1417771 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 3064

1417771 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 3064 (13 January 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1417771

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Republic of Korea

MEMBER:Susan Pinto

DATE:13 January 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 13 January 2016 at 10:09am

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. The applicant is a citizen of the Republic of Korea. He is aged in [age range]. He arrived in Australia on a [temporary] visa [in] November 2004. He was subsequently granted further [temporary] visas. Upon the expiry of the last of those visas [in] June 2009 he resided in Australia unlawfully until [December] 2013.

2. The applicant applied to the Department of Immigration for the Protection visa [in] February 2014. The applicant essentially claimed that he owes money in Korea and he will be harmed by the persons to whom he owes money. The applicant also claimed that he cannot return to Korea because he is married to an Australian citizen and he needs to provide her with care and support.

3. The delegate of the Minister for Immigration refused to grant the Protection visa [in] October 2014. 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 delegate of the Minister accepted that the applicant had a debt in Korea, and was threatened in 2005 in relation to the debt. The delegate did not accept that the applicant had received ongoing threats in the 10 years since 2005 whilst he was in Australia. Nor did the delegate accept that there was a real chance or a real risk that the applicant would suffer serious or significant harm from money lenders upon his return to Korea. The delegate also found that the applicant’s desire to remain in Australia to care for his wife did not engage the provisions of the Refugees Convention or the Complementary Protection criteria.

4. A summary of the relevant law is set out in an attachment to this decision. The issues in this review are whether the applicant has a well founded fear of persecution in the Republic of Korea for one or more of the five reasons set out in the Refugees Convention and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to Korea, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. The Tribunal must consider, therefore, whether the applicant has a well founded fear of persecution. If the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well founded fear of persecution, the Tribunal must consider whether there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia that there is a real risk he will suffer significant harm.

   CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   Application to the Department

5. The applicant indicated on the application form that he speaks, reads and writes Korean. He indicated that he is Christian and he was married in [year] in Sydney. He indicated that he had [number] years of education in Korea where he was employed as an [occupation] and sole trader. He stated that he is currently employed as a Tradesperson. The applicant indicated on the application form that he was married for the first time in [year] and he and his first wife divorced in Korea in [year]. His current wife is an Australian citizen. He indicated that he has several siblings and a son and daughter residing in Korea. 

6. On the application form, the applicant stated in response to questions as why he was seeking Australia’s protection, that he had his own business from [year] and it was very difficult starting from virtually nothing. He did his best to manage during the Asian crisis which affected Korea but it was virtually impossible to make a decent living from a private business. Due to his business failure and his inability to recover from his loss, the applicant decided to follow his son to Australia in 2004. His son had arrived in Australia in 2003 and his daughter came in 2005. The applicant was struggling to manage his business with limited resources, especially between 1997 and 1999 when the Asian crisis was at its worst in Korea. He started utilising private loans with higher interest from private lenders and as the business became tougher he borrowed more money to support his operations. However, his business eventually failed in February 2003 and he started receiving threatening telephone calls from private lenders. Although his children returned to Korea, he could not return because he feared for his safety due to business failures. The applicant has remained in Australia since 2004.

7. The applicant states that the person he fears most is a private lender from whom he borrowed money. The person’s name is [name] and there are other several small lenders. He is uncertain how they will treat him as he has not returned to Korea since 2004. He has paid back more than the initial sum, but due to the high interest rates the principal was not reduced. The applicant is uncertain what sort of problems he will face in Korea, but he does know that he will be harmed by the people to whom he owes money. Furthermore, since he met his current wife in 2011 he cannot return to Korea because she relies on him for everything. He refers to a medical certificate outlining his current situation and his wife’s medical condition. He states that he applied to have a condition waived to allow him to make a Spouse visa application, but it was rejected and he would have to return to Korea to make such an application. The applicant cannot “simply abandon everything” and return to Korea to lodge such an application because his wife is in Australia.

8. The applicant states that his previous dealings were between two private parties and he does not think the Korean Government will interfere or mediate any issues. Had the applicant been allowed to make an application for a Spouse visa he would have not had such difficulties, but because his request was refused he had no alternative but to lodge his current application to allow him to stay in Australia to care for his wife “(as well as to protect my safety”).

9. In support of the application, the applicant provided a copy of his marriage certificate to his current wife, [Ms A], who was born in Korea in [year]; a copy of [her] Australian citizenship certificate; and copies of his divorce certificate and military service certificate from Korea. In addition, the applicant provided a letter from his General Practitioner, [Dr B], in relation to [Ms A]. [Dr B] refers to [Ms A’s] medical problems, as well as depression and anxiety and a previous marriage failure and her son’s medical condition. [Dr B] states that [Ms A’s] son suffers from [a medical condition] and his wife divorced him when she found out about his condition. [Dr B] states that [Ms A] will be severely affected if the applicant is required to leave Australia to lodge a Spouse visa application.

10. The applicant was interviewed by the delegate [in] October 2014. The Tribunal has listened to the CD Rom recording of the interview.

    Application for review

11. When lodging the application to the Tribunal, the applicant provided a copy of the delegate’s decision record.

12. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 12 January 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence the applicant’s spouse, [Ms A]. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Korean and English languages.

    ASSESSMENT OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

    Does the applicant have a well founded fear of persecution in Korea for one or more of the Convention reasons?

13. As stated above, the Tribunal must consider whether the applicant has a well founded fear of persecution in Korea for one or more of the five Convention reasons. In considering this issue, the Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s oral evidence to the Department during the interview and Tribunal hearing, as well as his written claims. The Tribunal has also had regard to the evidence of the applicant’s wife at the hearing. Having considered all of that evidence, the Tribunal is drawn to the conclusion that the applicant has manufactured his claims in relation to the debt to money lenders following his inability to obtain permission to lodge a Spouse visa application in Australia. Whilst the Tribunal considers it understandable that he wishes to remain in Australia to care for his wife, the Tribunal is not satisfied that he will suffer serious harm if he returns to Korea. The Tribunal’s consideration of the evidence and its reasons for reaching these conclusions follows.

    The debt to money lenders

14. The Tribunal has first considered the applicant’s claims regarding the debt. As indicated above, in his statement the applicant claimed that he cannot return to Korea due to a debt he owes to money lenders or “loan sharks”. At the Department interview, the applicant was asked about his lengthy residence in Australia, including a period whereby he was unlawful. The applicant stated that he had resided unlawfully in Australia for four years because he could not return because he would be at risk of harm from loan sharks. The applicant also stated that he first received a threat in early 2005 after he came to Australia. The applicant then changed his mobile telephone number. He did not receive any further threats after he changed his telephone call, but he learned from his friends that the money lenders are still looking for him. When asked how his friends would know, the applicant stated that this friend introduced him to the loan shark. The applicant claimed that recently he heard from his friend that they were still looking for him and if he returns they will “dump me in a mountain”. The applicant stated that they swore at him and used “bad words”. The person who made the threat was called [name], but he was also threatened by other loan sharks because there were about three loan sharks from whom he borrowed money. The applicant further claimed that he had learned that they had visited his ex-wife’s workplace and asked about him on a number of occasions and have said he would not let him run away.  During the Tribunal hearing, the applicant confirmed during the hearing that his son and daughter have returned to Korea and stated that when his son returned in 2009 they threatened him.

15. The Tribunal firstly considers that the significant delay in the lodgement of the application, combined with the applicant’s plans to return to Korea to lodge a Spouse visa application, does not indicate that the applicant genuinely fears harm in Korea. As indicated above, the applicant claims that he was threatened in relation to the debt in 2005 following his arrival in Australia. Following the cessation of his last held substantive visa in 2009, the applicant remained in Australia for some four years after that time, and lodged this application only after he was unsuccessful in obtaining permission to lodge an application for a Spouse visa onshore. When asked why he waited for some 10 years before applying for a Protection visa, the applicant told the delegate that he was initially on a [temporary] visa and did not know about Protection visas or he could make a claim on that basis. He also told the delegate that he was considering returning to Korea to lodge an application for a Spouse visa, but due to his wife’s circumstances and her emotional and psychological problems he needs to stay in Australia to support her. When asked whether he had approached anyone to ask about his options when he was in Australia unlawfully, he stated that he had not made any inquiries about remaining in Australia lawfully during the four years he was unlawful. He did not do so until after his marriage when he considered returning to Korea to lodge a Spouse visa application. He stated that his circumstances are that he “now cannot return”. When advised that the application for protection seems to be an “afterthought”, and asked whether he genuinely fears harm in Korea, the applicant stated that loan sharks will harm him if he returns to Korea and they are still looking for him.

16. When asked at the hearing about the considerable delay in the lodgement of the application, the applicant stated that he did not know he could make an application for a Protection visa on the basis of his debt and it was only later he learned he could do so. The applicant only found out relatively recently that there was an alternative means for obtaining a Protection visa and had previously thought that the only way was to be a refugee. When advised that his evidence that he was considering returning to Korea to lodge the application, but did not do so due to his wife’s problems, indicates he did not have any genuine fear of harm in Korea, the applicant stated that he was frightened to return and his son told him that the people are still looking for him and he should not return. The applicant also stated that he would have only gone to Seoul and lodged the application and would not have returned to his home area. He would also not have had any contact with his children during that time.

17. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant had planned to return to Korea to lodge a Spouse visa application, but did not do so because he wanted to stay in Australia to support his wife who suffers from psychological and emotional problems and was disturbed about her son’s medical condition. The Tribunal also accepts that the Complementary Protection provisions were introduced several years after the applicant’s arrival in Australia in 2004 and he may have learned relatively recently that he could rely on the Complementary Protection provisions in order to lodge a Protection visa application. The Tribunal has also had regard to the applicant’s claims that he would only have gone to Seoul during that time. However, even taking these factors into account, the Tribunal considers that the applicant’s evidence raises concerns that he did not in fact have any genuine fear of harm in Korea and was willing to return to Korea to lodge a Spouse visa application, and changed his plans only because of his wife’s problems. The Tribunal considers that had the applicant been threatened, his former wife threatened and told that they were still looking him, and his son threatened in Korea in 2009 when he returned from Australia, he would have at least made some efforts to determine how he could remain in Australia lawfully, rather than remaining in Australia unlawfully for some four years. In the Tribunal’s view, the applicant’s evidence indicates that he does not have a genuine fear of harm in Korea and the significant delay in the lodgement of the application, which was lodged after he was in Australia unlawfully and only after he was unable to lodge a Spouse visa onshore, raises considerable concerns that he has manufactured his claims in an attempt to delay or remain in Australia to be with his wife.

18. The Tribunal also considers that other aspects of the applicant’s claims raise concerns as to the truthfulness of his claims regarding debts to money lenders. When asked at the Department interview why he had not paid his debts, the applicant stated that he had already made payments three or four times the original amount and it is only because of the unreasonable interest that he still owes money. When asked at the hearing what contact the money lenders have had with his family in Korea, the applicant stated that the money lenders harassed his wife on several occasions and when his son returned to Korea in 2009 they threatened his son at that time. When asked why he has not previously claimed that his son was threatened, the applicant stated that the interview with the delegate was very short and he did not have time to tell the delegate about this claim. The Tribunal also queried why the money lenders would not have targeted his son and daughter who have been in Korea for several years if they are so concerned about the repayment of a debt. The applicant stated that they do not know where they live in [his province] as they no longer live with his wife.

19. The applicant also told the Tribunal that he owed money to three money lenders and although he should only owe about 50 million won, due to the inflated interest rates costs he now owes about 300 million won. When asked when he last paid money to the money lenders, the applicant stated that he had not done anything or paid any money since the end of 2003 or the beginning of 2004. When asked why he had not paid any more of the money to the money lenders, the applicant stated that when he came to Australia he was not permitted to work. In response to the Tribunal’s comments that he indicated he was a tradesman on the application form, the applicant stated that he has only done some work for fellow practitioners at his church and he also did some cooking and cleaning for Korean students when he first arrived in Australia. In response to the Tribunal’s comments that it considers it unlikely he has not had more stable employment in Australia, given his skills and qualifications as an [occupation] working for [industry] companies in Korea, the applicant indicated that he had not had permission to work because he was on a [specific temporary] visa and after that time he did not have permission to work when his visa ceased. The Tribunal advised the applicant that it considered it unlikely he would have been so concerned about working in Australia unlawfully given that he was willing to live in Australia unlawfully for some four years. When asked again why he would not have had made any arrangements to pay the debt, the applicant stated that the amount was unfair and it was too large to pay as the money lenders had calculated the amount to be very high and much greater than he owed. The applicant confirmed that he married his wife in [year]. He also told the Tribunal that his wife owns property and collects money from rental properties. When asked whether he had asked his wife whether she could assist him to pay the debt, the applicant stated that he could not ask her to assist her and the amount is unfair.

20. The Tribunal considers that the applicant’s evidence that he has not paid any of the money or made any attempts to pay any of the money to the money lenders since 2004, even though his former wife was threatened on a number of occasions and his son was purportedly threatened in 2009 when he returned to Korea, to be not credible. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s evidence that he has worked only intermittently whilst in Australia, and only for his fellow church practitioners or Korean students. As discussed during the hearing, the applicant has been in Australia for over 10 years and is well educated and previously employed [at industry] sites as an [occupation], as well as having had his own businesses. The Tribunal also does not accept that the applicant was unwilling to work unlawfully in circumstances where he was knowingly residing in Australia unlawfully. The Tribunal does not accept, therefore, that the applicant did not have the means or ability to at least give some consideration as to how he could repay the debt in order to resolve the situation with loan sharks who were purportedly threatening to throw him to the bottom of a mountain or take action against his son.

21. Furthermore, the applicant’s evidence indicates that the money lenders and his children were living in the same city, which was of about 1 million people. He told the Tribunal that the loan sharks could not locate his children because they were not living with his wife, but could purportedly locate him because of his friend’s association with the money lender. The Tribunal does not accept that in such circumstances, the applicant would not give at least some consideration to how he could resolve the situation rather than making no efforts to do so because he considered it to be “unfair” that money lenders may charge inflated interest rates. The Tribunal considers that the applicant’s evidence does not indicate that he gave any serious consideration to how he could resolve the situation with the money lenders, such that he could return to Korea and prevent any harm or further harassment of his son and possibly his daughter who were living in the same city in Korea where the applicant had resided and borrowed the money. The Tribunal considers that had his son been threatened, and his son and daughter had been living in the same city for some years as the money lenders, he would have taken at least some steps to resolve the situation by attempting to pay at least some of the money or to have made some arrangements with the money lenders. The applicant’s evidence indicates that he instead stayed in Australia unlawfully whilst purportedly having only limited employment helping practitioners from his church and Korean students, without taking any steps to resolve the situation. The Tribunal does not accept that he would remain in Australia unlawfully without taking action to resolve the situation with the money lenders, thereby continuing to place his children and their mother in danger. In the Tribunal’s view, the applicant’s evidence in relation to this issue raises further concerns that the applicant has manufactured his claims following his inability to lodge a Spouse visa application in Australia. 

1. The Tribunal also considers that the applicant’s evidence in relation to his son to be not credible and indicative of the fact that it has been manufactured. As discussed with the applicant during the hearing, the Tribunal considers that any threat towards his son as a result of money he owes to money lenders is a significant matter. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s explanation for not raising this matter during the Department interview. The Tribunal accepts that the interview was relatively short in duration, but does not accept that the applicant was not given ample opportunity to explain all aspects of his claims. The Tribunal considers that the applicant fabricated this claim during the Tribunal hearing in an attempt to embellish his evidence.

2. As indicated above, the delegate accepted that the applicant borrowed money from money lenders and continues to owe a debt. When this issue was discussed during the hearing, the Tribunal advised the applicant that it may reach a different conclusion in relation to this debt to money lenders. Having done so, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant owes any debt to “illegal money lenders” or “loan sharks” or that he will be sought for this reason upon his return to Korea. The Tribunal does not accept, therefore, that the applicant’s former wife or son was ever threatened or that the applicant was threatened or fears harm in relation to this issue. Nor does the Tribunal accept the applicant’s claim at the hearing that he contacted the police from Australia about this matter. The Tribunal is drawn to the conclusion that the applicant has manufactured this claim in an attempt to remain in Australia and his motivation in lodging the application is due to his failure to obtain permission to lodge an application for a Spouse visa whilst in Australia. The Tribunal is not satisfied, therefore, that there is a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm upon his return to Korea from money lenders.

   The applicant’s care for his wife

3. As indicated above, the applicant has claimed that he cannot leave Australia because he cares for his wife, whom is an Australian citizen who he married in [year]. During the Department interview, the applicant stated that his wife has a medical condition and he hopes that this will be considered and he can lodge a Spouse visa application. The applicant was advised by the delegate that this claim does not meet either the Refugees Convention or the Complementary Protection provisions. When this issue was discussed with the applicant during the hearing, the Tribunal advised the applicant that his desire to assist his wife and provide her with care and support does not come within the Refugees Convention. The applicant’s wife gave evidence during the hearing that she has suffered a lot and her husband helps to look after her. She is currently on anti-depressants and her son suffers from a medical condition. She thought about returning to Korea but when she returned for a brief visit, she found that the psychological and psychiatric care in Korea was not as good as in Australia.

4. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is concerned about the welfare of his wife and will be distressed at the prospect of leaving her whilst he returns to Korea to lodge an application for a Spouse visa. The Tribunal is not satisfied that any concern for his wife is such that it amounts to serious harm for a Convention reason.

5. Having considered all of the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm for a Convention reason if he returns to Korea. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well founded fear of persecution if he returns to Korea now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

   Are there substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Korea, that there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm?

6. The Tribunal has also considered the applicant’s claims, having regard to the Complementary Protection provisions. The Tribunal has not accepted the applicant’s claims to owe money to money lenders in Korea. The Tribunal has also found that the applicant’s desire to remain in Australia to provide care and support to his wife does not amount to serious harm. For the same reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm from money lenders upon his return to Korea. The Tribunal is also not satisfied that the applicant’s concern for his wife and his desire to remain in Australia to care for her, rather than returning to Korea to lodge a Spouse visa application whilst in Korea, amounts to significant harm.

7. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Korea there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer ‘significant harm’ such that they he will be arbitrarily deprived of their life, suffer the death penalty or they will be subjected to ‘torture’ or to ‘cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’ or to ‘degrading treatment or punishment’. 

   CONCLUSIONS

8. 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).

9. 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).

10. 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

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

    Susan Pinto
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT - RELEVANT LAW

12. In accordance with section 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act), the Minister may only grant a visa if the Minister is satisfied that the criteria prescribed for that visa by the Act and the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) have been satisfied. The criteria for the grant of a Protection visa are set out in section 36 of the Act and Part 866 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. Subsection 36(2) of the Act provides that:

    ‘(2)  A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:

    (a)a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol; or

    (aa)a non citizen in Australia (other than a non citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) 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 non citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    (b)a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

    (i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and

    (ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

    (c)a non citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non citizen who:

    (i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and

    (ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

    Refugee criterion

13. Subsection 5(1) of the Act defines the ‘Refugees Convention’ for the purposes of the Act as ‘the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951’ and the ‘Refugees Protocol’ as ‘the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees done at New York on 31 January 1967’.  Australia is a party to the Convention and the Protocol and therefore generally speaking has protection obligations to persons defined as refugees for the purposes of those international instruments.

14. Article 1A(2) of the Convention as amended by the Protocol relevantly defines a ‘refugee’ as a 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.’

15. The definition contains four key elements.  First, the applicant must be outside his or her country of nationality.  Secondly, the applicant must fear ‘persecution’.  Subsection 91R(1) of the Act states that, in order to come within the definition in Article 1A(2), the persecution which a person fears must involve ‘serious harm’ to the person and ‘systematic and discriminatory conduct’.  Subsection 91R(2) states that ‘serious harm’ includes a reference to any of the following:

    (a)a threat to the person’s life or liberty;

    (b)significant physical harassment of the person;

    (c)significant physical ill-treatment of the person;

    (d)significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

    (e)denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

    (f)denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.

    Complementary protection criterion

16. An applicant for a protection visa who does not meet the refugee criterion in paragraph 36(2)(a) of the Act may nevertheless meet the complementary protection criterion in paragraph 36(2)(aa) of the Act, set out above.  A person will suffer ‘significant harm’ if they will be arbitrarily deprived of their life, if the death penalty will be carried out on them or if they will be subjected to ‘torture’ or to ‘cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’ or to ‘degrading treatment or punishment’.  The expressions ‘torture’, ‘cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’ and ‘degrading treatment or punishment’ are further defined in subsection 5(1) of the Act.

    Ministerial direction

    In accordance with Ministerial Direction No. 56, made under section 499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship - ‘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.