016] AATA 3767

23 April 2016

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice

Standing