1505644 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 3098

1505644 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 3098 (6 March 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1505644

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  China

MEMBER:Linda Holub

DATE:6 March 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 06 March 2017 at 2:12pm

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection visa – China – Religion – Christian – Particular social group – Victim of land expropriation – Fear of harm by extended family – Child of a murdered father – Credibility issues – Delayed protection application – Decision affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 36, 65, 499

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

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 claims to be a citizen of China, applied for the visa on 30 July 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa on 7 April 2015.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 15 December 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.

4. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent who did not attend the hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

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).

3. 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.

Complementary Protection criterion

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

Section 499 Ministerial Direction

1. 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.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

10) The issue in this case is whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted in China for reasons of his race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group, and it not, whether there are substantial reasons for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

11) The applicant’s written claims for protection are contained in the application forms submitted to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. In making its decision, the Tribunal had before it the Department’s file relating to the review applicant’s protection visa application and the Tribunal’s file in relation to the review application.  The Tribunal has given consideration to the delegates’ decision record which the applicant provided to the Tribunal.

12) The following in a summary of the claims and information provided by the applicant:

a.His mother believed his father was murdered by his extended family has a strong connection with the authorities. His father’s death was treated as a car accident.

b.Subsequently his extended family expropriated their land and property. If he returns to China he will fight for the return of the property.  In this way he will confront the perpetrators who killed his father. He believes the authorities have protected the perpetrators in the past and will continue to do so and as a result of this he will suffer harm.

c.His extended family also used the authorities to persecute his mother because of her participation in a house church. He will be harmed by the authorities if he continues to practice Christianity.

13) The delegate’s Decision Record of 7 April 2015 indicates the delegate found that the applicant’s claims have been fabricated for the purpose of supporting his protection visa application. [He] therefore found that his claims to fear harm from the authorities or from relatives are not credible”[1].

[1] AAT file, folio 5.

14) On 26 April 2015 the applicant then applied to the Tribunal for a merits review of that decision.  The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 12 September 2016 advising that a hearing had been scheduled for 8 November 2016.  Due to unforeseen circumstances, this was subsequently re-scheduled to 15 December 2016.  The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on that day to give evidence and present arguments.  The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.

FINDINGS AND REASONS

Nationality

15) On the basis of the applicant’s passport issued by the People’s Republic of China, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is a citizen of China.  There is nothing in the evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that they have a right to reside in any country other than China.

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

Did the applicant suffer any of the claimed harm and is there a real chance or a real risk of serious or significant harm occurring to the applicant?

17) At the commencement of the hearing the Tribunal asked the applicant about the preparation of his application.  The applicant stated that he told his migration agent about his situation and asked the agent to help him apply for protection.  The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he discussed his claims with their migration agent and that it was written for him in English.  He responded part of it and that he’d also written some of it down.  The Tribunal asked the applicant if he was aware of what was written and whether it was read back to him.  He responded that he had spoken and they wrote that down.  The Tribunal asked the applicant to confirm that in signing his application he was aware of what it contained.  The applicant responded that he did not sign the application.  The Tribunal showed him the relevant page of the application and asked if it was his signature[2].  He agreed it was.  The Tribunal asked him if he stood by what was written in his application. He responded that he did.  The Tribunal asked the applicant if he also held that the evidence he provided at his departmental interview to be true.  He responded that he did.

[2] DIBP file, folio 29.

18) The Tribunal was concerned that the applicant claimed that he had not signed his Protection visa application until he was shown his signature.

19) The applicant stated that at the interview with the Department’s delegate not all of the Mandarin was completely understandable to him.  He said the interpreter said something that he did not understand.  The Tribunal asked the applicant to confirm that he understood the hearing interpreter that was.  He responded that he did understand the interpreter.

20) The applicant’s written application was scant and he responded to questions put to him at hearing with long delays and in such brief terms that they lacked significant and sufficient detail to satisfy the Tribunal as to the veracity of his claims.  This was despite attempts by the Tribunal to obtain more fulsome responses. The applicant was visibly upset at various times throughout the hearing.  The Tribunal provided the applicant with an adjournment to enable him to compose himself.  In considering the applicant’s credibility, the Tribunal took into account his emotional state.  However, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was a credible witness.

21) The Tribunal asked the applicant about his family in China.  He said he has a mother and a younger sister.  The Tribunal put it to the applicant that there is no reference to them in his written application and provided him with an opportunity to comment[3].  He responded that they did ask me about them.

[3] DIBP file, folio 13.

22) In the context of the delay in the lodgment of his Protection visa application the Tribunal discussed the applicant’s migration history with him as outlined in the Delegate’s decision.

23) The Tribunal asked the applicant about his studies when he was first on a study visa noting his student visa was cancelled [in] September 2010 and he remained unlawful until October 2011.  The applicant told the Tribunal he did not study very much because since he was young he was not very good at studying as he did not have a very solid base.   A further student visa was not granted and he remained unlawful until July 2014 when he was granted a Bridging visa in connection with his Protection visa application.  The Tribunal asked him why he had not applied for a protection earlier.  He said that he did not know the definition of a refugee and he was frightened so he hid.  The Tribunal asked the applicant how he subsequently became aware of protection visas.  He said when he was working on a construction site he was detained by the immigration Department and as a result of that found that he could apply for protection, after speaking to a friend.

24) The Tribunal explored the applicant’s living arrangements in Australia.  His answers appeared evasive and vague.  Initially when asked where he lives he stated he lives in a house with his girlfriend and child and there’s just the three of them lived together.  The Tribunal then clarified that they live in a [number] bedroom house and rent one of the rooms.  The Tribunal put it to the applicant then it is not just the three of them that lived together as there are other people living in the other [bedrooms].  The applicant responded that he did not know those people.  The Tribunal explained that he was not asked if he knew the people but what his living arrangements were.  He then went on to say that yes there were other people living in the house.

25) The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he works.  The applicant responded that he does not have work currently.  The Tribunal asked the applicant how he obtains money to cover his living expenses.  He stated that he receives some money from his partner and some from friends.  The Tribunal asked what work his partner does.  He responded that she studies.  The Tribunal asked where she obtains money from if she is studying.  He responded that perhaps she received it from her family.  The Tribunal put it to him that he appeared to be implying that he does not know where his partner obtains money from.  He responded that she told him she receives money from her family.

26) The Tribunal asked the applicant about the care of their child.  He responded that his partner takes care of the child.  The Tribunal asked how she does this when she is studying.  He responded that she studies Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays and they also use a day care centre.

27) The Tribunal asked the applicant about his partner’s migration status.  He stated that he was unsure of it but that as she is studying she should be on a Student visa.  The applicant was then asked what he is partner is studying.  He responded that he only knows she studies but does not know what she is studying.  The Tribunal put it to him that he appeared to be saying that they have not discussed her studies.  He responded that even if she told him he did not know what she would be studying.

28) The Tribunal put it to the applicant that on a number of occasions he has changed his answers on further questioning and that this has raised concerns regarding his credibility as a witness.  The applicant stated that he had responded to questions with specific responses.  The Tribunal gave him examples of where, on further questioning he had changed his answers and that this raised concerns about his truthfulness.  The applicant said that he needs to understand the whole question and then he is able to answer fully.  The Tribunal was prepared to accept that the applicant responded to some questions very specifically but as noted above the fact that his responses to the Tribunal did not assist the Tribunal in understanding his circumstances, nevertheless gave rise to concerns about the applicant’s evidence.

Claims regarding intent to revenge his father’s death

29) The Tribunal asked the applicant what harm he had suffered in China.  He said he was bullied because he did not have a father.  He said people would use abusive language, such as, ‘child without a father’.  When asked if he had suffered any harm he said that people in the village would beat him ‘as a child’ without a father.  He said it happened quite often when he was very little.  The Tribunal asked him to clarify whether when he referred to ‘people’, he was referring to adults.  After not answering for some time the Tribunal offered the applicant a short adjournment.

30) Following the adjournment, the Tribunal returned to its previous question asking him whether the reference to ‘people’ referred to adults.  He responded they were older than him.  The Tribunal again asked him if he was referring to adults or children he said they were children older than him.  The manner in which the applicant responded to these questions again raised concerns about the applicant’s truthfulness as a witness.  He clearly sought to give the impression that the bullying was undertaken by adults.  The fact that his responses were extremely brief and did not provide a full account of the circumstances without extensive questioning again gave rise to concerns about the evidence provided.

31) The applicant explained that when he was very young, around [age] years old, his father ran a [business] in another province and spent a lot of time away from home.  The applicant claimed that his mother told him that the business was doing very well and was becoming busier and busier.  As a result of this, his grandmother’s younger brother joined him.  The applicant claimed that his father was killed by this relative and that this relative contacted officials from relevant authorities to change the cause of death on his father’s death certificate.  The relative stated that his father had been hit by a car but, the applicant claimed that the forensic report did not substantiate this.  According to the applicant the real reason for his father’s death that he was harmed in the genital organ until death.  The Tribunal put it to the applicant that it sounded unusual and somewhat implausible that a relative of his father would kill him.  He said that this is what he was told by his mother and grandmother.

32) The applicant stated that his mother transported the body back and anyone could see that his father had been murdered.  The Tribunal asked the applicant whether his mother reported this to the police.  He responded that because it happened in another province and that those officials completed the death certificate there was a conspiracy brought about by the family relative.

33) The Tribunal asked the applicant why this is now an issue for him given his father died in 1993.  He said that the relative thinks that the applicant may want to revenge the death and will set a trap for him.  When asked why the relative would do this the applicant responded that the relative believes that the applicant will avenge his father’s death.

34) The Tribunal put it to the applicant that if he returned to China he could live in a different part of the country.  He stated it would be meaningless for him to return because if he returns to China he would go after the relative.  The Tribunal asked him why he would do that.  He stated that it’s because his mother’s life has been very difficult and he will feel useless if he doesn’t revenge his father’s death.  The Tribunal asked the applicant how this would help his mother and his child.  He stated that he has a child but he is not married and went on to say that he is responsible for the child and that is why he does not want to return to China.  He stated that he wants his mother to come to Australia because her life has been so hard.

35) The Tribunal put it to him that it is not convinced that he would return to China and attempt to revenge his father’s death after some 25 years had lapsed and asked him if he would like to respond.  He stated that the Tribunal can choose to believe what it wishes but his safety cannot be guaranteed.

36) The Tribunal asked the applicant when his father died.  The applicant stated he did not know the exact date because he was around [age] at the time.  The Tribunal put it to the applicant that it was not seeking an exact date.  He said it was roughly in 1993.  He stated that his mother had a very miserable life and if it wasn’t for the fact that she was pregnant at the time she would have killed herself.  People in the church also encouraged her to live.  Early in the hearing the applicant stated he had a sister who was [number] years younger than him, which would suggest she was born in [year] as the applicant’s date of birth is [year].  The Tribunal explored with the applicant his comment that his mother was pregnant at the time his father was killed.  The Tribunal asked him about this discrepancy.  He responded that because he was very young at the time it was not clear to him when his mother was pregnant.  The Tribunal explained to the applicant that it understood he was very young and did not expect him to remember details of events that happened when he was a child.  However, given he was claiming harm and future harm on the basis of revenging his father’s death that he would have taken time and care to be clear about when certain events happened.  The applicant offered to provide a copy of his father’s death certificate.  The Tribunal explained that while this would be useful, in itself it would not change the Tribunal’s view about whether upon returning to China he will attempt to revenge his father’s death.  A copy of a death certificate notarised and translated into English was provided by the applicant [in] December 2016[4].  The Tribunal noted that it states his father died in a car accident in 1993.

[4] AAT file, folio 43.

37) The Tribunal was prepared to accept that the applicant’s father died in 1993 but based on the evidence provided that he was murdered by a jealous relative implausible.  Even if the Tribunal accepts that his father was murdered, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant would return to China and avenge his father’s death.  In coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal took into account the passage of time since his father’s death, the length of time the applicant has lived in Australia and that the applicant now has a child himself.

Christianity claims

38) In regard to the applicant’s claims that members of his extended family used the authorities to persecute his mother because of her participation in a house church, the Tribunal asked the applicant when she became involved in the church.  He responded that since he can remember she was attending the house church and that she had become involved after his father’s death because only the people in the church would help her.  The applicant claimed that at the time of his father’s death they were living in his paternal grandmother’s.  He stated that when he was about [age] years old he and his mother left that home.  The Tribunal put it to him that this conflicted with evidence he had given during his interview with the Department’s delegate and outlined to him the reference in the Decision Record that he and his mother went into hiding in 1993 after his father was murdered when he was aged [age] years old.  The applicant responded that he was [age] years old when they went into hiding.  The Tribunal explained again what was contained in the Department’s Decision Record.  The applicant said he was relying on his own memory but because he was very young it is unclear to him.  The Tribunal put it to him that he was relying on his own memory at both the interview and at hearing and asked him if he wished to comment further.  He said he cannot remember.

39) The Tribunal asked him about his attendance at the house church prior to leaving China.  He said his mother would go on Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays and he would accompany her on Sundays.

40) The Tribunal asked the applicant why he believes he will be harmed if he continues to practice Christianity.  He stated that because when you have a gathering and do not register and get approval officials will come and arrest people.  The Tribunal asked the applicant whether his mother continues to practice in this house church.  The applicant responded that she does.  The Tribunal asked the applicant if officials had ever attended and arrested people.  He said no, it had not.  The Tribunal put it to the applicant that if his mother had been practising for some 27 years and nothing had happened in her house church why, does he believe he will be harmed.  He said he did not know how to answer.

41) The Tribunal explored with him his practice in Australia and asked him what church she had been attending.  He said he had been attending but had not done so for a while.  The Tribunal asked him why he would attend the house church in China if he does not attend church in Australia.  In China his mother would ask him to go to church.  The Tribunal asked him when he commenced going to church in Australia.  He responded that he cannot remember clearly, but he went on and off and that at one point he went quite often but could not remember what year that was.  The Tribunal asked the applicant when he last attended church.  He said it was last year, that is, 2015.

42) The Tribunal asked the applicant what church he attends.  He stated he cannot remember the name of the church but that it is opposite the [store] in [a suburb], on a roundabout.  The Tribunal asked the applicant if it is a Mandarin language church.  He stated that he is not very aware of that situation that he only got to know one person they just smiled at each other.  He said he sat at the back and listened.

43) The Tribunal asked the applicant what his favourite Christian celebration is.  He responded that it was Christmas because that was when Jesus Christ was born.  The Tribunal asked the applicant to describe any of the miracles performed by Jesus Christ.  The applicant referred to Noah’s Ark.  The Tribunal explained that this was not a miracle and provided the applicant with a further opportunity to describe a miracle.  The Tribunal put it to the applicant that he had been given two opportunities to describe any of the miracles and was unable to do so.  The Tribunal asked the applicant if he knows how long Jesus Christ lived on earth.  He responded that it was more than 2000 years.  The Tribunal finally asked the applicant if he could tell the Tribunal where Jesus Christ was born.  The applicant responded that God came to earth to Mary.

44) The Tribunal put it to the applicant that his knowledge of Christianity was extremely rudimentary and was not reflective of someone who claim to have attended church for ‘as long as he could remember’ and that it was difficult to accept that he would attend a church if he was to return to China and was given an opportunity to respond.  He stated that when he goes back to China he will be around his mother.  He stated that he does not know how to talk to strangers and admitted that he does not have sufficient knowledge of the Bible.

45) The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is a Christian and has attended church in Australia based on his evidence regarding his church attendance and his knowledge of the basic tenets of Christianity.  If he were to attend church in China because his mother asked him to, the Tribunal does not consider the applicant will be at risk of serious or significant harm.  The applicant gave evidence that his mother has been a practising Christian and has not come to the attention of the authorities.  The Tribunal considers the applicant does not have an adverse profile and could practice in the same manner with the risk of harm.

46) The Tribunal asked the applicant what he fears if he were to return to China.  He responded that he would worry about his girlfriend and his child.  He went on to say that he does not want his son to lose his father at a young age like he did.  The Tribunal again repeated the question.  He then responded that he is not very clear about the law in China and that it is no different to being dead.  The Tribunal asked the applicant to clarify what law he was referring to.  He responded that he does not know what law it is, just that officials can do whatever they want.  The Tribunal asked the applicant why they would do anything to him and why he believes he may come to the attention of Chinese authorities.  He said it was because he has got nothing left at home except his mother and sister and that they have been living outside and he cannot give them anything.  The Tribunal asked him to clarify what he meant by the statements that they have been living outside.  He said that they rent a room.

47) The Tribunal explained to the applicant that referring to his mother’s and sister’s rental arrangements does not assist in clarifying what harm he fears if he were to return to China and again asked him what harm he fears.  After some delay he said of course he would be harmed because if goes back he will be on the opposite side of them.  The Tribunal asked him to clarify who he was referring to.  He said his relative and to the officials.  The Tribunal again put it to him that there were options in relation to his ability to live in another part of China.  He said that going back to China the government oppress you and that he likes it in Australia.  The Tribunal explained to the applicant that it needs to be satisfied that there is a real chance or a real of serious or significant harm if he were to return and that his preference for living in Australia was not a consideration.  The applicant responded that the Tribunal is unable to guarantee his safety as he will “go for” the relative.  The applicant stated he cannot go back to China because if he does so he would die and his son will not have a father.  He stated he wants his mother and sister to come to Australia and for them to live together as a family.  He stated that he likes the people, the environment and the air in Australia and he will not suffer harm here.

Summary

48) The Tribunal did not find the applicant to be a truthful or a credible witness. The applicant failed to apply for protection for an extended period after he arrived in Australia.  As outlined above, he was prepared to be unlawful for over two years.  By his own evidence, he applied for protection only after being detained by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.  The Tribunal has taken the view that the applicant manufactured his claims after he was detained by Australian immigration officials. 

49) While the Tribunal acknowledges that it would be extremely difficult for the applicant to provide any written evidence that he is father was murdered by a relative, it had serious concerns about the applicant’s claims and evidence.  The applicant left out information from his written application, at first claimed that he had not signed it until shown his signature, knew very little about the circumstances of his father’s alleged murder, despite claiming that he would avenge his father’s death if he were to return to China which was the one of the central basis of his claims for protection.  At hearing, the applicant’s evidence was extremely difficult to obtain and on the whole he appeared to be evasive despite attempts to draw out and elicit sufficient detail in order to be clear about his claims and the basis of them.  The Tribunal was also troubled by the fact that the applicant was unwilling or unable to even discuss the arrangements regarding his partner and mother of his child, which again raised concerns about the applicant’s evasiveness.  Taken together these concerns were sufficiently significant that the Tribunal could not be satisfied that the applicant was a witness of truth.

50) The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant suffered the claimed harm and that his father was murdered by a jealous relative.  Even if the Tribunal is wrong on that point, the Tribunal does not accept that if the applicant were to return to China he will avenge his father’s death or that the relative he claims is responsible for his father’s death will harm him in any way.  The Tribunal also did not accept that the applicant attended a house church in China or that he is a Christian. If he were to attend a church in China because his mother asks him to, the Tribunal was satisfied that he could do so, like he claims his mother has done for many years because he does not have a profile that would draw him to the attention of authorities in China.

Is the applicant entitled to protection in Australia?

51) Having considered the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively, there was no credible evidence before the Tribunal which suggests that the applicant could face a real chance of being persecuted for a Convention related reason if he returns to China now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.  The Tribunal was therefore not satisfied that his fears are well-founded.

52) Having concluded the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a) the Tribunal has considered the alternative complimentary protection criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The applicant’s claims for complementary protection rely on the same claims as those put forward in his refugee application and the Tribunal has rejected them for the same reasons. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicants being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk they will suffer significant harm

CONCLUSION

53) 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).

54) 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).

55) 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

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

Linda Holub
Member