1509937 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 309

1509937 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 309 (27 February 2017)

.

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1509937

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Pakistan

MEMBER:Roslyn Smidt

DATE:27 February 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 27 February 2017 at 3:25pm

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Pakistan – Social group – Successful businessman – Political opinion – MQM member –Taliban attacks – Credibility issues

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958

, ss 36, 65, 438(1)(a), 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 is a citizen of Pakistan, applied for the visa [in] September 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] July 2015.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 9 January 2017 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Urdu and English languages.

4. The applicant was represented in relation to the review.

   THE RELEVANT LAW

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:

8. 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.

9. 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’).

10. 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.

    Non-disclosure certificates

11. The Department's file contains a non-disclosure certificate issued pursuant to s438(1)(a) of the Act. The documents covered by the certificate are as follows:

    ·     [Details deleted].

12. According to the certificate the disclosure of this information would be contrary to the public interest because the documents contain information relating to an internal working document and business affairs.  The reason specified in the certificate that the disclosure of the matters contained in the documents would be contrary to the public interest could not form the basis for a claim by the Crown in right of the Commonwealth in a judicial proceeding that the matters should not be disclosed, and they were not given to the Minister or an officer of the Department in confidence.  The Tribunal considers that these documents are not covered by public interest immunity and thus the certificate is not a valid certificate.

13. These documents are not relevant to the matters to be determined by the Tribunal. As the documents are not relevant the Tribunal has not taken any action to make the applicant aware of the certificate.

    CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

    Background

14. The applicant is a [age] year old divorced man of Sunni Muslim religion from Karachi in Pakistan. He has completed a degree in [a tertiary course]. For about 7 or 8 years prior to arriving in Australia he owned and operated [a shop].  The shop had been operating for about 7 or 8 years when he left Pakistan and was doing well and employed about [number] workers.

15. The applicant’s former wife and [child] reside in [another country] where his wife is a national. He resided in [that country] in 2012/2013. He lived with his parents in Karachi prior to coming to Australia. He has one [sibling] in Australia. His parents and [other siblings] reside in Karachi in Pakistan. His father is retired and his [siblings] are married to [people] who worked as employees.

16. The applicant visited Australia on a number of occasions between 1997 and 2014. Most recently he arrived [in] February 2014 and returned to Pakistan [in] May 2014 before entering Australia again [in] June 2014.

    Fears of extortion

17. The applicant claims to be at risk of being killed or suffering other serious harm from the Taliban because he has not paid them money which they attempted to extort from him in 2014. He claims that he was targeted for extortion because he had a successful business and also claims that he would not be safe anywhere in Pakistan because the Taliban operate throughout the country and the authorities cannot or will not protect him.

18. In his protection visa application provided [in] September 2014 the applicant said that he feared the Taliban would harm him if he returned to Pakistan. He said that his life was in danger because people had threatened him, assaulted him, stolen from his [shop], tried to kill him and asked him for money.  He also claimed that he was an active member of the MQM, the fourth largest secular political party in Pakistan. He indicated that a detailed letter of claims was attached to his file, but the only documents were his divorce papers and several newspaper articles on violence in Karachi.

19. The applicant was interviewed by a delegate of the Minister [in] June 2015. He claimed that he had received a threatening letter from the Taliban in about February or March 2014 demanding he pay [amount] Lak rupees. To begin with he thought it was a joke, but the following day he received a telephone call telling him he had to pay the amount demanded within two days. He told the caller he did not have the money. Late that night [number] men drove into his [shop]. They wound down the window and showed him a gun, laughed at him and then drove away.  

20. The next day at about 2 pm he received another call from someone demanding that he pay the money that day.  He told them that he could not pay.  At about 11 pm that night a car drove into his [shop]. There were [number] men in the car. They all had long beards, long robes and turbans. The applicant was sitting in a chair preparing invoices.  One man got out of the car, took a gun out of his jacket and fired at the applicant. The man thought he had hit the applicant, but he had missed. The applicant rolled backwards out of his chair and crawled out the shop and hid in a drain behind the building overnight. When he got up he realised that his shop had been burned down. He went to his [relative]’s house and from there to the police where he lodged an FIR on the incident. The police told him that they had gone to his shop during the night and asked why he had not reported the incident earlier. He told them that he had been afraid and had been hiding. They told him that they would make inquiries and find out who was responsible. He said that he had contacted someone in Pakistan who was arranging for the police to provide a copy of the FIR.

21. When asked if he had any other reasons for fearing to return to Pakistan the applicant said that the attack on his [shop] was the main reason. He added that he believed that the Taliban would have continued to pursue him if he had not fled.

22. The delegate asked the applicant to confirm that his business had been destroyed in February or March 2014. He said that this was correct. The delegate noted that the applicant had been in Australia from February to [May] 2014. The applicant said that the incident had occurred after he returned to Pakistan in May 2014 and he had been confused about the dates.

23. The applicant claimed that relatives had told him that since his departure from Pakistan the Taliban had been monitoring his parents and they had come to his house to check on his whereabouts. However, he also said that none of his family members had been harmed since he departed.

24. The applicant said that he believed that the Taliban was a large organisation with many resources and he believed that they would pursue him even if he relocated to a different part of the country. He also said that he did not believe that the police could protect him anywhere in Pakistan as they could not even protect themselves.

25. The delegate expressed some doubts about the veracity of the applicant’s claims, and found that in any event he could relocate to another area in Pakistan to avoid being harmed in Karachi.

26. The applicant attended a hearing of the Tribunal on 9 January 2017. He again claimed that he had been targeted by the Taliban who were attempting to extort money from him. When asked why he had been targeted by the Taliban he said that it was because he was a successful businessman. When asked how he knew that the demands and threats came from the Taliban he said the men looked and dressed like Taliban members and only the Taliban engaged in these practices.

27. The applicant said that he had received a letter which demanded he pay [amount] lak rupees and instructed him to call a telephone number to arrange payment. At 11 pm the same day he received a telephone call from an unidentified person who said that he had not called the number and threatened to kill him if he did not pay the money within two days or if he went to the police. He could not afford [amount] lak rupees and told the caller that he could only afford about [amount] lak rupees and that he would need more time to raise that amount, but the caller did not accept that proposal.

28. The applicant spoke to his father and others who advised him to go to the police, which he did the following day. The police said that they would look into the matter.

29. At about 11 am on the next day [number] bearded men who looked like Taliban stopped in front of the applicant’s [shop] for about a minute or two. He was able to observe them because the front of his [shop] consisted of roller doors which were completely open during the day and his desk was at the front of the [shop].  Later that day the applicant received another phone call from an unidentified man who told him the men in the car were the extortionists and that he must pay the money by the following night or he would be responsible for the consequences. The caller also accused him of informing the police of their demands and said that if he did not pay he would be killed and his business would be destroyed. He apologised for contacting the police and again attempted unsuccessfully to negotiate to pay less money at a later date.

30. The following day at 10 or 11 pm the men in the car returned to the applicant’s [shop]. The applicant and his employees were working late and there were also several customers in the shop. All the other shops in the area were closed. The applicant was seated at his desk. One of the men got out of the car, took a pistol out of his jacket and walked towards the applicant.  He fired three shots at the applicant who ran towards the back of the shop. I observed that it seemed strange that the man had not managed to shoot him if this had been his intention. The applicant said that there had been a considerable distance between him and the gunman as there were a number of [objects] in the shop. I noted that he had previously stated that his desk was at the front of the shop and he appeared to have changed his evidence. The applicant said that there were [objects] in front of his desk, but he could see the man through the car. He observed he man walking towards him and taking a gun out of his jacket at which point he started to run and then the man began to fire at him from a distance. He ran through [the] back of his shop and hid in a sewerage drain which was located about 25 or 30 metres from his shop, behind another row of shops. 

31. The applicant remained in the drain until morning because he was very frightened. He did not hear or see anything happening at his shop while he was hiding the in the drain. He could not contact anyone because he had left his phone in the [shop] and could not use his car to escape because it was also in the [shop]. Later in the hearing he said that his car had been in a parking lot outside the [shop], but the keys were in the [shop].

32. When asked what his staff had told him about what happened after he ran away the applicant said that the men had not fired at anyone else. They got into their car and drove towards the back of the shop. After that his workers closed the shop and left. They did not call the police or look for the applicant. The applicant said he did not know why his   employees had not called the police or done anything to locate him. He said that he was later told that someone else must have told the police what had happened as they came to the [shop] after the shots were fired.

33. The next morning the applicant got out of the drain. He did not inspect his shop but walked about five kilometres to a friend’s house. He did not go to his home, which was located about [number] kilometres away, because the Taliban knew his address. From his friend’s house he was finally able to contact someone and found out that his [shop] had been burned down. He stayed with his friend for 2 or three days. His parents told him that the street guard had told them that a car with people who looked like Taliban members was stopping in front of his house. He had a visa for Australia so he bought a ticket and left immediately.

34. The applicant confirmed that he had not contacted the police after he was attacked at his [shop]. When asked how he knew that the police had gone to his [shop] after the attack, he said that his friend had asked around and obtained this information. He added that he had not been able to contact his employees because their numbers were in his telephone which was destroyed in the fire. He said that his father had gone to police a day or two after the event. His father was told that the police were trying to catch the culprits and would inform him if they had any news.

35. The applicant claimed that a month or two before the hearing (in about January 2017) the police had told his father that they had caught some people they believed were responsible for the attack, but he was the only one who could identify them. He added he was not sure if they had arrested the right people and added that he had asked his father to obtain photographs of the men so he could check, but his father was too ill to go to the police station to collect them. I observed that if the police had arrested the people responsible for the attack on his business it appeared that he would not be at risk of harm if he returned to Pakistan. He said that the Taliban was a large group with contacts throughout the country and he would not be safe anywhere in Pakistan if he returned to his homeland.

36. I asked the applicant why he believed he had been targeted by the Taliban. He said that they had targeted him because he was a successful businessman.

37. I asked the applicant why he had not relocated to another part of Pakistan where he would be safe. He said that he came to Australia because he had a [sibling] who could support him.

38. I advised the applicant that I had difficulty accepting his claims about being attacked by members of the Taliban who were attempting to extort money from him as there were a number of inconsistencies in the evidence he had provided to the Department and the Tribunal and I found aspects of his evidence implausible. The applicant maintained that he had told the truth.

39. I noted that the applicant had claimed that only the Taliban were involved in extortion of the kind he had experienced, but he did not appear to have any evidence to support this claim. I also advised him that while I was aware that the Taliban carried out terrorist attacks in Pakistan and also aware that successful businessmen in Karachi were targeted for extortion by criminal gangs often associated with some political parties I was not aware of any evidence which indicated that the Taliban were generally responsible for extortion of Sunni businessmen of the kind he had described. He maintained that his claims were true and said that he based his belief that the men who were extorting him were from the Taliban on the appearance of the men who had attacked him.

40. I asked the applicant if his family had experienced any problems since his departure from Pakistan. He said that apart from the normal difficulties of living in Karachi they had not experienced any problems because none of them were in business. I observed that this appeared to be at odds with his evidence to the Department when he said that his relatives had told him that the Taliban had been monitoring his parents and they had come to his house to check on his whereabouts. The applicant said that the street guard had told his parents that a car containing people who looked like Taliban had come to his parent’s house and stopped outside for a brief period before driving on.

41. The applicant’s Australian [sibling] also gave evidence at the hearing. [He/she] said that [he/she] had been a regular visitor to Pakistan for 25 years. [He/she] said that from [his/her] observations there was still violence in Karachi and noted in particular that the MQM still had a presence in the city. I noted that the applicant had stated that he did not have problems relating to the MQM. He added that there were bomb blasts and shootings in Karachi.

42. I advised the applicant that I accepted that there continued to be violence in Karachi including shooting and bomb blasts and that the Taliban had been responsible for terrorist attacks in the city. I was also aware that it was not uncommon for businessmen to be extorted for money by criminals who were often linked to political parties. However, it was also my understanding that recent government campaigns had resulted in a significant reduction in criminal violence and terrorist attacks in the area.

1. The applicant’s representative asked for the opportunity to respond to the matters raised in the hearing in writing. He noted that he had only been appointed to represent the applicant about two weeks before the hearing and said that he wished to apply for a copy of his Department file under FOI before preparing these submissions. I advised him that I would provide him with a copy of the applicant’s submissions to the Department and a copy of the recording of his interview with the delegate to assist him in preparing his submissions and agreed allow him three weeks to provide submissions. On 12 January 2017 the Tribunal emailed a copy of the applicant’s protection visa application and a copy of the recording of his interview with the delegate to his representative.

2. On 6 February 2017 the applicant provided a submission in which he stated that he was aware that there were differences between his statement and the evidence provided at the hearing but said that this occurred because he became frightened whenever he recalled the May 2014 incidence and as a result he was stressed and confused. However, he provided no clarification regarding which version of events was correct.

3. The applicant also provided a copy of a translation of statement dated [June] 2014 which was stamped by a Pakistani notary public [in] July 2015. It appears to have been sent to the Pakistan police as it requests that the police protect him. It states that 15 days after returning to Karachi [in] May 2014 he found a letter at his [shop] which instructed him to contact a particular telephone number urgently. The following day he received a call from someone who demanded [amount] lak rupees extortion money to be delivered to an address which would be provided later. The caller also threatened to kill him and burn down his [shop] if he did not pay the money demanded or if he approached the police. The following day at 11 am a car with [number] bearded men stopped outside his shop for a long time. After a while he received another telephone call telling him to pay the money the following day or be killed. He told them he could not raise the required sum at such short notice. That night at 10 pm the car returned to his [shop] and one man got out and fired three shots at him but missed. The man left immediately. He ran out of the shop and hid behind a sewerage line where he lost consciousness.

4. Finally the applicant provided a document dated [December] 2016 and an English translation which states that the applicant’s father had inquired about the case and been told that the police were looking for the culprits. It advises the applicant not to return to Pakistan until the culprits are caught, but adds that the police have found some clues and are confident they will be found shortly. It is signed by the duty officer in [location] Karachi.

5. After considering all of the relevant evidence I do not accept that the applicant was extorted for money by the Taliban or anyone else in May 2014 or that someone tried to kill him and his [shop] was burned down because he did not pay the money demanded.

6. In the first place, as discussed at the hearing and acknowledged in the applicant’s statement dated 6 February 2017 there are inconsistencies in the evidence which the applicant has provided to the Department and the Tribunal.

7. The applicant has given differing accounts of the sequence of events after he received the letter demanding [amount] lak rupees.  He told the delegate that he received the first threatening call on the same day as the letter, but told me that he received the telephone call the following day. More significantly, he told the delegate that [number] men had first visited his [shop] at night, but at the hearing and in the statement dated 29 June 2014 but provided following the hearing he said that the men had come to his [shop] in the morning. While I would have been prepared to accept that the differing evidence regarding when the applicant first received a telephone call and when the men first came to his [shop] was the result of confusion or poor memory, I do not accept that the applicant would have been failed to recall whether the men came to his [shop] during the morning or at night.

8. Early in the hearing the applicant said that he could observe the men who came to his [shop] in the morning because his desk was located at the front of the [shop]. Later in the hearing he said that he his desk was located behind [in the shop].  

9. The applicant has given differing accounts of the events of the night he was allegedly attacked. He told the delegate that a man had fired at him causing him to fall off his chair after which he crawled out of his [shop], that he hid overnight in a drain and woke up to discover that his [shop] had been burned down.  At the hearing he said that he had run out of the building when he saw the man approaching and was already running when the shots were fired, but modified his evidence when I pointed out that this differed from the account he had given the delegate. He claimed that he did not become aware that his [shop] had been burned down until after he arrived at his [relative]’s house. The statement dated 29 June 2014 but provided after the hearing states that he ran out of the building, but not until after the gunman had departed. I do not accept that the applicant would have been able to recall whether he ran or crawled out of his [shop] or whether he did this before or after the man who attempted to kill him had departed.

10. The applicant has given different accounts of his contact with the police in May 2014.  He told the delegate that he had gone to the police station to lodge an FIR the day after the attack on his [shop] and related details of a conversation with police during which he was told that police had been visited his [shop] following the attack.  At the hearing he said that he had reported the threatening letter and telephone calls to the police before he was attacked but he had not gone to the police after the attack.  I do not accept that the applicant would have forgotten or been confused about when he contacted the police or when he first realised his [shop] had been destroyed.

11. Some of these discrepancies are minor and considered in isolation would not have caused me to dismiss the applicant’s claims. However, others are more significant and overall I find them a clear indication that he has not provided honest evidence regarding his reasons for leaving Pakistan.

12. Secondly, I found much of the applicant’s evidence at the hearing confused and unconvincing.  For example, when asked what his employees had told him happened after he fled from his [shop], the applicant said that his attackers had not fired anymore shots but had left and driven towards the back of the shop and that his employees had closed the shop and left. However, later in the hearing he said that he had not been able to contact his employees because he did not have their numbers and his friend had found out what happened on the night of the attack by asking around.

13. Thirdly, I found aspects of the applicant’s evidence far-fetched and implausible.  It is not plausible that the applicant hid overnight in a drain or sewer about 25 metres from his [shop] but failed to notice that his [shop] had been burned to the ground or that the police and fire services had come to investigate what had happened during the night, as claimed at the hearing. I also find the applicant’s claim that his employees closed the [shop] after he fled but failed to contact the police to report the attack and request assistance implausible.

14. After considering all of the relevant evidence, I do not accept that the applicant was threatened and attacked by extortionists from the Taliban or extortionists of any kind in Pakistan in May 2014. I find that these claims were concocted in order to support his application for protection in Australia.

15. As I do not accept that the applicant was targeted by extortionists in May 2014 it follows that I do not accept that the Taliban or anyone else is monitoring his family in Pakistan or that suspects were recently detained by the police in his local area.

16. In reaching this conclusion I have noted the applicant’s claim that the inconsistencies in his evidence were the result of fear and stress. However, while I acknowledge that interviews and hearings can be stressful for applicants, the applicant did not appear to have difficulty recounting his claims during the hearing and I do not accept that the inconsistencies and other inadequacies in the applicant’s evidence set out above are the result of fear or stress.

17. I have also noted the letter dated [in] December 2016 signed by a police officer in Karachi which was provided after the hearing. However, the letter has no corroborative value. It merely states that the police have clues relating to suspects in a case, but says nothing about the nature of the crime they had allegedly committed or when it occurred. In these circumstances and in light of my findings on the applicant’s overall credibility I have given no weight to this letter.

    Claims relating to MQM

18. In his protection visa application the applicant claimed that he was at risk of harm from the Taliban because he was an active member of the MQM. In his written application to the Tribunal he said that he feared he would be persecuted if he returned to Pakistan because of his political opinion. At the hearing it was established that he had been a supporter of the MQM but had never joined the party, that he had never experienced any significant problems because of his association with the group and that he did not fear that he would be harmed on return to Pakistan because he supported the MQM and that he only feared returning to Pakistan because he had been targeted for extortion by the Taliban because of his perceived wealth.  It is clear that the applicant has abandoned the claim that he is at risk of harm in Pakistan for reasons of his association with the MQM and there is no evidence before me which suggests that he has had any other involvement in politics or experienced any problems because of any political opinions he holds or is perceived to hold. Therefore I am not satisfied that he faces a real chance of being persecuted on return to Pakistan for reasons of political opinion.

    General violence and crime in Karachi

19. Finally, I have considered whether there is a real chance that the applicant would suffer serious or significant harm on return to Pakistan because of the general violence in the city including terrorist attacks by groups such as the Taliban or criminal acts such as extortion.

20. While I accept that the Taliban and other groups have carried out attacks in Karachi neither there is no credible evidence  before me which suggests that the applicant or any member of his family has been targeted by terrorist groups or harmed as a result of general violence and I am unaware of any evidence which suggests that residents of Karachi, which has a population of about 25 million people, are generally at risk of serious or significant harm as a result of violence committed by terrorists or extremists. In these circumstances I am not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious or significant harm on return to Pakistan for any reason related to terrorists or extremist violence in the city.l

21. With regard to the issue of targeting of successful businessmen by extortionist, as discussed above I do not accept that the applicant was extorted for money by the Taliban or anyone else prior to his departure from Karachi. Furthermore, while I acknowledge that extortion of successful businessmen is not uncommon, I am not aware of any evidence which suggests that people who run businesses such as the [shop] operated by the applicant prior to his departure from Pakistan are generally at risk of serious or significant harm from extortionist. In the applicant’s case he appears to have operated a successful business for over 10 years in Pakistan without experiencing any problems with extortionists. In these circumstances and in light of the fact that the incidence of such crimes has fallen since his departure, I am not satisfied that he faces a real chance of experiencing serious or significant harm from extortionist or any other criminals if he returns to Pakistan.

22. Does the applicant have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason in Pakistan?

23. There is no credible evidence before me which suggests that the applicant faces a real chance of suffering serious harm amounting to persecution if he returns to Pakistan in the reasonably foreseeable future.   I am therefore not satisfied that he has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason and he is thus not is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. He does not satisfy the criteria set out in s.36(2)(a).

    Does the applicant meet the complementary protection criteria?

24. There is no credible evidence before me which suggests that  there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence being removed from Australia to Pakistan, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm

    CONCLUSIONS

25. 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).

26. 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).

27. 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

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

    Roslyn Smidt
    Member