1418709 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 3205

1418709 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 3205 (21 January 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1418709

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  China

MEMBER:Suhad Kamand

DATE:21 January 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 21 January 2016 at 2:07pm

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 female national of China. [In] December 2013 she lodged an application for a [temporary] visa which was granted [in] January 2014. The application was lodged in [City 1], [Country 1]. She arrived in Australia [in] January 2014. Her [temporary] visa was valid until [March] 2014. [In] March 2014 she lodged the application for a Protection Visa. The department refused to grant that visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) [in] October 2014 and the applicant sought this Tribunal’s review of that decision.

2. On the basis of all the evidence before it, and for the cumulative reasons given below, the Tribunal has concluded that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and affirms the delegate’s decision.

3. Relevant law has been included at Appendix 1.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

4. The applicant was born in China on [date]. She is a national of China and of no other country[1].

   [1] During the applicant’s Tribunal appearance the Tribunal sighted the applicant’s Chinese passport issued in [2011] and expiring in [2021]

5. Her express claims and those arising on the evidence are that she fears harm in China from her former boyfriend named [Mr A] who mistreated her in China on multiple occasions in the past.

   Delegate’s decision

6. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention or under complementary protection. A copy of the delegate’s decision record was provided to the Tribunal by the applicant. That decision record indicates that, while she was invited to attend a Department interview in respect of her claims, she failed to attend.

   Issues before the Tribunal

7. The Tribunal must generally assess whether: it is satisfied of the credibility and truth of relevant aspects of the applicant’s claims and evidence; on the evidence before it, it is satisfied that the applicant faces a well-founded fear, based on a real chance, of persecution involving serious harm for a Convention reason, if she returns to China. If the Tribunal is not satisfied that she is owed Australia’s protection under the Refugees Convention, it must then consider whether she is owed complementary protection. That involves an assessment of whether there are substantial grounds for believing that she faces a real risk of significant harm in China for any of the reasons claimed or arising on the evidence.

8. The Tribunal’s assessment is informed by a range of sources including: the Department’s file relating to the applicant which includes her protection visa application form. The Tribunal’s assessment is also informed by its detailed exploration of the applicant’s claims when she appeared in person before it on 20 January 2016. During that appearance she communicated with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages. When asked at the commencement of her Tribunal appearance whether the applicant has any concerns relating to her capacity to communicate her claims and evidence to the Tribunal, she responded in the negative. The applicant’s registered migration agent [(RMA)] was also present during the applicant’s hearing. The Tribunal has had regard to the above as well as to other material available to it from a range of sources, referred to, where relevant, in its considerations below.

   Assessment of the applicant’s claimed circumstances – credibility

9. The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is "well-founded" or that it is for the reason claimed.  It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out: MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596.  Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision-making (Yao-Jing Li v MIMA (1997) 74 FCR 275 at 288), the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant himself or herself, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts.  A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for him or her: Prasad v MJEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70; Luu & Anor v Renevier (1989) 91 ALR 39 at 45.  Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant: Randhawa v MIEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at451.

10. Having had the opportunity to: discuss the applicant’s claims and evidence with her during her Tribunal appearance; and reflect on that evidence in the context of all the evidence before it, the Tribunal has significant concerns regarding the truth of central aspects of the applicant’s claims and evidence. While the concerns detailed below are not singularly determinative of the credibility of the applicant’s claims overall, cumulatively, they cast such doubt on her reliability as a truthful witness that the Tribunal cannot be and is not satisfied: that central aspects of the applicant’s circumstances in China are as she has claimed; and/or that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.

11. The applicant’s protection visa application form was completed with the assistance of [RMA] of [an agency]. The forms are dated [in] February 2014, however they were lodged [in] March 2014. The applicant told the Tribunal that, in completing her Protection visa application form her RMA spoke to her in her own language and typed her information into the application form in English. She signed the form.

12. In her Protection visa application form she claims that: she was born in [year] in Guizhou, China; she is of Chinese ethnicity and citizenship; she holds a Chinese passport issued [in] 2011, expiring [in] 2021; she lived in [Country 1] between [July] 2013 and [January] 2014, her status there being “student”, and her reason for travel there have been identified as “study”[2]. She indicates that she attended [a language school] in [City 1] in that time[3], and told the Tribunal that the language she studied was English. She told the Tribunal that she first left China for [Country 1] in around February 2013. She then returned to China to visit for around [number] weeks before returning to [Country 1] in July 2013. She then came directly to Australia from [City 1] in January 2014. This information was largely consistent with the evidence she gave during her Tribunal appearance, as well as information contained in her passport. The Tribunal accepts the above as true.

    [2] folio 33

    [3] Folio 32

13. Regarding her claims for protection, her protection visa application form states that she left China in 2013 because: she was abandoned by her natural parents in China, was brought up by [her adoptive father]; in primary school she was discriminated against and bullied by classmates and teachers but did not tell her adoptive father because he would swear at her; in September [year] she entered junior high school with good academic results but continued to be bullied by classmates and teachers; she met [Mr A] in junior high school and he became her boyfriend; while initially gentle and kind, [Mr A] began mixing with gang members, drinking and playing cards; he would beat her if she refused to go out with him; she asked him to leave those friends but he always beat her; [Mr A] was expelled from school; in September [year] she entered senior high school but discontinued her studies in October [year]; in July 2010 she “could not endure” and went to [another] city where she found a job and worked for 2 years; in September 2012 [Mr A] found her and “I was tortured by him terribly”; in February 2013 she arrived in [City 1], [Country 1]; in December 2013 she heard that [Mr A] knew she was in [City 1] and he tried to come; she went to the police station in [City 1] to seek help but the police did not want to help because she is from overseas; she applied for and was granted a visa to Australia. She adds that “details will be provided shortly”[4].

    [4] folio 30

14. In relation to whether she has experienced harm in China her protection visa application form indicates that she did experience on in China and then goes on to restate the same content as detailed in the paragraph above.

15. The applicant also states, in her protection visa application form, that if she returns to China, she will “face a risk of being harmed, or even killed by my former boyfriend [Mr A]”[5]. She thinks this will happen to her as it happened before.[6] She does not think the Chinese authorities can or will protect her, noting that [Mr A] “asked me to discontinue my study. I disagreed at first. He started to give me trouble. One day when I was at classroom. He ran into the classroom and slapped me. Later my teacher reported to police. I was required to go to police station to provide statement. Those policemen did not want to help me, they even said to me that all these things caused by me. Those police said to me: “you are a bad girk (sic)”. She adds “details will be provided shortly”. Prior to the applicant’s appearance before the Tribunal, and despite being represented by a new [RMA] since October 2015, the applicant did not provide any further information.

    [5] Folio 29

    [6] Folio 28

16. During the applicant’s appearance the Tribunal explored with her the detail of her circumstances in China. For instance, the Tribunal asked the applicant about her relationship with her claimed [adoptive father]. The applicant told the Tribunal that she now has a good relationship with him and she returned to China from [Country 1] in 2013 mainly to visit him. She said that, while he would shout at her and use some bad words towards her when she was young, their relationship improved as she got older and they are now on good terms. Her evidence did not reveal that she has any fears of harm from her adoptive father and the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant does not fear or face any harm from the person identified as her adoptive father.

17. The Tribunal also explored, in detail, the applicant’s claimed relationship with [Mr A]. As set out below, multiple aspects of her claimed experiences and circumstances involving [Mr A], impressed the Tribunal as changing, evasive, inconsistent and unconvincing.

18. For instance, multiple sections of her Protection visa application form refer to her starting senior high school but not completing it because of [Mr A’s] mistreatment. Specifically, in detailing her education express reference is made to her attending a named senior high school between specified dates and at a specified location. The details of that school are not the same as those given for her Junior High School which bears a different name. The Tribunal considers the details contained in the protection visa application form to clearly identify her attending a specific senior high school.[7] Also, the employment details set out in that form also identify the applicant as “unemployed” from the month she is identified as discontinuing her senior high school studies[8] until around March 2008. The substance of her claims for Australia’s protection, as presented in writing in her Protection visa application form, also make express reference to her attendance at both junior high school and senior high school. For instance, she states at one point that “In September [year] I entered Senior High School. I discontinued my study in October [year]”[9]. This is repeated at multiple points in her Protection visa application form[10].  In relation to why she thinks the authorities of China cannot protect her she adds the following in relation to her attendance at senior high school: “In September [year] I entered Senior High School. I discontinued my study in October [year]. [Mr A] asked me to discontinue my study. I disagreed at first. He started to give me trouble. One day when I was at classroom, he run into the classroom and slapped me. Later my teacher reported to police. I was required to go to police station to provide statement. Those policemen did not want to help me. They even said to me that all these things caused by me. Those police said to me: ‘you are a bad girk (sic)’”.

    [7] Folio 32, Question 37

    [8] Folio 31, Question 40

    [9] Folio 30, question 43,

    [10] Folio 29, Question 44, folio 28 question 47

19. In her oral evidence to the Tribunal, however, the applicant said that she did not start senior high school. She said that she did not finish junior high school and did not get a junior high school certificate as her father was sick and [Mr A] was threatening her. She said that she never attended any senior high school classes. When the Tribunal explained that this is inconsistent with the multiple references made in her protection visa application form to her having started senior high school she offered that her protection visa application form is wrong even though she told her RMA the truth, both she and the RMA spoke the same language, and the RMA filled in the form for her and she signed it. She said she does not know what her RMA wrote as she cannot read English. Yet, as explained to the applicant, it is difficult to understand why or how such a mistake was made, particularly given that, on her own evidence, the RMA spoke and understood mandarin and, in the form, has referred to a specific senior high school by name, region and has specified her period of attendance there.

20. The applicant also gave inconsistent evidence regarding her interactions with the police in relation to the violence she claims to have experienced at the hands of [Mr A]. Specifically, she told the Tribunal that she interacted with the police in China on two occasions only. When asked she said she was certain that there were no more than 2 occasions on which she interacted with any police and/or attended a police station in China When asked to describe the incidents involving the police she said that on both occasions: the police attended the home which she and her former boyfriend had rented together; the neighbor had called the police after hearing the applicant and [Mr A] fighting. She said that on the first occasion the police came to their home and she was on the ground with blood on her feet. The police asked what happened and she said that she and her boyfriend often have fights. The police told her that her relationship with her boyfriend is not formally registered and if they can’t get along they should just leave each other.  She told the police that she tries to leave him and he finds her and beats her. The police told her boyfriend to stop doing this but he didn’t listen. This incident occurred when she was still attending school, but she was at home at the time it occurred.

21. When asked to describe the second incident in which the police became involved she said that it was similar to the first. She and her boyfriend were at their home. They had a fight and he pushed her onto a table, causing her face to bleed. The neighbor called the police and the police took her to hospital. The police were aware of the previous incident and told her she cannot keep doing this.

22. The Tribunal asked the applicant if there were any other incidents which involved the police and whether she went to the police station or interacted with the police on any other occasion regarding her mistreatment by [Mr A]. She said she is certain that these are the only 2 times, and on both occasions it was her neighbor who called the police and the police came to her home. She added that she did not go to the police station as her boyfriend threatened on many occasions that he will hurt her and her father if she went to the police.

23. The Tribunal put to the applicant that  it is concerned that: the above 2 incidents are not referred to in her protection visa application form; and that another incident involving the police is mentioned in her Protection visa application form but has not been mentioned in her oral evidence to the Tribunal. Specifically, the Tribunal explained to her that, in her protection visa application form she refers to her boyfriend entering her senior high school class and slapping her; her teacher reporting this to the police; the applicant being required to attend the police station and provide a statement. In response the applicant offered the Tribunal that she did not attend senior high school. When the Tribunal explained to her that it is more concerned that she did not mention in her oral evidence that her teacher reported an incident to the police, requiring her to attend the police station to make a statement. At this point the applicant paused before offering that: her teacher’s husband was a policeman and he came to the school one time; the applicant didn’t go to the police station as she did not want to make it a big issue; when the policeman arrived (being her teacher’s husband), he asked [Mr A] to leave, telling him that if he comes back it is illegal and he will be taken to jail.  As put to the applicant, this account does not match that set out in her Protection visa application form which is to the effect that: she went to the police station; the policemen did not want to help her; the police told her that she had caused all these things and that she is a bad girl. In response the applicant offered that this is not correct and maybe her former agent made a mistake. She insisted that she is telling the truth. However, as explained to the applicant, it is difficult to understand why, if she was giving her RMA and the Tribunal a truthful account of her circumstances, the evidence advanced could be inconsistent in respect of such important details.

24. Of further concern, the applicant told the Tribunal that, one of the reasons she did not complete junior high school was because she had fallen pregnant and [Mr A] beat her and she lost the baby. She said that she was only around 3 weeks pregnant when she lost the baby. When asked how she can be sure she was pregnant she said that she did a urine test, and after [Mr A] hit her she bled. She also told the Tribunal that, on one occasion [Mr A] left his male friend at home with her and that friend raped her. The Tribunal asked the applicant why neither of these serious incidents are mentioned in her Protection visa application form. She responded that she told her former RMA about these incidents but he told her these details are not important and he can’t write down everything. She also repeated that she doesn’t know what he wrote in her form as she cannot read English. However, as explained to the applicant, it is difficult to accept that her agent would suggest that such details are not important enough to mention, or that he would have overlooked mentioning them if she had told him about them, particularly given the repeated reference in her written claims to much less serious occurrences of school bullying.

25. Further, the applicant’s evidence regarding her employment and residential details were also internally inconsistent. For example, while telling the Tribunal that she continued to live in her home village of Guizhou until 2010, in writing she indicated that she moved to [another city] in 2008 to work.

26. Her evidence regarding her departure from China, her time in [Country 1] and her circumstances in Australia also impressed the Tribunal as evasive and not forthcoming. She told the Tribunal that her adoptive father was unwell from 2007 and had stopped working. When asked how she could afford to travel to [Country 1] in 2013 to study she said that her “god parents” paid for her. When asked how long she knew those people she said that she met them around 3 or 4 years ago, or maybe 6 months before she left China for [Country 1]. She said they were relatives of a friend of hers. When asked why they would spend their money to send her to [Country 1] to study she said that they pitied her situation. When asked in what way they are “god parents” rather than just relatives of her friends, she said that they would eat meals and cook together. Her evidence did not explain to the Tribunal why people she knew for only around 6 months would pay for her to travel and study in [Country 1], or in what way they were “god parents” as distinct from other people she knew.  

1. Regarding her circumstances in Australia, she said that she arrived in January 2014 and started working in around November 2015.  When asked how she supported herself financially in Australia before November 2015 she said that she came here with credit cards and money in the value of [amount]. When the Tribunal put to her that such a sum would be unlikely to last her from January 2014 until November 2015 without additional income she said that her Australian boyfriend supported her from around February 2014 until around June 2015. She said she met her boyfriend in Australia and he has lived here many years. When asked what his name is she said that she has to check on her phone as it is too long for her to remember. However, when she tried to access her phone she told the Tribunal that it is damaged and she could not switch it on. When asked if she is saying that she doesn’t know the name of the boyfriend she has been with since February 2014 she said that she only ever referred to him as “[Mr B]”. She said she never went to his home because he had children. When asked who she lives with she said that she lives with her husband, a man she married in Australia in around December 2015, after [Mr B] stopped supporting her financially in around June 2015. When asked for her husband’s name she said “[name]”, writing the words [a different name]. She said she is not sure of the spelling. She said they married [in] December 2015, however she produced no documentary or independent evidence of that marriage. When asked why he could not return to China with her she said that he can’t as he has been here many years and has a job. Her evidence regarding the above impressed the Tribunal as being given hesitantly and as being evasive. The evidence detailed above compounds the Tribunal’s concerns regarding the reliability of the applicant as a truthful witness.

2. The Tribunal also put to the applicant that it is concerned that, despite having had 2 different RMAs and despite claiming having had experiences involving the police and in which she was hospitalized, she has not provided any documentation to support those claims. In response she offered only that she did not know she should provide such documentation.

3. While it is open to the Tribunal to be satisfied of the truth of an applicant’s claims and evidence in the absence of corroborating evidence, the Tribunal’s decision must be informed by the evidence before it. In the current matter, the evidence consists primarily in the oral and written testimony present by the applicant and/or on her behalf. As detailed above, that evidence contains multiple discrepancies and raises multiple significant concerns which the applicant’s responses and evidence in its totality has not overcome.

4. On the evidence before it, including the multiple considerations and concerns detailed above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a truthful or credible witness. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was in a violent relationship with a person named [Mr A] or anyone else. The Tribunal is not satisfied that she fled China to escape him or that he was or is looking for her with any intention to harm her. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces any risks of harm in China in connection with any person named [Mr A], including a real chance of serious harm and/or a real risk of significant harm as contemplated by the relevant law, in China in the reasonably foreseeable future.

   Conclusions

5. 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).

6. 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).

7. 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

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

   Suhad Kamand
   Member

   
   

   ANNEXURE 1

   RELEVANT LAW

9. 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

10. 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).

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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

20. 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’).

21. ‘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.

22. 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.