1500978 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 3825

1500978 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 3825 (4 May 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1500978

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Tonga

MEMBER:Rachel Homan

DATE:4 May 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 04 May 2016 at 4:21pm

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 the Tribunal accepts is a citizen of Tonga, applied for the visa [in] July 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] December 2014.

3. The issues in this review are whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Tonga 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 being removed from Australia to Tonga, there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm.

4. For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal has determined that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   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’).

9. 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.

   Visa application

10. According to information provided in her visa application, the applicant is [an age]-year-old woman born in [Country 1]. The applicant claimed that her citizenship at birth was [Country 1] but she is now a Tongan citizen. A certified copy of the applicant’s Tongan passport was submitted with the visa application.

11. The applicant claimed to belong to the ‘Tongan’ ethnic group and Methodist religion. The applicant said she had never been married or in a de facto relationship. The applicant claimed to have completed [number] years of education at [a] College in [a location] and described her occupation or profession before coming to Australia as looking after her sickly parents.

12. The applicant did not complete the questions in the visa application form requiring her to provide previous addresses outside or inside Australia. The only relative identified in the application was a [sibling].

13. The applicant claimed that she fled Tonga to avoid being killed by the government. The applicant claimed that she had experienced past harm in Tonga including being brutalised, beaten and persecuted. The applicant claimed that she feared being beaten, tortured, subjected to significant harm, subject to degrading and inhumane treatment and killed should she return to Tonga. The applicant stated that she feared being harmed by the government through its agencies, the police and army. The applicant claimed that the reason she would be harmed in this way was because she had fought against the government taking her land and family land. The applicant stated that as a woman, she was not permitted to speak and had been speaking against the injustice and corruption of the King and government and in support of the rights of women and girls against forced and arranged marriages.

    Protection visa interview

14. The applicant attended an interview with an officer of the Department of Immigration [in] December 2014 and the Tribunal has listened to a recording of that interview.

15. At the interview, the applicant stated that she had travelled to Australia in [year], and had also previously travelled to [Country 1], [Country 2] and [Country 3]. The applicant explained that her mother was a [Country 1] citizen and she was born in [Country 1] but moved to Tonga when she was a young child. The applicant stated that she did not know whether she was a [Country 1] citizen and had only ever travelled on a Tongan passport.

16. The applicant stated that in addition to the [sibling] identified in her visa application she had [other siblings], [named], both of whom presently reside in Tonga. The applicant stated that she had not spoken with her [other siblings] since she arrived in Australia. The applicant stated that [those siblings] supported the monarchy and she held a different political opinion.

17. The applicant stated that she previously resided in her family home, located near [a landmark] in [her town]. After the applicant’s mother died in late [year], the applicant’s [Brother A], asked her to leave the family home. The applicant went to live in her father’s village with her [Relative B], who lived alone. The applicant resided there until she left Tonga in April 2011. The applicant stated that she had no legal right to live in her family home.

18. The applicant told the officer that she had completed a [basic] education in Tonga as well as a [qualification] which enabled her to work in [type] jobs. The applicant stated that she worked for a company operated by her father as [her occupation].

19. The applicant stated that she left Tonga on the premise that she was visiting her [sibling] who was residing in Australia with [their family], however, the applicant had wished to flee Tonga. The applicant stayed with her [sibling] in Australia until August 2012 but since that time had been residing with an elderly couple she met at church.

20. Asked about her experiences in Tonga, the applicant stated that she had been bashed during a riot in 2005. The applicant also stated that she had fought with her [sibling] after her mother died in 2008. On one occasion, after the applicant had already moved out of the family house she had come back to collect some belongings when she was beaten by a neighbour who had been drinking. The applicant speculated that he had attacked her because of her opposing political views. The applicant also described a separate occasion on which she was attacked by a woman at church because of her different political views. In 2010, the applicant was attacked by a person with a knife in her home. The applicant was unsure about the motives for the attack but said she was sure it was because of her beliefs and she suspected that her attacker was actually a member of the police.

21. The applicant was asked about her political views. The applicant stated that she believed in democracy whereas in Tonga what the King says is always regarded as right. The applicant stated that she did not belong to any political group but was a prayer leader for human rights for three years. As part of this group, the applicant would pray for an end to corruption and for human rights.

22. The applicant stated that if she were to go back to Tonga she would fight for women’s rights. The applicant stated that she was opposed to arranged marriages. The applicant stated that she feared being harmed by the army and police because of her beliefs.

23. The applicant was asked why she had not applied for a protection visa soon after her arrival in Australia. The applicant stated that she initially she felt protected in her [sibling’s] house. After looking at the Department’s website, the applicant eventually realised she could apply for a protection visa.

24. The applicant stated that she had nothing to return to in Tonga and had lost contact with the relative she had been residing with prior to her arrival in Australia. The applicant stated that she had no contact with any friends or relatives in Tonga.

    Review application

25. At the time she applied for review, the applicant submitted to the Tribunal a copy of the delegate’s decision record. No further evidence was submitted to the Tribunal prior to the Tribunal hearing.

26. The applicant told the Tribunal at hearing that she was born in [Country 1] and her parents were unmarried at the time. The applicant’s father took her to Tonga where she was raised by her grandmother until her mother came to [Country 1] and married her father when she was about [age]. The applicant stated that she had never looked into whether she was a [Country 1] citizen and had never held a [Country 1] passport. The applicant stated that she had relatives on her mother’s side still living in [Country 1] but had no contact with them.

27. The Tribunal asked the applicant about her reasons for leaving Tonga. The applicant told the Tribunal that she was the eldest child of the family and the only one who stayed home and looked after her parents when they became unwell. Unlike her siblings, the applicant had no opportunity to go abroad for study. Under Tongan law, the applicant’s parents’ entire estate passed to her [Brother A]. When their father died, [Brother A] returned to Tonga from [Country 3] and began living in the family home, where the applicant had lived all her life. They lived there together for around two years with their mother, until her death in [year]. The applicant found that she and [Brother A] did not get along and they had frequent arguments in which hurtful comments were made. The applicant and her brother held differing opinions on a range of subjects including politics and religion and the applicant would always stand up for her beliefs. The applicant believed [Brother A] was frustrated at having to leave his life in [Country 3] and take care of the applicant. The applicant said [Brother A] blamed her for everything and felt she was a burden.

28. Although [Brother A] was never physically abusive towards the applicant, their arguments often led to the applicant leaving the home or being ‘chased out of the house’. When the Tribunal asked the applicant what she meant by being ‘chased out of the house’ the applicant told the Tribunal that sometimes their disputes would lead to [Brother A] calling the police and the applicant would leave rather than face the shame of having the police called to intervene in a dispute between [two siblings]. The applicant told the Tribunal that she would go and stay with a female relative in her father’s village and at other times she would stay with friends until her brother contacted her and she would go home. The longest period she was away from the home was around 2 months. The last time the applicant was at her family home was about a month before her departure for Australia.

29. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether [Brother A] had supported her financially. The applicant said that he paid the electricity and sometimes did the grocery shopping. He was employed as [his occupation] and owned other lands on which he grew crops. During this period, the applicant received financial assistance from her [sibling] in Australia. The applicant had no job, although she had previously worked as [her occupation] in her father’s company. The applicant felt uncomfortable depending on others and felt her situation was hopeless. The applicant thought her brother did not want her to come back to the family home, so when she had the opportunity to come to Australia, she took it.

30. The applicant told the Tribunal that her other [Sibling C] also resided in Tonga but in [an in-law’s] family residence. [They] previously owned a house but it was destroyed in a riot. The applicant said she had not remained in contact with either [of two named siblings] since coming to Australia.

31. The Tribunal asked the applicant why she feared returning to Tonga now. The applicant said she would not be allowed back in the family home, would not be able to find a job and would be unable to survive. The Tribunal asked the applicant why she felt she would be unable to get a job, given that she had a [basic] education as well as a tertiary qualification and had been employed in Tonga in the past. The applicant said her father had helped her get her job and her qualifications would be insufficient to find work in either the government or private sectors. There were many more educated people in Tonga now.

32. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had given evidence that her [sibling] had supported her financially in the past and queried whether there was any reason why [they] would not continue to do so if the applicant were forced to return to Tonga. The applicant responded that she no longer lived with her [sibling] and [who] had problems of her own. The applicant had heard that [her sibling] doesn’t have a job and is unwell. In the past [her sibling]] had supported the applicant because [they were] caring for [family] and had the financial support of [their family], however, this was no longer the case.

33. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether her [Sibling C] would provide her with any financial support. The applicant told the Tribunal that although [Sibling C] has a job in security, [their] income was low and [they have family commitments] so could not afford to support her.

34. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether the friends and other relatives she had stayed with in the past could assist her. The applicant stated that the relative she mostly stayed with in the past was a single mother with two children. Although she worked as [an occupation], she was unable to help much. The applicant felt as though she was an imposition on her friends and relatives.

35. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she could obtain assistance from her church or another non-governmental organization. The applicant stated that she had been receiving financial assistance from Centrelink and [a charity] in Australia but there was no equivalent organisation in Tonga.

36. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether there was any prospect of reconciling with her brother [Brother A]. The applicant said the four years she had lived with her brother were hell and she felt he needed his space.

37. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it was having difficulty seeing how her dispute with [Brother A] and her inability to live with him in her parents’ home amounted to persecution or significant harm. In particular, the Tribunal was having difficulty accepting that the applicant would be left in such a difficult financial position that her ability to survive would be threatened. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had the support of relatives in the past and [Brother A] had in fact provided with her with some assistance. The Tribunal noted that although the country information before it indicated that there was lower workforce participation amongst women in Tonga and it appeared women faced some discrimination in employment, it was having difficulty understanding why the applicant would be unable to find any employment in Tonga were she required to work to support herself, given her level of education and past employment experience. The applicant said she felt hopeless. Her brother had mentally and verbally mistreated her. The applicant felt she had sacrificed everything for her parents but was now the only one of her siblings left in such a hopeless situation.

38. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had claimed to hold particular political opinions, opposed to the monarchy and government and in support of women’s rights and asked her to talk more about those. The applicant told the Tribunal that she had been referring to the views she had expressed during the arguments she’d had with her brother and others. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she had ever belonged to any political groups or organisations. The applicant stated that she had belonged to a prayer group lead by [a community leader] but said she had not experienced any difficulties in the past arising from her membership of that group.

39. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had described to the Department a number of incidents in which she was physically hurt in the past and asked whether she feared being physically harmed were she to return to Tonga now. The applicant said that on two occasions she had gotten into disputes with her brother’s friends which had led to her being hit. On one occasion, the applicant had to go home to collect her belongings and a neighbor had prevented her from coming in. The applicant said she had also gotten into an argument with a woman from her church who had been disrespectful towards her family. The applicant told the Tribunal that her brother drank a lot and could be aggressive but she did not believe he would physically harm her. He would sometimes make very hurtful comments about her being an illegitimate child, although the applicant stated that she had not otherwise experienced any difficulties as a result of being an illegitimate child in Tonga in the past. Asked whether she thought anyone else might physically harm her, the applicant said there was potential for her to get into fresh disputes as she would always stand up for herself and her beliefs. The Tribunal asked the applicant about the knife attack she had described to the Department at interview and her belief that her attacker may have been a member of the police. The applicant initially appeared unable to recall any such incident. After some hesitation, the applicant then said that the attacker had not been a member of the police but a friend of her brother. Her brother had called the police after this incident and they had looked into the matter.

40. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether there was any other reason why she was afraid to go back to Tonga. The applicant said her parents were not alive, she had no husband and no support from her family. The dispute between the applicant and her brother was culturally shameful and the applicant was grateful for the support and security given to her in Australia.

    Country information

1. The US Department of State reported in 2014[1] that inheritance laws, especially those concerned with land, discriminate against women. Women can lease land, but inheritance rights pass through the male heirs only. Under the inheritance laws, the claim to a father’s estate by a male child born out of wedlock takes precedence over the claim of the deceased’s widow or daughter. If there are no male relatives, a widow is entitled to remain on her husband’s land as long as she does not remarry and remains celibate. Both the inheritance laws and the land rights laws increased economic discrimination that women experienced in terms of their ability to access credit, and own and operate businesses.

   [1] "Human Rights Report 2014 Tonga", US Department of State, 25 June 2015, OG2B06FAF182

2. Women participated in the work force at a lower rate than that of their male counterparts (63 percent for men compared with 42 percent for women). As of 2003 (latest available data) average weekly earnings were higher for men: 127 pa’anga ($74) compared with 112 pa’anga ($66) for women (see section 7.d.). Women who rose to positions of leadership often had links with the nobility. Some female commoners held senior leadership positions in business and government, including as minister of education.

3. The Office of Women within the Ministry of Education, Women, and Culture is responsible for facilitating development projects for women and assisted women’s groups in setting up work programs.

4. The National Center for Women and Children and the Women and Children Crisis Center focused on domestic abuse and improving the economic and social conditions of women. Other NGOs, including Ma’a Fafine Moe Famili (For Women and Families, Inc.) and the Tonga National Women’s Congress, promoted human rights, focusing on the rights of women and children. Several religiously affiliated women’s groups also advocated for women’s legal rights.

5. According to a 2010 Country Gender Profile for Tonga, prepared by the Japan International Cooperation Agency[2], it was noted that in the past 30 years, the number of females in formal employment had increased almost fourfold. However, there had been little progress in the type of occupations that women are engaged in. Most women were employed in unskilled menial work or subordinate positions (and thus being low-paid). It was considered that women’s job opportunities were limited because of the cultural values that Tongans, males and females, have concerning gender roles. Although women occupied almost 30% of the employment in the public sector, few were at the decision-making level.

   [2] "Country Gender Profile: The Kingdom of Tonga", Japan International cooperation Agency, 01 February 2010, CIS27847 

   Findings

6. The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal at hearing was markedly different from the brief claims set out in her protection visa application and also departed in certain details from the evidence given at the protection visa interview.

7. Having had the opportunity to discuss the applicant’s situation with her in person in some considerable detail, the Tribunal is satisfied that the claims expressed in the protection visa application are unreliable and have been resiled from. At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant made no claim to have been harmed or to fear harm from the Tongan government. The applicant made no claim to have fought against the government or to have expressed any political opinion, which had in the past, or would in the future, lead to the applicant being harmed by the Tongan state or its agents. Whilst at the protection visa interview, the applicant did express a fear of being harmed by the police or army because of her political views, when asked about these claims at the Tribunal hearing, the applicant stated that she had actually been talking about her personal views which she had expressed and stood up for in her private discussions with her brother and other acquaintances. The applicant did not claim to have experienced any harm or to hold any fears for her safety or well-being as a result of her involvement in her women’s prayer group. The applicant told the Tribunal that she had never belonged to any political organisations or groups.

8. On the basis of her evidence at the Tribunal hearing, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant fled Tonga to avoid being killed by the government. Nor is the Tribunal satisfied that the applicant has been brutalised, beaten or persecuted by the Tongan government or its agents in the past. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a genuine fear of being beaten, tortured, subjected to significant harm, subjected to degrading and inhumane treatment or being killed by the police or army should she return to Tonga. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant fought against the government taking her land and family land. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has spoken in a public way against injustice and corruption or in support of the rights of women and girls against forced and arranged marriages. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Tongan government or its agents have any interest in the applicant as a consequence of her political opinions.

9. The Tribunal does accept that the applicant holds strong personal opinions which she has been willing to defend in private discussions with her brothers and others. In particular, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant feels aggrieved by Tonga’s inheritance laws and the perceived injustice of her situation, where she has been left without a home or property despite having devoted her life to the care of her parents. The Tribunal further accepts that, on several occasions, the applicant was involved in physical altercations with associates of her brother and others in her community as a consequence of her personal opinions and her family situation

10. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has a difficult and volatile relationship with her [Brother A] and that their differences led the applicant to feel she was unable to live in her family home with him as is customary. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant in fact left the home on several occasions and stayed with friends and relatives, on one occasion for up to two months, between the time of her mother’s death and her departure from Tonga. However, the Tribunal finds on the basis of the oral evidence to the Tribunal that the applicant exaggerated the extent of her absences from the home during her protection visa interview.

11. The applicant told the Tribunal that her brother had never been physically abusive toward her and, for cultural reasons, she did not expect that he would be in the future. The applicant described a number of altercations or physical attacks in her evidence at the protection visa interview, although her descriptions of the same incidents were, at the Tribunal hearing, in some respects different or quite vague. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was hurt in a random incident during riots in [her location] in 2005 or 2006. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that on one or two occasions, the applicant’s brother’s friend or neighbour may have physically assaulted the applicant during a disagreement. The Tribunal further accepts that the applicant may have been involved in a minor physical altercation with a woman in her church after she insulted the applicant or her family. When the Tribunal asked the applicant about the incident she described at interview in which she was attacked by a knife-wielding intruder whom she thought was a policeman, she was initially unable to recall the incident but later said it was not the police, just a friend of her brother. The applicant said her brother had called the police and they had investigated the matter but did not identify any motive for the attack or further details. The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence that this particular incident in fact occurred.

12. The applicant did not indicate to the Tribunal that she feared being physically harmed should she return to Tonga as a result of any of her past altercations although she did state that there was potential for her to become involved in physical disputes again in the future. Given her unhappy relationship with her brother, her family situation and her personal opinions, the Tribunal is prepared to accept that there is potential for the applicant to be involved in personal disputes again upon return to Tonga. The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence, however, that there is a real chance or risk of the applicant suffering physical harm amounting to persecution, or significant harm as defined, in the course of any such dispute.

13. The applicant has also expressed that in the course of her conflicts with her brother, he has been verbally abusive or insulted her, amongst other things because of her status as an illegitimate child. The applicant also told the Tribunal that her family conflict was culturally shameful. Again, while the Tribunal accepts that there is potential for the applicant to experience some degree of mental suffering were she to return to Tonga, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance or risk of the applicant suffering mental harm amounting to persecution, or significant harm as defined.

14. For the purposes of s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal additionally notes, that any physical or mental harm, were it to occur, would lack the official element required to amount to persecution. The applicant has not claimed that the Tongan police would withhold protection from her for any reason. Nor did her evidence suggest that the Tongan authorities would be unable to provide adequate and effective protection. To the contrary, the applicant’s evidence indicated that the police had been responsive when called to intervene in disputes with her brother in the past.

15. The applicant’s primary concerns, as expressed to the Tribunal, were that she would be returning to Tonga alone, without a husband or family support, and with no job or home.

16. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant would be returning to Tonga as a single woman without property. Although the Tribunal accepts that the applicant may be unwilling to resume cohabitation with her brother because of their personal differences and past conflict, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance or risk that the applicant would suffer financial hardship to a degree which would amount to serious harm or significant harm, should she return to Tonga now, or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

17. The applicant gave evidence that her [Brother A] has, in the past, allowed her to reside in the family home and paid some of her expenses. For this reason, the Tribunal has some doubt as to whether he would withhold all support for the applicant should she now return to Tonga. Even if this were the case, the applicant has previously been provided with accommodation and financial support by other friends and relatives both in Tonga and Australia. The applicant’s evidence is that she has another [sibling] in Tonga. Although she has not maintained contact with [them], the applicant has not claimed to have been involved in any particular conflict with [them] in the past. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that [Sibling C’s] capacity to support the applicant financially is likely to be limited by [family] responsibilities, but is not satisfied that [they] would be unable to offer her any assistance. Whilst the applicant may feel as though she is imposing on her friends and relatives, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is real chance or risk of the applicant being unable to find accommodation were she to return to Tonga, given her ability to do this in the past.

18. The Tribunal is also not satisfied that the applicant would be unable to find employment to help meet her living expenses were she to return to Tonga. The applicant agreed that she is educated, holds a tertiary qualification and has been employed in Tonga in the past, albeit through the assistance of her father. The country information suggests that gender discrimination in employment exists in Tonga and that women may find it difficult to obtain highly skilled or leadership positions. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied on the country information or the applicant’s evidence that there is a real chance or risk, that the applicant would be unable to find employment that would enable her to, at least, subsist should she seek it.

19. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Tonga. As a consequence, 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).

20. For the same reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

21. 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

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

    Rachel Homan
    Member