1511617 (Refugee)

1511617 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 3546 (15 March 2016)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1511617
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  India
MEMBER:David Corrigan
DATE:15 March 2016
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 15 March 2016 at 6:35pm
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

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).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of India, applied for the visa [in] November 2012 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] March 2013. On 30 June 2014, the Refugee Review Tribunal (differently constituted) affirmed the decision.
[In] July 2015, the Federal Circuit Court quashed the decision and directed the Tribunal to determine the application according to law.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 11 February 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Tamil and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.
RELEVANT LAW
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.
Refugee criterion
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).
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.
Sections 91R and 91S of the Act qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the Regulations to a particular person.
There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.
Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s.91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve ‘serious harm’ to the applicant (s.91R(1)(b)), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s.91R(1)(c)). Examples of ‘serious harm’ are set out in s.91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.
Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors.
Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition - race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase ‘for reasons of’ serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s.91R(1)(a) of the Act.
Fourth, an applicant’s fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a ‘well-founded’ fear. This adds an objective requirement to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution under the Convention if they have genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted for a Convention stipulated reason. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.
In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. The expression ‘the protection of that country’ in the second limb of Article 1A(2) is concerned with external or diplomatic protection extended to citizens abroad. Internal protection is nevertheless relevant to the first limb of the definition, in particular to whether a fear is well-founded and whether the conduct giving rise to the fear is persecution.
Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.
Complementary protection criterion
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’).
‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s.36(2A): s.5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s.5(1) of the Act.
There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s.36(2B) of the Act.
Section 499 Ministerial Direction
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken 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
I have before me material which includes:
·Application for protection visa with statutory declaration dated [in] November 2012;
·Interview with the delegate dated [in] February 2013;
·Agent’s written submission dated 6 March 2013;
·Statutory declaration of the applicant dated [in] March 2014;
·Agent’s written submission dated 28 March 2014;
·Hearings with previous Tribunal dated 4 and 24 April and 12 June 2014;
·Statutory declaration of the applicant dated [in] April 2014;
·Agent’s written submission dated 18 April 2014;
·Letter from the applicant’s doctor, dated [in] February 2014, stating, inter alia, that the applicant is suffering Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) secondary to being severely beaten at the age of [age] for being a homosexual;
·Agent’s written submission dated 8 May 2014;
·Agent’s written submission dated 5 June 2014;
·Statutory declaration of the applicant dated [in] June 2014;
·Agent’s written submission dated 26 June 2014;
·Agent’s written submission dated 4 February 2016;
·Statutory declaration of the applicant dated [in] February 2016;
·Letter from the applicant’s doctor, dated [in] January 2016, stating, inter alia, that the applicant is suffering from chronic PTSD with Comorbid Major Depression and that he is taking antidepressant medication. It is stated that if he is moved to a country that cannot offer him appropriate treatment his mental state is likely to deteriorate. It is stated if he was not able to obtain his correct medicine he would be at suicide risk and that it would be unreasonable and unsafe to expect him to manage his own medication.
·Agent’s submission dated 25 February 2016.
The applicant’s claims can be summarised as follows. He was born in [a village in Town 1], Tamil Nadu, India in [year]. The applicant realised he was gay when he was [age]. He began a relationship with a man called [Mr A]. He could not tell his parents because they were strict Hindus. In 2001, a neighbour saw the applicant and [Mr A] making love. His father beat him and he became unconscious. He woke up in the home of his local Hindu priest, who also beat him and locked him in a dark room for two days. He was then taken to live with one of his father’s friends called [Mr B] in [Town 2]. He lived with [Mr B] from 2001 to 2006. His father did not want anything to do with him as he believed he shamed the family.
The applicant later met [Mr A] again about three years later. They started dating secretly and hid their relationship and affection. A group of villagers saw the applicant and [Mr A] kissing and tried to attack them. However, the applicant and [Mr A] rode away on their motorbike. Because they were going so fast, they were in an accident and he was knocked unconscious and woke up in hospital. After he was released from hospital, they went to the police to make a complaint against the villagers, however the police refused to assist them and threatened them not to return to their village. [Mr B]’s house was damaged by people who found out about the incident and the applicant told [Mr B] about the incident. [Mr B] said he could not stay there any longer. The applicant moved to a town ([Town 3]) 100 kilometres away. [Mr A] was going to meet him in [Town 3], however [Mr A] never arrived and his phone was disconnected. Upon calling [Mr A]’s workplace to inquire about his whereabouts, the applicant discovered [Mr A]’s sexuality had become known to his employer. The applicant did not hear from him again and fears that [Mr A] was killed though he hopes to be with him one day.
In 2003, the applicant was visiting his parents and was hit by a rickshaw. When the driver recognised the applicant (whom he knew was a homosexual) he became angry and stated that if he saw the applicant again he would aim his rickshaw at him.
The applicant applied for a [temporary] visa to [country] but it was refused. In 2009 he was granted a [temporary] visa to come to Australia.
The applicant fears that people will assume he has HIV/AIDS and treat him as a pariah. He fears he will be forced to marry a woman to appear to be a heterosexual.
It is submitted that the applicant is at risk of harm due his membership of particular social groups consisting of “Indian gay men” and/or “Indian gay men of Tamil ethnicity”, “gay men of Tamil/Indian origin without any family support or social networks” and “gay men of Tamil/Indian origin without any family support or social networks suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder”.
Country of reference
The applicant claim to be an Indian national. Based on the copy of his passport which he has submitted, I find that India is his country of nationality for the purposes of the Convention and that this country is his receiving country under s.36(2)(aa) and s.5 of the Act.
Assessment of claims
Homosexual claims
I have considered carefully the applicant’s claims but I do not consider him a credible witness. I do so for the following reasons:
·The applicant gave significantly inconsistent evidence on a number of important matters. At the hearing when he was asked whether he had made any contact with the gay community in Australia he said “no”, and confirmed that it was “nothing at all”. However, this was inconsistent with his later evidence that he went to two gay events in the city. When this was put to him, he agreed that he had said he had no contact with the gay community. He also told the Tribunal that he did not try to establish contact with the gay community in any other way. However, this was inconsistent with his interview with the delegate where he had stated that that he had went to a gay club in [suburb]. When this was put to him, he agreed he had told the delegate this and then later said he had forgotten about it and that he had attempted suicide and forgot about it (as referred to in the delegate’s decision, a copy of which was submitted to the Tribunal). I have considered his response, but I not accept that he would not be able to recall visiting a gay club or having any contact with the gay community if he actually had. I find these inconsistencies detract substantially from his overall credibility.
·In the applicant’s protection visa application, he stated that from 2003 to 2006 he had worked in the fields as a [occupation] and that he had lived in [Town 2] in from June 2001 to June 2006. He stated he lived in [Town 3] from June 2006 to June 2009. However (as referred to in the delegate’s decision, a copy of which was submitted to the Tribunal), in his [temporary] visa application made in 2009 (which he signed), he stated that he was employed in a company called [name] based in [Town 1] since 2003 and that his then current address was in [Town 1]. When this was put to him, he stated he did not complete the application form. He said his mother’s relative and others contacted an agent and they did all the paperwork. I have considered this explanation but I do not find it credible that he did not know what was in the [temporary] visa application given he had signed it. [Town 1] and [Town 3] are 153kms apart[1] and the information in the [temporary] visa application contradicts his claims to have had to move to and live in [Town 3] due to the claimed gay relationship with [Mr A]. I find this matter detracts substantially from his overall credibility.
·The applicant arrived in Australia [in] June 2009 on a [temporary] visa that ceased [in] August 2010 (as referred to in the delegate’s decision, a copy of which was submitted to the Tribunal). However, he did not apply for his protection visa until [November] 2012 despite his claims to fear harm as a gay person in India and to have suffered very serious incidents of harm. At the hearing, the applicant commented that when he arrived in Australia, he [did] not know the rules. He told the delegate (as referred to in the delegate’s decision, a copy of which was submitted to the Tribunal) that he did not know he could apply for protection until he was told by a friend. It was submitted by his agents that he had instructed that he had never heard of protection visas until he was referred to the [agency]. I have considered these explanations but I do not consider them to be plausible or credible. The applicant speaks English and he told the Tribunal that he did not contact the Department of Immigration about his circumstances. The applicant told the Tribunal that he was under the impression that his [temporary] visa lasted for two years but he did not properly read it. However, a long period of time elapsed between the expiry of his [temporary] visa and his application for the protection visa (and would have been even if he thought the [temporary] visa application was valid for two years) and I do not find his explanations at all plausible or credible. I find these matters detract substantially from his credibility.
·The applicant arrived in Australia in June 2009, yet on his own (inconsistent) evidence, he has only had very limited contact with the gay community and has not had any gay relationships and did not know anybody who is gay. The applicant commented that there was no necessity for him to do that and his culture was different. He later said he did not easily mingle with others and gets scared when he sees a crowd. He claimed that when he attended a gay event in the city, sexual advances were made to him and he did not feel comfortable contacting the gay community in Australia. At the interview with the delegate, (as referred to in the delegate’s decision, a copy of which was submitted to the Tribunal) he stated that he had not made any contact with the gay community in Australia as he was waiting for the right man and hoped to be reunited with [Mr A] one day. I have considered these comments and the agent’s submissions concerning statements in the UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection based on Sexual Orientation and a UK Home Office report on Sexual Orientation Issues in Asylum Claims. I have taken into account that the social and cultural background of an applicant may affect how the person self identifies and that the focus for decision-makers should be on a person’s identity and not whether that identity is manifested in sexual acts. I have taken into account decision-makers should not rely on stereotypical or cultural inappropriate assumptions and that an applicant may be fearful of acting on his sexual orientation. I have also taken into account the agent’s submission at the interview with the delegate that the applicant had developed avoidance towards loud environments after being traumatised witnessing the harm of a gay man in his village. I have also taken into account that the applicant has been diagnosed with chronic PTSD with Comorbid Major Depression. However, the applicant has now been in Australia for a very long time and on his own (inconsistent) evidence, taken at its best, his contact with the Australian gay community has been very limited. He has not made any effort to seek the assistance, contact or involvement with the gay community or its support agencies which can be done without going into noisy environments. His claimed relationship with [Mr A], ended a decade ago. I consider these matters detract from his credibility to be a gay man.
[1] [Information deleted].

Given these highly significant concerns about his credibility, I do not accept that the applicant is gay. I do not accept that the applicant was ever in a gay relationship with a man called [Mr A]. I do not accept that in 2001, a neighbour saw the applicant and [Mr A] making love. I do not accept that his father beat him and he became unconscious. I do not accept that he woke up in the home of his local Hindu priest, who also beat him and locked him in a dark room for two days. I do not accept that he was then taken to live with one of his father’s friends called [Mr B] in [Town 2] and that he lived with [Mr B] from 2001 to 2006. I do not accept that his father did not want anything to do with him as he believed he shamed the family.
I do not accept that the applicant later met [Mr A] again about three years later and that they started dating secretly and hid their relationship and affection. I do not accept that a group of villagers saw the applicant and [Mr A] kissing and tried to attack them and the applicant and [Mr A] rode away on their motorbike. I do not accept that because they were going so fast, they were in an accident and he was knocked unconscious and woke up in hospital. I do not accept that after he was released from hospital, they went to the police to make a complaint against the villagers, however the police refused to assist them and threatened them not to return to their village. I do not accept that [Mr B]’s house was damaged by people who found out about the incident and the applicant told [Mr B] about the incident. I do not accept that [Mr B] said he could not stay there any longer. I do not accept that the applicant moved to [Town 3]. I do not accept that [Mr A] was going to meet him in [Town 3], however [Mr A] never arrived and his phone was disconnected. I do not accept upon calling [Mr A]’s workplace to inquire about his whereabouts, the applicant discovered [Mr A]’s sexuality had become known to his employer. I do not accept that the applicant did not hear from him again and fears that [Mr A] was killed though he hopes to be with him one day.
I do not accept that in 2003, the applicant was visiting his parents and was hit by a rickshaw. and when the driver recognised the applicant (whom he knew was a homosexual) he became angry and stated that if he saw the applicant again he would aim his rickshaw at him.
As he is not gay, I do not accept that people will assume the applicant has HIV/AIDS and treat him as a pariah. I do not accept that he will be forced to marry a woman to appear to be a heterosexual. I do not accept that he is or ever has been of adverse interest to anyone. I do not accept that the applicant is member of particular social groups consisting of “Indian gay men” and/or “Indian gay men of Tamil ethnicity”, “gay men of Tamil/Indian origin without any family support or social networks” and “gay men of Tamil/Indian origin without any family support or social networks suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder”.
In making my findings, I have taken into account the letters from the applicant’s doctor, stating, inter alia, that the applicant is suffering from chronic PTSD with Comorbid Major Depression and that he is taking antidepressant medication and opining this arose from being severely beaten at the age of [age] for being a homosexual. I accept that he suffers from these conditions and is taking such medication; however these letters and these health conditions do not overcome the highly significant concerns I have about the applicant’s credibility that are set out above.
In making my findings, I have taken into account the Tribunal’s Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility (including the effects of anxiety and trauma on applicants and the passage of time) and the Tribunal’s Guidance on Vulnerable Persons. However, these do not overcome the highly significant concerns I have about the applicant’s credibility that are set out above.
Based on his individual circumstances, I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of persecution on account of membership of particular social groups consisting of “Indian gay men” and/or “Indian gay men of Tamil ethnicity”, “gay men of Tamil/Indian origin without any family support or social networks” and “gay men of Tamil/Indian origin without any family support or social networks suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder” or any other Convention or non-Convention reason, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future from the authorities, his father or anyone else.
Based on his individual circumstances and the overall weight of the country information, I find that there are not substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to India that there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm on these bases.
Mental health claims
Based on the medical evidence, I accept that the applicant is suffering from chronic PTSD with Comorbid Major Depression and that he is taking antidepressant medication and I accept that if he moves to a country that cannot offer him appropriate medical treatment his mental state will be likely to deteriorate.
I have taken into account the reports referred to in the agent’s written submissions concerning the inadequacy of mental health services in India. However, country information indicates that India is a poor country that ranks 135 out of 187 in the United Nations Human Development Index for 2014 and that many people lack access to affordable public health care.[2] Whilst mental health services are limited, the Indian government has taken steps to improve the situation as indicated by the issuing of a national mental health policy in October 2014 which identifies strategic areas for action including effective governance and accountability, promotion of mental health, prevention of mental disorders and suicide, universal access to mental health services, enhanced availability of human resources for mental health, community participation, research, monitoring and evaluation.[3]
[2] Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report India, 15 July 2015.
[3] Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, New Pathways New Hope, National Mental Health Policy of India, October 2014.
Country information also indicates that some mental health services are available. For example, the UK Home Office provides the following information on access to mental health care:
Government funding for mental health services were offered both by the states and the centre. Services offered at Government health centres were free. In the 10th Five Year Plan estimates, mental health constituted 2.05% of the total plan outlay for health. The country had disability benefits for persons with mental disorders. Details about disability benefits for mental health were not available. Disability benefits had become available recently and in a limited way.[4]
[4] UK Home Office 2012, Operational Guidance Note – India, June, p.24 < Accessed 27 June 2012.
The main avenue of public mental health care currently open to Indian citizens is the District Mental Health Programme (DMHP), which was launched in 1997.[5] The DMHP aims to identify individuals suffering from mental health issues and refer them for appropriate treatment.[6] Regarding accessibility, a 2008 draft DMHP implementation manual, produced by the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro-Sciences states that anybody with a mental health issue “can avail this service from their nearby Government hospital on any working [sic] from Monday to Saturday. All patients diagnosed with one or the other mental health problems will be dispensed free drugs at the hospital pharmacy for a period of one month”.[7]
[5] Kakuma, R et al 2011, ‘Human resources for mental health care: current situation and strategies for action’, The Lancet, vol. 378, no. 9803, 5 November, World Health Organisation, p.1658 < Accessed 19 February 2013.
[6] Shenoy, J 2013, ‘District mental health programme for all districts in Karnataka’, The Times of India, 5 January < Accessed 20 February 2013.
[7] National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences 2008, Information Education and Communication Manual for DMHP, First Draft, n.p. < Accessed 20 February 2013.
I find that the country information viewed as a whole, does not indicate that there is a real chance that any of the problems he faces accessing mental health care will be due to any systematic and discriminatory conduct by any actor for a reason under the Convention as required by s.91R(1)(c) of the Act but will rather be due to the poor economic situation of India and the lack of resources in the Indian public health (including mental health) system. As I do not accept that he is a homosexual, I do not accept that this concern will prevent him from accessing the mental health services that are available or that he will suffer any discrimination or harm on this basis from anyone in the Indian medical system or anyone else. I do not accept that any of the problems he faces accessing mental health care will involve systematic and discriminatory conduct as required by s.91R(1)(c) of the Act or be due to his membership of a particular social group consisting of “persons in India suffering mental illness” or any other Convention reason, from the state or any other actor.
Furthermore, the country information viewed as a whole and his individual circumstances do not indicate that he faces a real risk of being arbitrarily deprived of his life, having the death penalty carried out on him or being subjected to torture. It does not establish that there is a real risk that the problems he faces accessing mental health services would be as a result of any intentional act or omission by the state or any actor so as to constitute either cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or degrading treatment or punishment. I have also taken into account that the Complementary Protection Guidelines state that the absence or inadequacy of medical treatment would not be generally inconsistent with Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and this would not constitute cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or degrading treatment or punishment. I find that the risk of him being subject to significant harm on any of these bases is remote.
Considering the applicants’ individual circumstances and the independent country information, I find that there are not substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to India that there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm on this basis.
Cumulative assessment
Considering the applicant’s individual circumstances and the independent country information cumulatively, I find that he does not face a real chance of persecution in the reasonably foreseeable future for any Convention reason. His fear of persecution is not well-founded.
Considering the applicant’s individual circumstances and the independent country information cumulatively, I find that there are not substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to India that there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.
Conclusions
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).
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).
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
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.
David Corrigan
Member

[2016] AATA 3546

15 March 2016

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice