1408191 (Refugee)

[2015] AATA 3620

1408191 (Refugee) [2015] AATA 3620 (4 November 2015)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1408191

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Sri Lanka

MEMBER:Rea Hearn Mackinnon

DATE:4 November 2015

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 04 November 2015 at 6:31pm

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

1. 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).

2. The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Sri Lanka, applied for the visa [in] August 2013 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] April 2014.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 28 November 2014 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.

4. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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’).

   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.

9. The issue in this case is whether the applicant will be harmed in Sri Lanka because of an imputed association with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) or as a failed asylum seeker. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   
   
   Nationality

10. The applicant has provided a copy of his Sri Lankan passport and other identifying document. The Tribunal is satisfied that he is a national of Sri Lanka and has assessed his claims against Sri Lanka as his country of nationality and his receiving country.

    Background

11. The applicant is a Tamil and Hindu. His parents are from [Town 1] but moved to Colombo in 1987. He was born in Colombo [and] always lived in [a suburb] in Colombo. His mother’s family live mostly in Colombo and his father’s family live mostly in [Town 1]. He attended college in Colombo, completing his exams in [year]. He studied a [tertiary course] full time from January to December [year] and worked full-time from June to September 2012 then travelled to Australia on a student visa. He was recruited by [a company] in 2010 but did not start the job because of a problem with shifts. His father retired in 2009/10. He has travelled to [Town 1] three times, once in 2010, once in 2011 and once in 2012, for a few days each time. 

12. In Australia, he has been studying for a [qualification at university] and is due to complete his course in 2015. Under the Migration Regulations in force at the date of the hearing, he will then be able to apply for a skilled visa.

    Claims

13. The applicant claims that he has been imputed with an LTTE association in Sri Lanka because of his relationship to his cousin who was an LTTE cadre detained at the end of the conflict; and because he visited his cousin in detention.  He fears that the authorities will further suspect him of having been involved with the LTTE because he left Sri Lanka at a time when they had begun to suspect him and to question him. He also fears harm as a failed asylum seeker. These claims are discussed below.

    Treatment during the conflict

14. The applicant claims that, prior to 2009, he was frequently questioned at checkpoints and round ups in Colombo, particularly after bombings and other attacks; and that he was taken off buses and questioned because, as a young Tamil male he was suspected of being involved with the LTTE. He stated that, near the end of the war in 2009, at a time when large numbers of Tamils were fleeing from the fighting in the north and east into Colombo, he was detained overnight during a security round up along with many other Tamil people. He claims that he was beaten and accused of being an LTTE supporter and released after his father paid an amount of money. He stated that, although he was regularly questioned during the conflict, it was always in the context of general security operations and that he was not specifically targeted.

15. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was frequently questioned at checkpoints and in security roundups and house searches during the conflict and that he was detained overnight on one occasion in 2009.  The applicant did not claim to have been specifically targeted and the Tribunal is satisfied that this questioning and detention was part of the security environment in force in Colombo at that time.  The Tribunal notes that the security situation in Sri Lanka is much improved since the defeat of the LTTE in 2009. The state of emergency which had been in place since 1971 was lifted in 2011 eliminating many of the broad powers of arrest and detention that the security forces had employed during the conflict. Far fewer people have been detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and forced registration of Tamils has ceased indicating that the monitoring of Tamils has eased.[1] As the conflict is now over and most of the security measures have been lifted, the Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance or a real risk the applicant will be subject to such questioning or detention on return to Colombo. 

    Association with the LTTE

    [1] DFAT, 2014, DFAT Country Report, Sri Lanka, 3 October and affirmed in DFAT, 2015, DFAT Country Report, Sri Lanka, 16 February

16. The applicant claims he has been specifically targeted and imputed to have a connection to the LTTE because of his relationship with a paternal cousin, [who] he claims was an LTTE soldier.

17. The applicant claims that his cousin joined the LTTE when he was very young and was a soldier for 10 years. He told the Tribunal that he had no contact with his cousin during the war.

18. The applicant claims that his cousin was arrested in [Town 1] towards the end of the war (therefore before or around May 2009) and sent to [Prison 2] in 2010. He does not know where his cousin as held before being sent to [Prison 2]. His cousin remained in [Prison 2] until the end of 2010.

19. In his written statement dated [in] August 2013, the applicant said that his father visited his cousin in [Prison 2] 2 or 3 times a week (a distance of about 125 kms[2] or a four hour drive according to the applicant’s submission dated [in] October 2014) and that he visited once or twice. He said that his father paid money to improve his cousin’s circumstances in prison and bribed prison and army officers to have his cousin transferred to [Prison 3] in Colombo at the end of 2010. The applicant told the Tribunal that his father met prison and army officers outside the prison and paid them money to have his cousin transferred. He does not know how much his father paid. The applicant subsequently stated that he visited his cousin in [Prison 2] at least twice a week with his father.

    [2] >

    The applicant claims that his cousin remained in [Prison 3] for about 6 months and that he continued to visit his cousin in [Prison 3] once or twice a week.

20. When asked why he visited his cousin so frequently, the applicant said that his father had to go often with money to purchase good treatment for his cousin and was scared he would be arrested for visiting an LTTE soldier so took the applicant for support. The Tribunal noted that such fear was not consistent with his father’s willingness to pay bribes to secure his cousin’s transfer from [Prison 2 to Prison 3]. The applicant told the Tribunal that his classes ceased in 2009 and he sat for his exams in August 2010. The Tribunal queried whether the applicant would have travelled [at] least twice a week when he had important exams to study for. The applicant said that his father’s life was more important than study.

21. The applicant stated that because of tight security around LTTE prisoners, the applicant’s father had to have all his details confirmed by the gramma sevaka (village administrator) in order to visit his cousin. He provided some documents relating to visitor requests by his father and his uncle (his cousin’s father).These comprise requests by the applicant’s uncle (dated [in] February 2010) and the applicant’s father (dated [in] February 2010) to the grama sevaka to certify their familial relationship with the applicant’s cousin so they could visit him; an application form to visit the applicant’s cousin by the applicant’s uncle signed by the grama sevaka [in] July 2010; and an application form by the applicant’s father signed by the grama sevaka [in] August 2010. The applicant said that his uncle and father only had to complete one application form. He said that he did not need to complete a form: he showed his ID with his father’s name and he was able to visit with his father. The Tribunal asked the interpreter to read the applicant applicant’s ID card at the hearing. The card states his name and date and place of birth but not his father’s name.

22. The applicant told the Tribunal that his cousin assaulted a prison guard [in Prison 3] in 2011 and was subsequently transferred to a camp in [Town 4]. He said that he has no further information about this. Nor does his uncle. He and his father went to visit his cousin in [Prison 3] and were told he had been transferred. A few days prior to that, his cousin had told them he had hit a guard and they saw that his cousin had been badly beaten and his nails had been removed. They have had no contact with him since then. His uncle has been to the camps and to see the Human Rights Commission (HRC) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) but these agencies have not been able to provide any information about his cousin and his uncle does not know if he is still in the camp, been released or escaped. 

23. The applicant provided a copy of an undated ICRC card and a HRC card dated [in] February 2010. The Tribunal noted that this card is dated at around the same time as the applicant’s uncle and father were applying to visit his cousin in [Prison 2]. The applicant said that he does not know why his uncle went to the HRC at that time.

24. The applicant claims that the police and army raided his home in Colombo in mid-March 2011. He claims that they searched his house for weapons connected to the LTTE and asked neighbours if any people of concern had been visiting the house. They asked the applicant if he had any prior connection with his cousin and whether he had helped the LTTE. He said that his home had been searched before in the security checks carried out in Colombo during the conflict but this search was specifically related to his cousin. He stated that the authorities were angry with his cousin for beating a prison guard and wanted to take revenge. The Tribunal queried why the authorities would raid the applicant’s home as revenge for his cousin hitting a prison guard. The applicant said that revenge was just one reason. They also suspected the applicant of having a prior connection with his cousin and a connection with bombings in Colombo during the conflict. The Tribunal queried why the applicant would be suspected of such involvement in 2011 when he had no actual involvement with the LTTE, had no contact with his cousin until 2010 and had been questioned frequently in security round ups during the conflict without being suspected. The applicant said that young Tamils in Colombo are always suspected and that no-one knew about his cousin during the war. The Tribunal queried why the authorities had not suspected him in 2009 when his cousin was arrested or in 2010 when he was visiting his cousin. The applicant said that the authorities became suspicion in 2010 when he was visiting his cousin in [Prison 2] then retaliated after his cousin assaulted the prison guard.

25. The applicant claims that he was taken to a place in Colombo [which] may have been a CID office. The applicant claims that he was questioned by two CID people, beaten with sticks and kicked. He was asked why he was so involved with his cousin if he had no connection with the LTTE.  He was questioned for 3 or 4 hours at a time and beaten. In his written statement he said that he was accused of helping his cousin and of being involved in bombings in Colombo during the conflict. He claims that his father secured his release through a lawyer he knew and payment of 5 lakhs. He claims to have ongoing health problems as a result of this treatment. He can’t remember if he had to sign or do anything when he was released. He thinks he had to sign one or two documents about reporting. He provided a copy of a letter from [Dr A in] August 2013 who stated that he knows the applicant and intervened to get his release. The Tribunal notes that ‘Colombo” is misspelt in the office address on the letter and that the content of the letter is poorly expressed (although the writer appears to be highly educated and qualified).  The applicant’s representative submitted that the Tribunal should not apply a fine tooth comb to the content or expression of the letter.

26. The applicant provided a copy of a medical letter dated [in] June 2013 which he said related to his injuries incurred in the beating above. The letter refers to “sore coccyx and sacrum since a fall onto his lower back recently” and a hairline fracture. The applicant said he was too shy to say what happened. The Tribunal queried whether a hairline fracture would still be present two years after the injury was said to have occurred.

27. The applicant claims that, from when he was detained until he left Sri Lanka, the police and the Army went to his home two or three times a month and also called him to the police station. He claims that he was questioned about his current activities; his connections to people in the north; whether he knew anything about his cousin; whether he still had any contact with his cousin; and whether he had any plans to leave. The Tribunal noted that, if his cousin had been transferred to a camp in [Town 4], the authorities would know he was not having any contact.

28. The Tribunal queried why the authorities would visit him two or three times a month for 18 months to ask him the same questions.  The applicant said that the police and army also harassed his family for money because they had paid money in the past. The Tribunal noted that, despite this suspicion and ongoing questioning, he was able to study and obtain employment, including at [a certain company]. The applicant stated that there were a number of occasions after March 2011 when he would have been arrested but he avoided this by paying money. The Tribunal noted that he had not previously mentioned having to pay bribes.

29. The applicant’s representative submitted that it is not surprising that there are some inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence given the long course of his claims. The inconsistencies are not material and the core claim has been consistent. The applicant cannot be expected to know why his cousin was transferred to [Prison 2] but [Prison 2] is known as a hard place and he might have been transferred for this reason. Whilst the connection between his cousin’s assault of the prison officer and the questioning of the applicant may not be clear, the applicant’s evidence is that greater attention was paid to him after that event. It was submitted that the Tribunal should consider the totality of the evidence and that the applicant still holds a substantive visa which suggests that his protection visa application has been genuinely made.

30. The Tribunal has some doubts that the applicant’s cousin was detained as an LTTE operative at the end of the conflict in May 2009 as it expects that the applicant would know (from talking to his cousin or his father and uncle) where his cousin had been held between May 2009 and 2010 when he was transferred to [Prison 2]. The applicant has not provided any evidence to support his claim that his cousin was an LTTE operative and it is possible that his cousin was imprisoned in [Prison 2] in 2010 for another reason. However, on balance, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s cousin may have been detained as an LTTE combatant at the end of the conflict in May 2009 and that he may have been held in [Prison 2] in 2010 and [Prison 3] in 2011.

31. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s father and uncle may have visited the applicant’s cousin in [Prison 2]. The visit application form provided by the applicant indicates that his father did not begin to visit until at least August 2010 and the applicant claims that his cousin was transferred at the end of 2010 so the visits to [Prison 2] were over a four month period at most. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s father may have paid bribes to have his cousin transferred to [Prison 3]. This willingness to enter into arrangements with the prison authorities leads the Tribunal to find that the applicant’s father was not scared of being arrested for visiting the applicant’s cousin.  

32. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant visited his cousin in [Prison 2] at least twice a week given the distance and given that the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s father was scared and wanted the applicant to accompany him. The Tribunal also considers it unlikely that the applicant would have been allowed to visit his cousin without also completing an application form and does not accept his evidence that he was able to enter the prison just on his ID card because it does not accept that his ID card shows his relationship to his father.  The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s father visited that often either given the distance and travel time and because the Tribunal considers it unlikely that a former LTTE combatant being held in [Prison 2] was allowed such frequent visits. However, the Tribunal gives the applicant the benefit of the doubt and accepts that he may have visited his cousin in prison, either in [Prison 2 or Prison 3], once or twice as he stated in his written statement.

1. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s cousin may have been transferred to a camp in [Town 4] in early 2011. Over 11,000 suspected LTTE cadres were detained in rehabilitation camps at the end of the conflict.[3]  Former fighters were required to complete a roughly two year rehabilitation program if they wished to receive a general amnesty; if they did not, they faced terrorism charges. More than 11,800 former fighters were rehabilitated through government sponsored programs that included vocational skills training.[4]

   [3] UNHCR, 2012, UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Sri Lanka, 21 December

   [4] IRIN 4 July 2014

2. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s cousin may have assaulted a prison officer in [Prison 3] in early 2011. The Tribunal does not accept that he was transferred to the camp in [Town 4] because of this assault. The Tribunal considers it more likely that he would have been returned to [Prison 2] if the authorities wanted to punish him for the assault. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s cousin may have been transferred to a camp in [Town 4] in 2011 as this is consistent with former LTTE combatants being required to complete a rehabilitation program. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has not had any contact with his cousin since early 2011. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s uncle does not know his cousin’s whereabouts. The Tribunal places little weight on the ICRC and HRC cards provided by the applicant as evidence that his uncle has sought help in locating his son in view of the date on the HRC card.

3. The Tribunal does not accept that the police and army raided the applicant’s home in March 2011 or searched it for weapons in revenge for the applicant’s assault on a prison officer. The Tribunal has concerns about the credibility of much of the applicant’s evidence (as discussed above and below and does not accept that he was questioned about his cousin and his own LTTE involvement in March 2011 or hit or kicked during that questioning. However, even if he was questioned and hit and kicked as claimed in 2011, the Tribunal does not accept that he has been imputed with an LTTE association because of his cousin.  Widespread screening of Tamils for LTTE links occurred at the end of the conflict[5] and the questioning of the applicant is consistent with that screening. However, the applicant is considerably younger than his cousin; he had no contact with his cousin prior to 2010; he had no actual involvement with the LTTE during the conflict; and he was questioned numerous times during the conflict without being suspected of any LTTE involvement. Whilst the applicant may have been questioned and mistreated as part of that screening, the Tribunal does not accept that he was imputed with an LTTE association just because he may have visited his cousin in prison.

   [5] Ibid

4. The Tribunal places little weight on the letter from [Dr A] and has some doubts that it is a genuine document because of the spelling error and the poor expression in the letter. Given this concern about the letter, the Tribunal does not accept that [Dr A] secured the applicant’s release.

5. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant suffered serious injury during any such questioning. The medical report he has provided refers to a fall. The Tribunal does not accept he was too shy to mention to the doctor he was beaten if that was how he incurred the injury. The report also refers to a “recent” fall not a causal event two years before the report was prepared. 

6. The Tribunal does not accept that the police or the Army went to the applicant’s home once or twice a month between March 2011 and September 2012 or called him to the police station for further questioning about his own activities or his cousin’s activities or his connections to the north. His cousin was in a rehabilitation camp so there was no need for the authorities to question the applicant about him, the applicant never travelled to the north during the conflict and he was not involved in any LTTE activities. The Tribunal does not accept that the authorities had any interest in the applicant either in relation to his cousin or his own activities. Further, the applicant did not mention such visits in his written statement setting out his claims and the Tribunal expects that he would have if they had occurred.

7. The Tribunal does not accept that the Army or CID demanded bribes or that the applicant paid bribes to avoid being arrested because it does not accept that the applicant was of any ongoing interest to the authorities. The applicant told the delegate that his phone was also being tapped. The Tribunal does not accept this either. The Tribunal notes that the applicant was studying and working during this period and does not accept that he was subject to any questioning or monitoring.

8. Having regard to all of the evidence and findings above, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has been imputed with an LTTE association because of his cousin and does not accept that he faces a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm on return to Sri Lanka because of an imputed LTTE association.

9. The applicant travelled to Australia on a passport issued in 2011. In his written statement he said that he had applied for a passport many times commencing in 2009 and was always refused. At the hearing he said that he applied for a passport in 2009, soon after he was detained and questioned, and was refused and that he had to pay a bribe in 2011 to obtain his passport. The Tribunal noted that he did not mention this bribe in his interview with the delegate. He said he might have forgotten. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was refused a passport many times from 2009 or that he had to pay a bribe to obtain one in 2011.The applicant was detained and questioned in a general security round up in 2009. He was not specifically suspected of any adverse activity and there is no apparent reason why he would have been refused a passport at that time. Further, country information indicates that no special security checks are carried out before passports are issued in Sri Lanka; that they are easy to obtain and that applicants only have to produce basic identity documents. [6] 

   [6][6] Country Information Service 2001, Country Information Report No 293/01: Travel documents and checking procedures (sourced from DFAT advice of 15 November 2001) 20 November

10. The applicant claims that he left Sri Lanka whilst being monitored and the authorities have a record of him which will cause him problems on return. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was being monitored before he left Sri Lanka or that he will be subject to any questioning or security checking on return to Sri Lanka. The Tribunal notes that the applicant left Sri Lanka legally on his own passport with a valid student visa for Australia and does not accept that he will be subject to any checks other than the standard checks which apply to any Sri Lankan citizen returning from overseas.

11. The applicant has submitted that he will be suspected of having an association with the LTTE because he is a young Tamil male. The Tribunal notes that the applicant is from Colombo but has family connections in the north. The Tribunal notes advice from the UNHCR in 2012 that:

    Given the cessation of hostilities, Sri Lankans originating from the north of the country are no longer in need of international protection under broader refugee criteria or complementary forms of protection solely on the basis of risk of indiscriminate harm. In light of the improved human rights and security situation in Sri Lanka, there is no longer a need for group-based protection mechanisms or for a presumption of eligibility for Sri Lankans of Tamil ethnicity originating from the north of the country.[7]

    [7] UNHCR, 2012, UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Sri Lanka, 21 December

12. The Tribunal also notes that the LTTE has been soundly defeated and is regarded as a spent force in Sri Lanka. The Tribunal has found for the reasons set out above that the applicant was not imputed with and LTTE association in Sri Lanka because of his cousin. In view of the defeat of the LTTE, the improved security situation in Sri Lanka and the advice from the UNHCR above regarding the position of Tamils now, the Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance or a real risk that the applicant will be imputed with an LTTE association now because of his ethnicity.

13. The applicant claims he will be harmed as a failed asylum seeker. The Tribunal does not accept this. The applicant left Sri Lanka legally with a valid student visa. He will return to Sri Lanka on his own passport. He has remained in Australia validly as the holder of a visa. His status as an asylum seeker will not be known to the Sri Lankan authorities and he will not be subject to any questioning at the airport other than standard re-entry procedures. Even if the Sri Lankan authorities become aware that he applied for asylum in Australia, the Tribunal does not accept that he will be imputed with an LTTE association because he applied for asylum in Australia or that he will suffer any harm as a result. More than a thousand failed asylum seekers have been returned to Sri Lanka from Australia since 2012 and the country information before the Tribunal does not indicate that they have suffered any harm on return because they applied for asylum in Australia.[8]

    [8] DFAT, 2015, DFAT Country Report Sri Lanka, 16 February

14. Having regard to all of the evidence and findings above, the Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm now or in the reasonably foreseeable future in Sri Lanka because of his imputed political opinion or his race or his membership of particular social groups comprising his family or failed asylum seekers, separately or cumulatively, and does not accept that he has a well-founded fear of persecution.

15. Having regard to the evidence and findings set out above, the Tribunal does not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being returned to Sri Lanka, there is a real risk he will suffer significant harm.

    CONCLUSION

16. 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).

17. 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).

18. 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

19. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

    Rea Hearn Mackinnon
    Member