1506439 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 4691

1506439 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4691 (7 November 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1506439

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  China

MEMBER:Rachel Homan

DATE:7 November 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 07 November 2016 at 4:58pm

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant, who the Tribunal accepts is a citizen of China, applied for the visa [in] July 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] April 2015.

3. The issues in the review are whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution in China for one or more of the five reasons set out in the Refugees Convention; and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

5. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, the applicant is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

6. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).

7. Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:

   owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

8. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’).

9. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration –PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and any country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

   Visa application

10. According to information provided in her visa application, the applicant is a Chinese national born in [year] in Zhejiang province. The applicant stated that she could speak, read and write Mandarin. The applicant completed [number] years of education and indicated that she had been unemployed since January 1990. The applicant provided details of [children] still residing in China. The applicant was divorced [in] April 2014.

11. The applicant provided two addresses in Shanghai in her residential address history. The applicant stated that she lived at an address in [District 1] between January 1996 and January 2009. From January 2009 until October 2012, the applicant said she lived at an address in [District 2].

12. The applicant declared that she had travelled to [Country 1] and [Country 2] prior to her first arrival in Australia in February 2014. The applicant returned to China at the end of March 2014 before leaving again [in] April 2014. Submitted with the application was a certified copy of the applicant’s PRC passport.

13. The applicant’s claims for protection were set out in a typed, undated statement translated from Mandarin into English.

    Written statement

14. According to her statement, the applicant’s married life was not happy. The applicant’s first marriage lasted for only two years because their personalities did not match.

15. The applicant met her second husband in mid-1994. One day, towards the end of 1994, the applicant’s second husband’s friend asked the applicant to have dinner together. The friend asked the applicant to drink lots of alcohol. After the dinner, the applicant’s second husband took her to a hotel and [assaulted ] her. The next day he cried and apologised. The applicant did not report the matter to the police and after that he treated her very well. Gradually, the applicant forgave him. In February 1995, the applicant discovered that she was pregnant. The applicant’s husband was very happy and cared for her well. The applicant had not planned to have children at the time and had planned to undergo an abortion in hospital. The applicant’s husband begged her to keep the pregnancy and said he wished to marry the applicant. The applicant hesitated. When she was [number] months pregnant, the doctor told her it was too late to perform an abortion. The applicant married her second husband [soon] after the birth of their child.

16. For the first few years of their marriage, the applicant’s husband pretended to be an honest man but his real personality gradually became exposed. The applicant’s husband regularly abused alcohol and abused the applicant and her child when he was drunk. The applicant would go to her parents’ place at first but he started to drink every day. The applicant’s neighbour called the police station and the police came to the home. After realising that it was a domestic incident, the police left without even taking notes. The applicant stated that her husband often abused her for several hours until he became tired. The applicant wished to divorce her husband but he said he would kill their child if she divorced him.

17. In October 2012, the applicant was preparing dinner when her husband complained about her being too slow. He grabbed her hair and slapped her on the face. He then said he would go out for some drinks and ‘educate her’ when he came back. The applicant’s children were crying and told the applicant to leave their father. The applicant listened to their advice and rented a place to live.

18. The applicant’s [child] told her that their father was very angry and that he would break leg if he found her. The applicant went to [Country 1, Country 2] and Australia to escape her husband. Under her [childrens’] pressure, the applicant’s husband agreed to divorce, which was finalised [in] April 2014.

19. After the divorce, the applicant’s husband said he wished to have dinner with her one last time. At the dinner, he drugged the applicant by putting sleeping pills in her drink. The applicant was locked in an underground storage room and beaten. Two days later, her [children] found her. The applicant left China, arriving in Australia [in] April 2014.

    Protection visa interview

20. The applicant was interviewed by an officer of the Department of Immigration [in] March 2015 and the Tribunal has listened to a recording of that interview.

21. At the interview, the applicant submitted an untranslated document which she claimed was her divorce certificate. The interpreter engaged to assist with the interview confirmed that the document read that the applicant and her former husband, [name], were divorced [in] April 2014.

22. The applicant confirmed that she had previously travelled to [Country 1] for around a month and [Country 2] for around a week with a female friend for tourism purposes. The applicant travelled to Australia in February 2014 with another female friend. The applicant travelled to [different locations] for a total of 6 weeks. Whilst in Australia, the applicant bought a ticket to return because she liked Australia.

23. The applicant’s parents and [children] remained in China. [One child] was [age] and working for a [certain] company. [Another child] was [age] and working as a [occupation].

24. The applicant stated that she last lived at the address in [District 2] given in her visa application form in Shanghai from 2012 onwards. The applicant stated that this was her parents’ address. Prior to that, she lived with her ex-husband at the [District 1] address from 1996 until 2012. When it was noted that the applicant’s visa application indicated that she had moved to [District 2] in 2009, the applicant stated that she lived by herself at another address on [Road 1] from October 2001 until April 2014. When put to the applicant that she had provided a contradictory address history, the applicant said she had no comment. The applicant later said she lived at [Road 1] from October 2012 to April 2014.

25. The applicant gave evidence that she left China because she had suffered domestic violence at the hands of the former husband. The applicant said she could not back to China because he had said he would kill her. Asked how her former husband would know that she had returned to China, the applicant said [one child] would tell him. The applicant gave evidence that her [child] did not know that her husband had been violent towards her.

26. The applicant told the interviewer that her husband previously ran a [certain] business but had not operated the business since 2004 because the business was not profitable. The applicant’s husband had been living on social security benefits thereafter. The applicant indicated that prior to her marriage she had been employed in a factory but had not subsequently been employed. Asked how she was able to afford to travel to [Country 1, Country 2] and Australia, the applicant stated that her husband still had money from his business. When it was noted that the applicant had given evidence that he was receiving social security benefits, the applicant stated that she had invested money in the stock market.

27. The applicant gave evidence that she had reported her husband’s violence to the police. The police had said that they could not interfere in a domestic matter between a couple. When it was put to the applicant that she was no longer in a relationship with her ex-husband, the applicant responded that if she went back to China he would kill her. The applicant gave evidence that if she were to return to China, he would ask friends and find out where she was living. Asked why he would do that, the applicant responded that he would drink alcohol and then ask his friends. The delegate noted that Shanghai had a population of more than 23 million people. The applicant responded that her friends would tell her former husband.

28. The applicant gave evidence that after her divorce, her husband invited her to dinner. The applicant felt that since he invited her, she should accept. The applicant was living at [Road 1] at the time and her [children] were living with her mother. The applicant’s husband must have put something in her drink because after she drank it she felt dizzy. He then drove her to a rural part of Shanghai. The applicant’s arms and legs were bound and her husband beat her. Two days later, her [children] called her husband when they could not find her and threatened to report the matter to the police. The applicant said her [children] had known that she was going to dinner with their father. The applicant’s [children] found her at her husband’s friend’s property. The applicant said she had been locked up at the property for two days. The applicant’s husband had visited her once in this time to give her water. The applicant’s friend did not know what was happening and had just given her husband the key.

29. The next day, the applicant left for Australia. The applicant said she did not report the matter to the police because she had gone to the police in August 2007 when her husband had beaten her very badly and they did not do anything. The applicant said she already had a return ticket to Australia and wanted to leave as soon as possible. The applicant said she also did not go to a hospital because although she was bound and locked up, she was not injured.

    Delegate’s decision

30. In considering the application, the delegate found that the applicant had provided conflicting evidence about a number of matters, which led the delegate to the view that the applicant was not a witness of truth. The delegate found that the applicant gave conflicting evidence about where she lived in China. The applicant was unable to give a decisive timeline about where she was living and when. The applicant gave conflicting evidence about whether [one child] knew that she had been beaten and abused by his father. The applicant also gave conflicting evidence about who called the police to her home to report abuse. The delegate found the applicant’s claim to have been kidnapped and imprisoned by her ex-husband to be implausible. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant would be at risk from her former husband if she were to return to China.

    Review application

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

32. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by a registered migration agent, who did not attend the hearing.

33. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 7 November 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.

    Tribunal hearing

34. The Tribunal sought to clarify the applicant’s residential address history, noting that there had been some confusion over this issue before the Department. The applicant told the Tribunal that she last lived at [District 2] with her mother and father between January 2012 and April 2014.

35. Prior to that, the applicant had resided with one of her [children] at an address in [a location] in Shanghai after moving out of the marital home in 2009 until 2012.

36. Between January 1996 and April 2009, the applicant lived with her second husband in [District 1].  The applicant confirmed that the last address she had lived at together with her second husband was the [District 1] address.

37. The Tribunal put to the applicant that the address history she had given the Tribunal was different to that given to the Department in her protection visa application. The Tribunal noted that the [Shanghai] address had not been given in the visa application form at all. The applicant responded that she was not asked for it. The Tribunal noted that the protection visa application forms indicated that the applicant had resided in [District 1] until January 2009 when she moved to parents’ home in [District 2]. Asked if she could explain the discrepancy, the applicant responded that her evidence had been the same. The Tribunal put to the applicant that the evidence had not been the same. The applicant then said she lived at [District 1] until April 2009, then at her parents’ place until October 2012 then she left in October 2012 until April 2014.

38. The Tribunal noted at this point that the applicant was referring to notes. The applicant confirmed that she had made some notes. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that it would like her to try to recall her experiences from her memory.

39. The applicant confirmed that her parents still reside in Shanghai. The applicant told the Tribunal that [one child] was from her first marriage and resides with [the] father. [Another child], to her second husband, resides with her parents.

40. The Tribunal asked the applicant when she and her second husband separated. The applicant confirmed that it was in April 2009. The Tribunal put to the applicant that her written statement suggested that they had separated in October 2012 after a particular dispute which had led the applicant to rent a separate home in which to live. In response, the applicant stated that she and her husband were already separated but he still came to visit the children. The Tribunal put to the applicant that her written description of the October 2012 incident suggested that she had been cooking her husband dinner and that he had complained about her being slow. The applicant confirmed that he was merely visiting and that she had from time to time cooked him dinner. The Tribunal put to the applicant that her oral evidence sat uneasily with her written statement which made no mention of an earlier separation and suggested that she rented a place after the incident. The applicant indicated that she had no comment.

41. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether, apart from the October 2012 incident, she had any problems with her husband after the separation. The applicant responded that when he came to visit they would argue. Asked whether he became violent during these arguments, the applicant said he did. The Tribunal asked the applicant why she allowed her husband to visit if he was violent during his visits. The applicant responded that he came by force. The Tribunal asked the applicant what she meant by this. The applicant responded that he came in forcefully. The Tribunal asked the applicant again how her husband gained entry to her home. The applicant responded that every time he came forcefully.

42. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had submitted to the Tribunal her passport, a copy of which was taken. The applicant’s passport contained visas and travel stamps for trips to [Country 1, Country 2] and Australia. The Tribunal asked the applicant how she funded her overseas holidays. The applicant responded that her parents gave her money. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she ever worked in China. The applicant responded that she was a freelancer. The Tribunal asked the applicant what kind work she did. The applicant responded that she purchased [certain goods]. The Tribunal asked the applicant who she purchased [goods] for. The applicant responded that she purchased [goods] for her children. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether her children owned [that type of] business. The applicant denied this. The applicant also denied that she had her own business. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she was paid to purchase [goods] for her children. The applicant responded that she earned one day’s salary. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she could be any clearer as to her employment history. The applicant responded that she did not have a stable job in China.

43. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had returned to China after each of her overseas trips. The Tribunal put to the applicant that, on its face, this suggested that the applicant was not fearful for her safety on the occasions that she returned to China. The applicant agreed that this was the case. The Tribunal asked the applicant why, in those circumstances, she was now fearful of returning to China. The applicant responded that she was now fearful because the last time she was in China her former husband beat her severely.

1. The Tribunal asked the applicant about her last visit to China. The applicant told Tribunal that she talked to her husband about divorce and he beat her. The Tribunal asked the applicant how the divorce was secured. The applicant told the Tribunal that her husband agreed to the divorce with [one child]’s encouragement.

2. The Tribunal asked the applicant about the beating she had described. The applicant told the Tribunal that she and her former husband went for a meal together then he beat her up. The Tribunal asked the applicant why she agreed to have a meal with her former husband. The applicant indicated that her [child] encouraged her to go to a restaurant in a small suburb with her former husband. The applicant stated that she did not know what happened but her husband put some sort of substance in her alcohol. The applicant’s head was not clear. After the meal, he drove her to an underground parking lot and beat her vigorously.

3. The Tribunal asked the applicant where the parking lot was located. The applicant responded that she did not know the details. The Tribunal asked whether it was in a rural or urban location. The applicant said it was in the countryside. After the beating, the applicant’s husband locked the door and left. The Tribunal asked the applicant if she could describe in more detail the location of the underground parking lot. The applicant stated that it was underneath a three-storey building. The applicant denied that the building was an apartment building. The Tribunal asked whether the parking lot had space for only one vehicle or multiple vehicles. The applicant responded that it had only one parking space. The Tribunal noted that it was having difficulty imagining a three-storey building with an underground parking lot in a rural area. The applicant responded that it was just a building built up by farmers and that all the properties in the countryside were like this. The applicant stated that during busy farming periods people lived in the building.

4. The Tribunal asked the applicant what occurred after the beating. The applicant responded that her husband beat her up and left. The applicant’s husband swore that he would beat the applicant to death. The applicant’s husband then left the applicant alone. After two days, her [children] arrived and released her. The Tribunal asked the applicant how her [children] had located her. The applicant told the Tribunal that her [children] knew that she had gone to dinner with her husband. When she hadn’t returned, [one child] went to his father. The applicant told the Tribunal that [one child] pressured her husband to tell him where the applicant was located. Asked how her [child] obtained the key, the applicant told the Tribunal that her husband came with her [children] to release her. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether her husband said anything to her at the time. The applicant responded that he said he would kill her. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not mentioned to the Department that her husband had been involved in releasing her. The applicant responded that she was not asked for this information.

5. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she had any contact with her husband during the two days she was kept captive. The applicant said that she did not. The Tribunal noted that at the departmental interview the applicant had given evidence that he had visited to give her water. The applicant again denied that she had seen her husband during the two days in which she was detained. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she had anything to eat or drink in the two days in which she was captive. The applicant stated that she did not.

6. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she sought medical treatment when she was released. The applicant told the Tribunal that she went to hospital. Asked how long she remained in hospital, the applicant stated that she stayed for around one hour but had no internal injuries and so was sent home. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it seemed that if she had been drugged, severely beaten and had no food or water for two days, the hospital might keep her for more than one hour. The applicant claimed that it was typical of Chinese hospitals that they would ask you to go home if you did not have serious injuries.

7. The Tribunal also put to the applicant that during her departmental interview she had claimed that she did not go to hospital after being released. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she was able to account for the discrepancy. The applicant responded that she had nothing to explain.

8. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she reported the incident to the police. The applicant told the Tribunal that she had reported the matter to the police but there was no result. The applicant said that she had gone to the police many times but they had never helped. The Tribunal asked the applicant to confirm whether she reported the April 2014 incident. The applicant agreed that she did. The Tribunal put to the applicant that during the departmental interview she had given evidence that she had not reported the April 2014 incident to police because they had not provided her with assistance previously. The applicant indicated that she had no comment.

9. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she had had any contact with her husband since her departure from China. The applicant stated that she had not although [one of her children] had occasional contact with him. The applicant stated that she did not know whether her former husband had remarried.

10. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had now been divorced for over two years and that she had no contact with her former husband in that period. The Tribunal asked the applicant why, in these circumstances, she still feared harm from her former husband. The applicant stated that he was dangerous and crazy.

11. The Tribunal asked the applicant how her husband would locate her if she were to return to China. The applicant told Tribunal that they had mutual friends who would tell him if they saw her. The Tribunal put to the applicant that Australia would only owe her protection obligations if there was no part of China in which she could safely and reasonably reside. The Tribunal asked the applicant if there was any reason why she could not return to another part of China such as Beijing. The applicant told the Tribunal that she would tell their mutual friends where she was and they would tell her former husband. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it had difficulty accepting that she would tell her husband’s friends where she was living if she feared her life was in danger from him. The applicant indicated that she had nothing more to say.

12. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it was having difficulty accepting that she had provided truthful evidence about her personal circumstances and experiences in China owing to a number of inconsistencies in her evidence. The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s evidence with regard to her residential address history, the timing of her separation from her husband, the circumstances of her release in April 2014, whether she had sought medical treatment after her release and whether she had reported the matter to the police had been contradictory. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant’s evidence regarding her employment history had appeared evasive. The Tribunal explained that the effect of these difficulties in the applicant’s evidence was that the Tribunal had serious doubts about whether the applicant was telling the truth. The Tribunal explained that if it was not satisfied that the applicant had provided truthful evidence regarding her experiences in China, the Tribunal may not be satisfied that there was a real chance or risk that the applicant would suffer harm if she were to return to China. The applicant indicated that she had no further response or comment in relation to the Tribunal’s concerns.

13. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether there was any other reason why she did not wish to return to China or anything further that she wished the Tribunal to take into account. The applicant responded that there was not.

    Findings and reasons

14. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has provided truthful evidence regarding her past experiences in China or her personal circumstances. The applicant’s evidence was beset by inconsistencies, lacked detail, at certain points appeared evasive, and in certain aspects lacked plausibility.

15. As discussed with the applicant at hearing, her oral evidence to the Tribunal contradicted her evidence to the Department in relation to several matters of key significance to her claims. The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal indicated that she had separated from her husband in 2009, yet her written evidence clearly suggested that she had left the marital home after a particular incident in October 2012. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s explanation that she had previously separated but that her husband continued to visit adequately accounts for this discrepancy. The applicant’s account of her residential address history has been persistently inconsistent. The applicant’s evidence as to how she supported herself financially in China was particularly evasive.

16. As discussed with the applicant at hearing, her return to China after overseas travel to [Country 1, Country 2] and Australia suggests that she was not fearful for her safety at the times in question. The applicant did not dispute this despite telling the Tribunal that her husband continued to visit her after their separation and was violent towards her during these visits. The applicant’s evidence as to how her husband ‘forcefully’ visited remained opaque despite repeated prompts for more detail.

17. The applicant told the Tribunal that she now feared for her safety as a consequence of an incident in 2014 in which she was drugged, kidnapped, beaten and held captive by her former husband for two days. The applicant’s description of the location in which she was held captive and the circumstances in which she was released appeared to lack plausibility. The applicant gave contradictory evidence with regard to whether her husband had visited her to give her water during the period in which she was held captive. The applicant told the Tribunal that her husband had released her together with her [children], whilst her evidence to the Department suggested that she had been found only by her [children]. The applicant provided contradictory evidence with regard to whether she sought medical treatment and reported the incident to police. The applicant’s claim that she went to hospital for one hour after having been drugged, severely beaten and held captive without food or water for two days was highly dubious. In many instances, the applicant was unable account for the inconsistencies in her evidence at all. The explanations the applicant did provide lacked plausibility in the Tribunal’s assessment.

18. The cumulative effect of the deficiencies in the applicant’s evidence set out above is that the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s claims are credible. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was the victim of domestic violence in the course of her relationship with her second husband or after their separation. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has provided truthful evidence regarding the timing or circumstances of her separation from her second husband. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was drugged, beaten, kidnapped or detained without food or water for two days by her former husband in April 2014. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant sought medical treatment for injuries received at the hands of her former husband or reported her former husband’s treatment of her to the police.

19. In view of these findings as to the applicant’s personal circumstances and past experiences, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance or risk that the applicant’s former husband would harm her if she were to return to China now, or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The applicant has not claimed to fear returning to China on any other basis.

20. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution. 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).

21. 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 there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed to China, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm. Therefore, the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

22. 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

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

    Rachel Homan
    Member