1502039 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 4340

1502039 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4340 (22 August 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1502039

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Fiji

MEMBER:Linda Holub

DATE:22 August 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.

Statement made on 22 August 2016 at 3:53pm

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 applicants Protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicants who claim to be citizens of Fiji applied for the visas [in] August 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visas [in] January 2015.  The second named applicant is reliant on the claims of the first named applicant.

3. The first named applicant last arrived in Australia [in] March 2014[1] and the second named applicant arrived [in] April 2014.[2]

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

[1] AAT file, folio 38.

[2] DIBP file, folio 78, page 2.

Refugee criterion

1. 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.

2. 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).

Complementary Protection

1. 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 Fiji of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that Fiji; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the Fiji of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

Section 499 Ministerial Direction

1. 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 Fiji, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’).

2. 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 Fiji 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.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

1. In making its decision, the Tribunal had before it the Department’s file relating to the protection visa application and the Tribunal’s file relation to the review application.  The applicant husband’s written claims for protection are contained in the application forms submitted to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

10.  In his written Protection visa application the applicant husband claimed:

a.In March 2011 together with other [vehicle] drivers he was approached by some street kids about spraying graffiti on public billboards and other places around [large city].  His role was to provide [a service].  He participated in this activity because it was a way for him to express his frustrations that many indigenous Fijians were struggling and have been badly affected financially since the military regime took over.

b.Around July 2011 he was [providing a service] and about to head from [large city] to [a town] when a military vehicle with four military officers in civilian clothes blocked his [vehicle].  He was told to get out and was taken to camp where he was interrogated and physically and verbally abused. The military officers were seeking the names of the young people who had sprayed graffiti and they also wanted to know who was paying them. The applicant husband refused to cooperate and the soldiers kicked [him] resulting in [an injury].

c.He posted photos on a site called ‘[name]’.  The photos were of a deceased person taken without the approval and knowledge of the hospital or the military.  The deceased person was [Mr A] and it had been claimed by authorities that he died of [an illness].  However his family went to see his dead body in the hospital and they believed that he was beaten and murdered by the military.  The police are undertaking an investigation into who leaked the photos.

d.He has already been tortured at the hands of the military and fears he will be tortured and abused if he returns to Fiji. As a result of the earlier experience he had with the military, he has permanent scars and limps at times especially in cold weather. He fears that he will be taken to camp and could even be killed.  He believes this could occur because the military are the law in Fiji. They rule Fiji and if they suspect anyone of spreading rumours they will torture them without question. The law will not protect him in Fiji.

11.  The Tribunal has given consideration to the Delegate’s Decision Record provided by the applicant to the Tribunal[3].  It shows that the applicant was interviewed [in] November 2014.  The delegate found:

“The applicant’s evidence, when viewed cumulatively and in the context of Fiji information, does not support a finding that his claims of fear of the Fiji and military are well founded. There is also no information before me that indicates that the applicant faces a real chance of persecution in Fiji if he returns to Suva in the reasonably foreseeable future for any other Convention reason”.[4]

[3] AAT file, folios 1-8.

[4] AAT file, folio 2.

12.  [In] February 2015, the applicants applied for a merits review of that decision by the Tribunal.  The Tribunal wrote to them on 14 April 2016 inviting them to attend a hearing on 17 May 2016.  The first and second named applicant appeared before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments on that date.  The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Fijian and English languages.

13.  The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent who attended the hearing made oral submissions.

14.  On 16 May 2016 the applicant provided a Statutory Declaration to the Tribunal.  This submission provides further details about the aforementioned claims and makes additional claims:

a.In relation to the claims regarding the graffiti incident he cited a number of events involving the military’s abuse of other people which prompted him to become involved in driving the graffitists to the various sites.

b.In relation to the claims regarding his treatment when he was taken to camp he stated “because I know that sometimes people go to camp and they never come out, so I just stayed quiet about it and they badly hurt me; they badly injured [me]; I still have a problem with that to this day.  They also were punching me on my body and when I fell down and they kicked my leg, they were kicking and I kept denying what they were blaming me of, that I was the one who is writing the graffiti, and I was scared that it I say yes, that I may not come back alive”[5].

[5] AAT file, folio 42, page 2.

c.That when he had his protection Visa interview with the delegate of the department, he did not want to tell her everything that it happened.  The applicant states that:

“… they humiliated me too at the camp. When they took me and they were questioning me and punched me they told me to take off my clothes and they were making fun of me; [derogatory comments deleted].  There were about [number] guys. After that day I have just been scared”[6].

[6] AAT file, folio 42, page 2.

d.He was teased and humiliated subsequently when he was out and about driving his [vehicle].

e.When he attended [a certain celebration] he encountered a senior government member who asked him if he was applying for a protection visa in Australia.  He decided to join the protest when Bainimarama came to Australia during the 2014 election campaign. He knew about the protest from one of his relatives, but he did not know about the political movement that organised it. The applicant said in the statement that he was concerned about becoming politically active as he is keen to protect his parents and children in Fiji. He notes that photos were taken by people but is not aware of who actually took the photos.  He refers to the fact he held various signs at the protest.

e.In relation to the photos posted on Facebook of the deceased [Mr A], he stated that because he already had his visa to travel to Australia he offered to put the photos on Facebook if that’s what the family wanted. He thought that this would be a good way of letting the whole world know what’s really happening in Fiji.

f.He came to Australia first followed by his wife, the second named applicant. They attempted to obtain visas for their children but the application was rejected. Consequently they decided to proceed with their Protection visa application.

g.He was nervous at interview and therefore could not remember some of the dates that were being requested by the delegate.

h.The statutory declaration repeats his concerns about returning to Fiji. He does not believe things are okay in Fiji even now.

FINDINGS AND REASONS

Nationality

15.  On the basis of the applicants’ passports the Tribunal finds that the applicants are citizens of Fiji.  There is nothing in the evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicants have a right to reside in any country other than Fiji.

16.  The Tribunal finds that the claims should be assessed against Fiji for the purposes of the Convention in s.36(2)(a) and as the receiving country is for the purposes of the complementary protection obligations in s.36(2)(aa). Similarly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicants do not have a right to enter and reside in another country rather than Fiji for the purposes of s.36(3).

Has the applicant suffered any of the claimed harm?

Application

17.  The second named applicant completed the protection visa application form on advice from the first named applicant.  There was nothing he wished to change and he stood by the evidence he provided at interview with the Department’s delegate.

18.  The Tribunal raised with the applicant its concern about the delay in the lodgement of his application also noting that he applied for [another] visa [in] January 2014 but did not arrive in Australia until  [March] 2014.  He then applied for a further  [visa] which was granted [in] June 2014 but did not apply for protection until  [August] 2014.  The applicant claimed that he came to Australia for a family celebration but had stayed on.  He said the reason for the delay in his protection visa application was that he had attempted to get visas for his children to travel to Australia but that the application was unsuccessful so he decided to proceed with the protection visa application.  His wife tried to apply for an extension but her visa was rejected.  Because his wife went back to Fiji to try to bring his children to Australia, he applied for an extension of his [other] visa and then applied for a Protection visa together as his wife does not have separate claims.  He has  [children] in Fiji. His parents are taking care of them.

19. The Tribunal has accessed the Department of Immigration and Border Protection Integrated Client Service Environment IT system and no record could be found of applications having been lodged for the applicant’s children. On 29 July 2016 the Tribunal wrote to the applicants under the provisions of s.424A of the Migration Act asking the applicant if he wished to comment on or respond to this information and to do so by 12 August 2016 or seek an extension of time. No response was received. The Tribunal put significant weight on the fact that that the applicant did not provide an explanation regarding this discrepancy between his explanation for the delay in the lodgement of his application and the official records. The Tribunal considered that this undermined his credibility.

20.  The Tribunal asked the applicant his age, date and place of birth noting that this information was not included in his protection visa application.  He stated he was born on [date] in [a large city], explaining its absence was an oversight. 

21.  The Tribunal also asked the applicant why he did not included his other travel to Australia as sought in question 35[7].  He said he was unable to remember but it was raised at his interview.  He came to Australia in November 2003 and June 2004 to visit his [relative] and his wife’s [sibling] and in 1999 he went to [another country].

[7] DIBP file, folio 52, page 2.

22.  The Tribunal asked the applicant why he had come to Australia.  He said it was because he put photos on his Facebook site about a person who died called [Mr A].  The man’s family was of the view that he had been beaten up by the authorities and died as a consequence.  As the applicant already had a visa to travel to Australia and he was angry about what the photos showed he decided to post the photos on Facebook.  He said the police wanted to know who posted the photos. 

Graffiti incident

23.  The Tribunal invited the applicant to describe the events he outlined in his application regarding the graffiti incident he was involved in.  He explained one Saturday evening around 8pm (he was unable to recall the date), [number] young men came to him talking about spraying graffiti on bus stops.  He said he was not thinking properly and said “let’s go”.  He was motivated to do this because he was frustrated that the price of everything was going up and the work situation was not good.  He stated that he drove them around for about 45-50 minutes.  There were  [other] [vehicles] involved.

24.  In June or July 2011 while he was [providing a certain service] he was approached by  [military] officers in civilian clothing who took him to camp where he was interrogated, physically and verbally abused. They punched and kicked him and one of them kicked his [body].  He was told to strip and was teased.  He was concerned about his welfare because he was aware that other people did not come out of the camp alive and was thinking about what would happen to his family.

25.  When asked whether he knew the soldiers, he said he did not and when asked why the military officers approached him, he said he thought that perhaps one of the people involved in the graffiti incident or one of the drivers told them.  He noted that only [a number] of the  [drivers] were taken to the camp, but he did not really know if that driver said anything to the authorities that would have implicated him in the episode.

26.  He was held for about one hour but was not sure exactly how long.  Afterwards he was unable to walk and the other drivers had to help him get to the bus stop.  When he got home he told his wife what had happened.  He had not previously told her about graffiti incident.

27.  The Tribunal asked the applicant to explain his claim that he was teased and humiliated after the incident at the camp.  He said every time the soldiers saw him on the road they would tease him, call him names and referred to [certain things].  He was extremely embarrassed and angry.  He said that at one stage he took his children and wife in his [vehicle] and considered crashing the [vehicle] to end his life.

28.  The Tribunal raised with the applicant its concerns that it seemed out of character that he would suddenly decide to drive around the graffitists who were intending to write graffiti.  He explained they were standing around talking about everything; the price of diesel, and the fact that the government had recently allowed other buses to service their routes and so he agreed without thinking.

29.  The Tribunal also took evidence from the applicant wife.  She explained that in the middle of 2011, her husband was very emotional and it took her a long time to understand what he was trying to tell her what had happened to him at the camp.  She said she eventually understood that the soldiers abused him and said words that hurt him, about [certain things].

30.  Until he was taken to the camp she had been unaware that he had been involved in the graffiti incident.  She said it was out of character and when asked if she had any reflections of what was occurring at that time that might have prompted him to become involved in the incident she referred to friends being abused by the military.She said that after the incident he became very introspective and it affected their time together.

31.  The Tribunal noted a submission provided at hearing from [a certain agency]. The Summary of Treatment Report indicates that the applicant received treatment between July and October 2015 and attended [number] sessions over that period.  The report refers to past traumatic experiences (but does not detail these) and the applicant’s scores on tests which are considered to be symptomatic for both anxiety and depression.[8]  The Tribunal noted that the applicant was quite emotional at various times throughout the hearing, especially when discussing his children.

[8] AAT file, folios 46 & 47.

32.  The Tribunal also had regard to a Medical Certificate provided by the applicant to the Department after his interview.  The Certificate certifies that:

“[The applicant] [injuries] allegedly sustained when the military assaulted him in Fiji”[9] (sic).

[9] DIBP file, folio 67.

33.  The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant was involved in an incident as described by the applicant driving some young people to write/draw graffiti.  The Tribunal was also satisfied that the applicant was taken to camp, stripped naked and beaten and that subsequently some military officers teased and harassed him.  The Tribunal took into account that these events occurred during a time of heightened sensitivity in Fiji’s political history when a military government was in power.

Facebook photos

34.  The Tribunal asked the applicant to outline what happened in relation to the photos he posted on a Facebook site called ‘[name]’.  He said the deceased’s [sibling] lived a few blocks away from him and had shown him photos of the deceased.  Because he was outraged by what happened to the deceased man, he offered to post the photos on Facebook because he knew the [newspaper] would not publish them.

35.  The Tribunal asked the applicant why he thinks the military know who posted the photos.  He said he does not know but he is concerned about going to a camp again because of what happened. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he may have been motivated to post the photos to Facebook as he thought it may improve his chances of seeking protection.  He responded saying ‘I wasn’t thinking properly and hadn’t through the implications for his kids’ and said he regretsed what he did.

36.  When asked what he fears, he said that soldiers will know that he posted the photos on Facebook.  He claimed that he was told in 2011 if he does anything else against the government they will kill him.

37.  In relation to the Facebook photos, the Tribunal has ascertained that  [photos] of a person named [Mr A] are on the Facebook site of [name].  They were posted [in] March 2014 by a person with the profile name of [Person B][10].  Information about this profile indicates that he or she “[information deleted][11]^.  Based on the information provided by the applicant regarding where he went to school and his travel out of Fiji, the Tribunal has concluded that the applicant is not the person behind the profile of [Person B].  The Tribunal has also noted that the photos of [Mr A] that are currently on the website were posted [in] March 2014.  The applicant arrived in Australia [in] March 2014, [number] days after the photos were posted on the site.  The Tribunal also noted that the photos of [Mr A] posted by [Person B] were posted and not ‘shared’ by that profile, although they were ‘shared’ by many others.

[10] [Information deleted]

[11] [Information deleted] accessed on 12 July 2016.

38.  The Tribunal attempted to access the links provided by the applicant in an email to the delegate [in] December 2014[12].  While the first two links did show photos of the deceased they did not in any way demonstrate that the applicant had shared or commented on those photos. The third link referred to by the applicant in the email resulted in an Error 404 message[13] stating the page could not be found and the fourth link produced a result saying the link did not match any documents[14].

[12] DIBP file, folio 70.

[13] AAT file, folio 70.

[14] AAT file, folio 69.

39. On 29 July 2016 the Tribunal wrote to the applicants under the provisions of s.424A of the Migration Act setting down its concerns relating to the information available on Facebook regarding the photos of the deceased person and the lack of apparent links with the applicant. The Tribunal provided the applicant until 12 August 2016 to comment or respond to or to seek an extension of time. No response was received. The Tribunal put significant weight on the fact that that the applicant did not provide an explanation as to why no link between the Facebook photos of the deceased and the applicant were able to be located.

40.  The Tribunal could not be satisfied based on accessing the Facebook page of [name] that the applicant posted photos of [Mr A] on the site. 

Attendance at protest

41.  The Tribunal asked the applicant about his claim he attended a protest.  He said he attended [a certain event].  When he was there he spoke with a man named [Mr C].  The applicant said he knew [Mr C] from school.  He claimed that he is the [senior officer of a government department].  The applicant was asked by [Mr C] when he came to Australia and applicant responded that he had came in 2014.  [Mr C] then said something to him like “so you’re one of those people who have applied for a Protection visa”.  The applicant is concerned about this conversation because of the photos he posted on Facebook.  He claimed that all the people against the government that are overseas will be apprehended.

42.  The Tribunal identified a person by the name of [Mr C] as the [senior officer of a government department] on a Fijian government website[15], however, the Tribunal could found no evidence that failed asylum seekers are targeted by authorities if they return to Fiji and therefore was not satisfied that the applicant is of interest to Fijian authorities as a result of this conversation.

[15] [Information deleted]

43.  The applicant explained that while he was not involved in the protest he would have been involved in the protest, because he does not like Bainimarama and does not think he should be the Prime Minister, because the election was rigged.  The applicant submitted photocopies of photos of himself and the second named applicant together with other people holding up various protest signs[16].  The Tribunal referred to the fact that an independent, international panel has accepted the election was free and fair[17].  The applicant responded that this was because people were afraid of highlighting their concerns about how the elections occurred.

[16] DIBP file, folios 68-69.

[17] Sakai S, Native Land Policy in the 2014 Elections, in The People have Spoken: the 2014 Elections in Fiji, ed by Steven Ratuva and Stephanie Lawson, ANU Press, Pacific Series 2016

44.  The Tribunal confirmed that that the applicants did not belong to any political organisations.  Aside from attending one meeting of an organisation called [name] he stated that they did not join it.

45.  At hearing, the Tribunal referred to independent sources which indicated that the political situation has changed significantly since the applicants left Fiji and has become more politically stable.  In particular, the Tribunal outlined advice contained in the Country Report prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that:

3.73 In practice, the environment for the public expression of political opinion in late 2014 was more open than in previous years. Public commentary on political issues, including criticism of government policies, is permitted and occurs regularly. The media is increasingly open, and regularly carries articles outlining opposition political party views, or on issues which might embarrass the government. Public gatherings are permitted, including, for example, to discuss the outcomes of the 2014 election. At times such gatherings include robust political criticism of FijiFirst and the government, though most commentators are circumspect in any public criticism of Prime Minister Bainimarama or Attorney-General Sayed-Khaiyum.

3.74 However, some uncertainty remains about the permissible limits on public commentary. Broad powers and harsh penalties under relevant decrees, and a relatively recent history of prosecutions mean that public figures continue to tread carefully in their expression of public opinion. In general, DFAT assesses that those at risk are high-profile public figures, including the leaders of organisations which might be seen to challenge the government’s authority or undermine its legitimacy. Examples and further information on the risks to specific groups are given below. [18]

[18] DFAT Country Report, Fiji, 14 April 2015

46.  The applicant husband responded saying the military regime only puts out what it wants the world to know, they do not publish what is actually happening in Fiji.  He repeated that he’s not sure if they know about the photos re posted, but that’s what he is worried and scared about.

47.  The Tribunal was not satisfied based on his attendance at [certain] celebrations and protest that the applicant has a political profile indicating he is a person of interest to the Fijian authorities if he returns to Fiji.  Further, no evidence was located that would indicate that the demonstrators are targeted upon their return to Fiji.  Some reports have indicated that:

“R.4. The Fiji Government has demonstrated that it is willing to arrest and prosecute persons it accuses of inciting sedition or urging political violence in Fiji. In the case a person returning to Fiji was accused of or suspected to have been involved in such activities, it is possible that they would be arrested and prosecuted for such activities”[19]

[19] Country Information Request Report, NO. CI160713115600374, Source:  DFAT,  Fiji: Country Information Request: PISAI and Fiji Native Government in Exile, CIR Preparation Date:   29/07/2016

48.  Nothing in the evidence presented to the Tribunal indicates that the applicant fits such a profile.

Evidence provided by registered migration agent

49.  The applicant’s registered migration agent (RMA) made the following submissions to the Tribunal:

a.    She referred to an issue regarding an error in Departmental correspondence regarding the date of birth of the applicants’ youngest child’s. Subsequent to the hearing, correspondence was received from the applicant on this matter and the Tribunal advised it should be taken up directly with the Department.

b.    The applicant’s attendance at the protest discussed above, making reference to the fact that the Fijian diaspora is generally not supportive of the Prime Minister, Bainimarama and discussed him being unpopular choice for a [certain]celebration.  The Tribunal accepted that the applicant attended the celebrations and did not welcome the involvement of the Fijian Prime Minister in those celebrations.

c.    Put forward a view regarding why the applicant may have felt compelled to post photographs of the deceased [Mr A], suggesting that he may have felt emotionally charged after seeing the photos.  The Tribunal accepted that the applicant would have been upset at seeing photos of someone who appeared to have been bashed.

d.    Suggested that both incidents raised by the applicant in the centre of his claims indicate that his actions were out of character.  He is generally calm but occasionally impetuous.  The Tribunal noted elsewhere that the applicant’s behaviour in relation to the claimed graffiti incident and the posting of photos on Facebook appeared to be out of character.

e.    Referred to the incident at the army camp and the harassment that occurred subsequently, arguing that it was akin to sexual abuse experienced by women, involving catcalls as well as humiliating, degrading comments.  She also referred to similar incidents some published and others not.  She put forward the proposition that there appears to be sexual abuse perpetrators in the military who appear to be getting some enjoyment out of such treatment of other men.  She noted that in such situations there is absolutely no redress.  The RMO explained that the applicant has been too embarrassed to raise this claim and that the Tribunal hearing was only the second occasion that he has discussed what occurred.  She also referred to the fact that the applicant may need therapy as a result.  As indicated elsewhere, the Tribunal accepted that the applicant was teased, harassed and ill-treated by soldiers at the military camp, however the Tribunal was unable to locate any credible evidence that there is systematic abuse of Fijian citizens by the military in Fiji.

Is there a real chance or a real risk of serious or significant harm occurring to the applicant?

50.  On the evidence presented the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance or a real risk of serious or significant harm if he were to return to Fiji for the reasons outlined previously.  While the Tribunal was satisfied the applicant was involved in an incident which resulted in  him being taken to camp and subsequently harassed by military officers, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance or a risk of serious or significant harm in the future as a result of this.  Although it was suggested that there have been other incidents involving sexual harassment by the military, the Tribunal was unable to find any reports of such incidents.

51.  Further, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant’s experience occurred during a time of heightened sensitivity in Fiji’s political history and with the passage of time, some five years since the claimed incidents, and with other political changes that have occurred, the applicant does not face a real chance or risk of such incidents occurring in the future.

52.  As outlined elsewhere, on the evidence before the Tribunal it was also not satisfied that there is real chance or a real risk of serious or significant harm occurring as a result of the applicant attending a protest/[certain] celebrations, nor because a person by the name of [Mr C] asked the applicant if he had applied for a Protection visa at those celebrations, nor because photos were taken of participants at the protest/celebrations.

CONCLUSIONS

53.  For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore the applicants do not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa. It follows that they are also unable to satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(b) or (c). As they do not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, they cannot be granted the visa.

DECISION

54.  The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.

Linda Holub
Member