1505059 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 4523

1505059 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4523 (29 September 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1505059

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  India

MEMBER:Penelope Hunter

DATE:29 September 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 29 September 2016 at 6:52pm

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 is a child, aged [number] years, who claims to be a citizen of India. An application was made on his behalf for the visa [in] June 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] March 2015.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 17 August 2016, together with his mother [Ms A], who gave evidence and presented arguments on his behalf. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Punjabi and English languages.

   RELEVANT LAW

4. 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.

5. 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).

6. 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.

7. 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’).

   Ministerial Direction

8. 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.

   INFORMATION AND CLAIMS

9. The applicant was born [date], in [Australia] to Indian parents. The application was lodged on his behalf with the Department [in] June 2014. The applicant originally included his parents, [Ms A] (the applicant mother) and [Mr B] (the applicant father), as his dependents. However as they had already been refused protection visas, and this decision was affirmed by the Full Federal Court [in]  November 2013, they were ineligible under section 48A of the Act to make a further application for Protection whilst in Australia.

10. In his application the applicant has briefly set out his claims, and states that will provide a further statement in due course to the Department. In summary the claims of the applicant are as follows:

    “my parents married in an inter-caste marriage and interfaith marriage and both of their parents are against the marriage. My father was from a Conservative Hindu family and after the marriage he converted to Sikhism. My mother belonged to [caste 1] and my father belongs to [caste 2]. Both the family consider me as an untouchable and sin. Due to that, I fear both families will target me and harm me if I returned to India. I fear I cannot move to other parts of India, because both families have influence with the authorities. I fear I cannot get state protection.”

11. The applicant did not file any further evidence with the Department. On behalf of the applicant, the applicant mother undertook an interview with the delegate [in] March 2015. The delegate found that the applicant’s family circumstances in India were not as claimed, the applicant’s mother was not a credible witness, and the applicant delayed seeking protection in Australia. The delegate refused the application [in] March 2015.

12. The Tribunal received an application for review of the delegate’s decision on behalf of the applicant on 15 April 2015. The applicant did not provide the Tribunal with a copy of the delegate’s decision.

13. The applicant mother and the applicant appeared at the Tribunal hearing on 17 August 2016 via video link. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant mother the claims made on behalf of the applicant and the reasons he fears harm in India. Where relevant the Tribunal has set out that evidence below.

14. Following the hearing the Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 18 August 2016 and invited the applicant to comment on information pursuant to the provisions of section 424A of the Act, on or before 1 September 2016. No response was received from the applicant.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS, EVIDENCE AND REASONS

15. The Tribunal has examined the birth certificate of the applicant and is satisfied that the applicant is the child of Indian nationals. Country information indicates as a child born to Indian national is an Indian national by descent[1]. The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the applicant is a citizen of India. There is no information before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant has a right to reside in any other country. Accordingly his claims are assessed against India as his country of nationality and his receiving country.

    [1] " Citizenship Laws of the World", Undefined, 01 March 2001, CX135735

16. The Tribunal considered that the claims made on behalf of the applicant were either not credible or were not substantiated on the evidence. For this reason it has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed, as is discussed below.

17. Firstly, the claims made on behalf of the applicant changed at the hearing. The applicant mother confirmed that she had prepared the application on behalf of the applicant with the assistance of a migration agent. The claims of the applicant were read to the applicant mother and she was asked to confirm for the Tribunal whether they were true and correct. The applicant mother was initially evasive and she told the Tribunal that she was Sikh, her husband was a Hindu and that Hindu people were against the marriage. The Tribunal repeated the question and again asked the applicant mother to respond. She then said that the agent who had typed the applicant’s claims has misunderstood her and that the applicant did not have any fear from his grandparents, it was the Hindu people. The applicant mother told the Tribunal that the claim that the applicant feared harm from his grandparents was a typing mistake by migration agent who assisted her with the application. The Tribunal found this difficult to accepted and explored with the applicant mother her education level and English ability at the hearing. She told the Tribunal that she had received 12 years of education, and studied at university for 2 years. Her university study was undertaken in English, as was part of her school education. At university she studied history, English and physical education. She further confirmed that she had passed her IELTS In 2008 and undertaken some study in English in Australia when she arrived in 2008. Since she had been in Australia she also told the Tribunal that she had also worked. It was noted that the applicant mother responded in English to many questions during the hearing. It was put to the applicant mother that her evidence that she did not understand the claims was not credible. The applicant mother conceded that of course she could read and speak English, but claimed that sometimes she did not understand things in written form. The applicant mother was asked when she became aware of the error in her application, she advised that it was after her interview with the delegate. She was then asked what steps she had taken to correct the application for the applicant. Her response was that she was now telling the Tribunal at the hearing. The claims made by the applicant in his application, as set out in paragraph 10 above, are brief. In light of the fact that she had assistance from a migration agent and that she has English language ability, the Tribunal does not accept as credible the claim of the applicant mother that she misunderstood the claims that she had made on behalf of the applicant. Further the fact that the applicant mother changed the claims of the applicant raised the suspicion for the Tribunal that the claims had been manufactured.

18. Secondly, the migration history of the applicant’s parents further undermines the credibility of the claim by the applicant mother that she did not understand the original claims she made on behalf of the applicant. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant mother at the hearing the concerns arising from the migration history and further put the information in writing to the applicant for comment pursuant to the provisions of s. 424A of the Act following the hearing. The applicant parents first arrived in Australia [in] April 2004 as the holders of a [Temporary] Visa valid until [date] May 2011. The applicant mother departed Australia [in] August 2009 and returned [in] March 2010. Although the applicant’s parents [temporary] visa was only valid until [date] May 2011, it was not until [date] December 2011, that the applicant mother lodged a claim for Protection including the applicant father. This application was then refused by the Department [in] May 2012. They sought review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (the RRT). The RRT affirmed the decision of the delegate [in] December 2012. The applicant mother then made an application for a judicial review of that decision to the Federal Magistrates Court [in] December 2012. [In] June 2013 the Federal Circuit Court dismissed that application. [In] June 2013 the applicant mother sought judicial review of the Federal Circuit Court’s decision to Full Federal Court. [In] November 2013 the Full Federal Court dismissed the application. [In] December 2013, the applicant mother then made a request for Ministerial Intervention pursuant to section 417 of the Migration Act, including the applicant father as her dependent. [In] April 2014 this request was finalised is “not considered”. The migration history of the applicant parents demonstrates to the Tribunal that they are experienced with the process of making a claim for Protection and Australian Migration Law. With this experience the Tribunal considers that the applicant mother would have been aware of the necessity to ensure that any claims made on behalf of the applicant child were true and accurate.

19. Thirdly, other information contained in the application for Protection lodged on behalf of the applicant was not true and accurate. In the Form 866B Application for a Protection (Class XA) completed behalf of the applicant and signed by the applicant mother and applicant father, when asked if any person named in the application had applied for refugee status or a Protection Visa from the Department, they responded ‘no’. The applicant’s parents further responded ‘no’ to the question of whether they had made any other type of application to the Department. It was put to the applicant mother orally and the applicant in writing to comment pursuant to the provisions of s. 424A of the Act that there was a failure to disclose the previous Protection application of his parents. Additionally, in the Form 866B, Family Composition filed with the Department by the applicant, the applicant’s [sibling] residing in India was not included in the application. The applicant’s parents signed a declaration that the information supplied to the Department was correct and up to date in every detail. It appeared to the Tribunal that there was a deliberate attempt to omit information which may be considered to weaken the applicant’s claims. The applicant mother maintained that she had informed the Department about her [other child], however the only reference found by the Tribunal was on the birth certificate of the applicant. The Tribunal considers suggest that the application was part of a strategy by the applicant mother to continue to remain in Australia and these omissions also reflect poorly on the credibility of the applicant mother.

20. Fourthly, information provided to the delegate by the applicant mother was inconsistent with that presented to the Tribunal and also the applicant’s original claims. The applicant mother told the delegate during the applicant’s interview [in] March 2015 that the applicant feared harm from the parents of the applicant father as they were part of the Hindu community. This information was put to her for comment orally pursuant to s.424AA at the hearing and in the applicant in writing pursuant to the provisions of s. 424A of the Act following the hearing. At the Tribunal hearing the applicant mother at first denied that she provided this evidence, when pressed by the Tribunal she declined to provide further comment. The Tribunal considers that this inconsistency reflects poorly on the credibility of the applicant mother and the claims that she has made on behalf of the applicant. It further demonstrates to the Tribunal how the claims the applicant have shifted throughout the process of review of the application and the Tribunal considers that it adds further weight to the suspicion that the claims of the applicant have been contrived.

21. Fifthly, there is the delay in lodging the application for Protection by the applicant. The applicant was born [in] 2013, he was not included in the Protection application of his parents, and it was not until [date] June 2014 that a claim was made on his behalf. The applicant mother claimed that she was not sure whether they could include the applicant in their application or not. The Tribunal asked whether she had sought any advice on this matter and she claimed that she had not. The Tribunal has difficulty accepting this response when at the time the applicant mother was pregnant with the applicant she appeared before the RRT, after he was born she took the matter to the Federal Circuit Court and Full Federal Court. The Tribunal considers it improbable that while ensconced in this process of review of her migration status she did not make enquiries about the situation for the applicant. It was only when the applicant’s parents had exhausted their opportunities for review of their Protection application, and after their application for Ministerial Intervention had been finalised, that an application was made on behalf of the applicant. The Tribunal considered that the delay was suggestive of the fact that the application under review was part of a strategy by the applicant parents to remain in Australia, and that the application was contrived. Further the delay in lodging the applications demonstrated that his parents did not have any genuine fear of harm for the applicant if he returned to India when he was born.

22. Sixthly, the Tribunal has concerns about the credibility of the claim that the applicant’s parents have an inter-caste marriage and he would be harmed for this reason. The Tribunal asked the applicant mother on several occasions about problems that arose for the applicant due to inter-caste issues and her responses were considered vague and evasive. She told the Tribunal that her husband was of a different caste, the [caste 2]. When asked whether her family of the applicant father’s family had any problem with them being a different caste she responded that before the marriage her parents were not happy. However she advised the Tribunal that the applicant did not fear that he would be harmed by his grandparents, it was from religious people. Later the applicant was asked if she had any concern about harm for the applicant from the community because of her inter-caste marriage. She responded only from the Hindu community and this was because of their religious difference. On the applicant mother’s evidence at the hearing the Tribunal considered that the applicant did not have a genuine fear of harm due to his parent’s inter-caste marriage. Furthermore, the claim by the applicant that his parents had an inter-caste marriage was the first time that the applicant parents had provided information that they were in an inter-caste relationship and that this would cause harm them harm. This was put to the applicant for comment in writing pursuant to s. 424A of the Act. The Tribunal considered that the fact that his parents had not previously raised this claim when they had the opportunity in the previous claims for Protection to the Department, the RRT and to the Minister leads the Tribunal to conclude that this claim made on behalf of the applicant was not credible.

23. Seventhly, the applicant mother previously returned to India for a considerable period of time after her marriage to the applicant father. The applicant mother confirmed to the Tribunal that the claims made by the applicant were substantially similar to those that she had made in her previous Protection application, as his claims arose from her inter-faith marriage and her son had the same fears of harm as she did. The applicant mother was asked to explain why, if she had fear of harm, that she returned to India between [date] August 2009 and [date] May 2010. The Tribunal put to her that if she had any concerns about Hindu religious leaders she would not have returned at that time. The applicant mother told the Tribunal that she had to return as she was unwell due to her pregnancy and she claimed that she did not stay in her village but with her [sibling] in the [village 1]. She claimed that this was 2.5 to 3 hours drive from her home village. It was put to the applicant mother that she was misrepresenting the distance, she maintained that it took that long.  Again the applicant mother was invited to comment on the concern of the Tribunal that if she had any genuine fears for her safety she would not have returned to India at this time. The applicant mother declined to comment. The Tribunal considered that the applicant mother was unable to satisfactorily explain why she returned to India after her alleged inter-faith marriage in circumstances when she claimed to fear harm. She had the support of the applicant husband in Australia. It is considered that this demonstrates that the claims arising for the applicant and his family due to an inter-faith marriage are not genuine.

1. The Tribunal also wrote to the applicant pursuant to the provisions of s.424A of the Act and asked him to comment on information that the applicant mother had previously provided about her whereabouts during this period. In the decision of the delegate of [date] May 2012, in relation the Protection visa application of the applicant mother, the delegate records that the applicant mother claimed during this time she stayed at a relative’s house 700 km from her village. The applicant mother later told the told the RRT at her hearing on that the [village 1] was located approximately 400 to 500 km away from her home village. The Tribunal has since checked on Google maps and has found that [village 1] is approximately 65 km from the applicant mother’s home [Village 2] by car. These inconsistencies demonstrate to the Tribunal that applicant mother is not a witness of credit and the Tribunal considers that she has deliberately provided misleading information in relation to her circumstances.

2. Eighthly, the Tribunal considered the evidence of the applicant mother as to who would wish to harm the applicant was unpersuasive. The applicant mother was asked who the applicant feared would harm him, she responded religious people. The Tribunal then asked her to identify what religious people. She claimed it was Hindu religious people.  She could not identify them further, only that they were the main Hindu religious leaders and she did not know much about them. The Tribunal asked her whether there had been any threats against the applicant, and she did not identify any threats. The applicant’s [sibling] was born in India on [in] March 2010, after his parent’s marriage. She has continued to reside in India with applicant’s maternal aunt. The applicant mother confirmed at the hearing that she had contact with the applicant’s [sibling] every 2 to 3 weeks, that she was in good health, had started to attend school and had not experienced any harm. The Tribunal considered the fact that the applicant mother travelled to India to give birth to his [sibling], and had left his [sibling] in India, when [they are] also allegedly the child of an interfaith marriage, and the fact that they had not presented any evidence of harm to hear or made claims that [they also] fears harm, demonstrates to the Tribunal that the claims that the applicant fears harm from religious people, Hindus or Hindu religious leaders is not genuine.

3. Ninthly, in the Tribunal had concerns that the applicant father was originally of the Hindu religion and that his parents have an interfaith marriage. The applicant mother was asked whether she could provide any evidence that the applicant father was originally Hindu. She claimed that she could not. She was asked about identity documents that may record the applicant father’s religion. She responded that documents such as birth certificates in India did not record a person’s religion. The applicant mother claimed that the applicant father always held the name [Name B] and it was not a name given on his conversion. She further claimed that [B] was a common Hindu surname. The passport of the applicant father, filed with the Protection application under review, reveals that the applicant’s paternal grandfather was named [B] and his paternal grandmother, [name]. It was put to the applicant mother to comment that these were generally considered as Sikh surnames. The applicant mother told the Tribunal that Kaur was a common surname for Hindu ladies. While the Tribunal has located country information that the name [B] is used by some Hindus in northern India[2], it could not locate any information to support the claim by the applicant mother that Kaur was a common Hindu ladies name. However, in the A to Z of Sikhism it is noted that it is custom that Sikh women add Kaur to their first name, this done pursuant to demonstrate adherence of the Khalsa establish by the Guru Gobind Singh and indicates allegiance to the Guru.[3]  The Tribunal considered the possibility as remote that the two individuals from conservative Hindu families would bear the surnames [B] and Kaur and subsequently marry and give their child a Sikh name. Due to the overall concerns about the credibility of the applicant mother, and the lack of supporting evidence, the Tribunal considers that as the applicant father and his family bear Sikh surnames it is more probable that they have always been Sikh.

   [2]A Guide to Names and Naming Practices [International] 2006 Page 47, section24.23: and at

   [3] "The A to Z of Sikhism", Scarecrow Press, 01 January 2009, CIS29300

4. The Tribunal’s concerns about the credibility the claims that the applicant’s father was originally a Hindu were further undermined by the evidence of the applicant mother as to when she met the applicant husband. The applicant mother claimed to have met the applicant husband in 2007, she had known him for a year and she confirmed that they married [in] August 2008. Although they had known each other for a year she claimed that she was not aware that the applicant father was a Hindu until just before they were married. Her explanation for this lack of knowledge was that she had never asked him. The Tribunal finds this response, in the context of the applicant’s claims that parties of an inter-faith relationship would be subject to harm in India lacks credibility. The applicant mother has also given several different dates as to when she met the applicant father, this information was put to the applicant for comment in writing pursuant to the provisions of s. 424A of the Act.. In the Protection application that she filed [in] December 2011 she stated that she the applicant father in 2008. Further when questioned by the RRT at a hearing [in] November 2012, the applicant mother told the RRT that she met the applicant father in April 2008.  Again, no response was received from the applicant. The Tribunal considers that these inconsistencies are indicative of the fact that that applicant mother is not a witness of credit.

5. The applicant mother has also given inconsistent information about when the applicant father converted to Sikhism. In her evidence to the Tribunal, the applicant mother said that the applicant father converted to Sikhism a couple of days after their wedding [in] August 2008. When asked who attended the wedding she said her parents and her husband’s parents. She then changed her evidence and said her husband’s parents did not attend the wedding. The Tribunal put to the applicant mother for orally for comment at the hearing pursuant to the provisions of s. 424AA of the Act, that the applicant mother had claimed in her application for Protection that the applicant father had converted to Sikhism prior to their marriage and then asked the maternal grandparents of the applicant for permission to marry the applicant mother. Further when asked by the RRT at the hearing on 15 November 2012, the applicant mother told the Tribunal that [Mr B] converted in early August 2008. Further the applicant father told the RRT [in] November 2012 that the paternal grandparents did attend his wedding. The Tribunal considers that these multiple inconsistencies further undermine the credibility of the applicant mother.

6. Tenthly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant mother or applicant father ever experienced harm in India. The applicant’s parents married [in] August 2008 and it was not until April 2009 that they departed for Australia. The applicant mother was asked whether she had experienced any harm prior to leaving India in April 2009 due to her interfaith marriage. She advised the Tribunal that she was not living at her home address and was in hiding.  In the Protection visa application filed by the applicant mother  with the Department [in] December 2011, within the form 80 Personal Particulars for Character Assessment she disclosed that she had lived at her parents address at [village 2] from 2000 up until her departure from India in April 2009. This inconsistent information was put to the applicant mother for comment pursuant to the provisions of s.424AA orally at the hearing and in writing following the hearing. The applicant mother did not wish to comment. Additionally she was able to return to India to give birth to the applicant’s [sibling] between the period [date] August 2009 and [date] May 2010, to a village 65 kilometres away from her home, without incident. As on both occasions they were residing with family locally anyone wishing to harm them could easily have located them. The fact that they did not experience any harm demonstrates that the claims that applicant mother fears harm for herself and the applicant child are not credible. Additionally this inconsistency, together with the overall concerns of the Tribunal about the credibility of the applicant mother casts further doubt on the claim by the applicant that his parents have an inter-faith marriage.

   Eleventh, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant mother or father experienced any threats of harm. When asked about this at the hearing the applicant mother’s evidence was vague and evasive. She claimed that her parents were given threats. The applicant mother then conceded that her father had passed away a long time ago. She corrected her evidence and claimed that by parents she meant her mother. She did not remember when it occurred other than it was after their marriage. She was unable to identify who made the threat, and stated that someone came to her mother’s house at the request of the leaders of the Hindu community. The nature of the threat was also unsatisfactory. She claimed her mother was told to present the applicant mother and applicant father so they could be harmed as they did and inter-caste marriage and the applicant husband changed his religion. The applicant mother was asked again to clarify if she was making any claims on behalf of the applicant. She responded that they had done their marriage against their religion and because of this they wanted them. The Tribunal considers that had a threat to be presented for harm occurred the applicant mother would have been able to recall exact details in her evidence, this inconsistency further undermines the credibility of the applicant mother, and her claims on behalf of the applicant to fear harm.

7. Due to the multiple concerns as set out above the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is the child of an inter-faith and an inter-caste marriage. The Tribunal does not accept as credible the claim that the applicant‘s father was a Hindu that converted to Sikhism upon the marriage to his mother. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant would be at risk of harm in India from Hindus, Hindu religious leaders or his maternal or paternal family due to his parent’s marriage or for any other reason. The Tribunal finds that the applicant mother is not a witness of credit and that the claims that she has made on behalf of the applicant are also not credible. The Tribunal considers that the claims of the applicant have been manufactured in order to achieve a positive migration outcome form the applicant’s parents.

8. The Tribunal considers that the applicant could return to India and reside without harm as his [sibling] does. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution now or in the reasonably foreseeable future due to his parent’s inter-faith or inter-caste marriage.  The Tribunal rejects in their entirety the claims of the applicant. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a refugee.

9. The Tribunal has also considered whether the applicant meets the complementary protection provisions as set out in the Act. On the basis of the above findings that the claims of the applicant are not credible and that they have been rejected in their entirety, the Tribunal is also not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to India he would suffer significant harm by reason of his parent’s inter-caste or interfaith marriage or for any other reason.

   Conclusion

10. 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)

11. 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)

12. 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

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

    Penelope Hunter
    Member