1512556 (Refugee)

1512556 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 3780 (3 August 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION: Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER: 1512556

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: India

MEMBER: Ms Christine Long

DATE: 3 August 2020

PLACE OF DECISION: Sydney

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

Statement made on 03 August 2020 at 5:29pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – India – female child – parents’ love marriage – inter caste and inter religion marriage – Sikh – Hindu Baniya – honour killings – gender-based violence – mother’s mental health condition – credibility concerns – voluntary return to India – delay in seeking protection – inconsistent evidence – bogus document in father’s previous skilled visa application – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65, 438
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

CASES
MIBP v SZMTA; CQZ15 v MIBP; BEG15 v MIBP [2019] HCA 3
MZAFZ v MIBP [2016] FCA 1081

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.

In accordance with s.431 of the Migration Act 1958, the Tribunal will not publish any statement

which may identify the applicant or any relative or dependant of the applicant.

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 and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under
s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

The applicant who is a citizen of India applied for the visa on 1 July 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa on 27 August 2015.

The applicant, who is a minor, born in Australia on [date], did not appear before the Tribunal but her father represented her in relation to the review at Tribunal hearings on 20 February and 10 December 2019 to give evidence and present arguments on her behalf. The Tribunal hearings were conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Hindi and English languages; the applicant’s father who speaks English relied on the use of the interpreter when/if he needed to do so.

CRITERIA FOR PROTECTION VISA

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.

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.

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’).

In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments 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.

CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

The Tribunal has before it the applicant’s Departmental protection visa file which includes her application for the visa made 1 July 2014 and various documents in support thereof including a copy of her birth certificate, a copy of her passport, a copy of her parents’ marriage certificate, certain medical records relating to the applicant’s mother and also a copy of the delegate’s decision record. The delegate’s decision record sets out the applicant’s parents’ migration history and states, among other things, that the applicant’s mother lodged a protection visa application herself on 28 February 2013.

The Tribunal also has before it the applicant’s application to this Tribunal for the review of the decision of the delegate to refuse her application for the visa, plus documents and materials in support of that application.

The applicant provided to the Tribunal a copy of the delegate’s decision record refusing her the visa.

The Tribunal also has before it the applicant’s mother’s Departmental protection visa application file, which includes a copy of the delegate’s decision record dated 15 August 2013 refusing to grant the applicant’s mother a protection visa. The Tribunal also has before it the applicant’s mother’s Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) file in relation to the review of the delegate’s decision to refuse her a protection visa which includes a copy of the RRT member’s decision record dated 5 June 2014 affirming the delegate’s decision to refuse the protection visa for the applicant’s mother.

The Tribunal also has before it a copy of the applicant’s father’s Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) file ([case number]) which includes a decision of that Tribunal, made [in] March 2014, to affirm a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration made [in] November 2013 to refuse to grant the applicant’s father a [skilled] visa.

Claims in Application for Protection visa made 1 July 2014

The following details are contained in the applicant’s application for protection visa which are included in her departmental file. The applicant was born in NSW Australia in [month, year]. Her religion is Hindi and the ethnic group to which she belongs is Baniya. She is an Indian citizen. She has never travelled to India. Her parents “did love marriage” and her mother’s family is against the marriage. Her maternal grandparents have told her mother that if she and the applicant return to India the grandparents/family will kill them. Her paternal grandmother was in Australia when she (the applicant) was born but did not accept the applicant because she is a girl and the grandmother wanted a boy. The applicant’s father’s family will not accept the applicant because they want a boy and they are trying to kill the applicant or “throw her(out)”. This is gender inequality which is prevalent in India; India is a male dominated and crime against women is high.

The applicant’s mother is not mentally well to take care of her and protect her.

The applicant fears harm from her maternal and paternal family members and also Indian society. Her father’s family will not accept her as she is a girl, her mother’s family has threatened to kill her and her mother, and Indian society considers giving birth to a girl is a bad thing.

The authorities in India cannot protect the applicant as there is a lot of corruption in India and the applicant’s mother’s family have very high connections in the police so the applicant will not be able to get help from them. The “crime ratio’ about girls is high. It is a long process to get help from non government organisations and they cannot protect the applicant for her whole life.

Copies of the following documents provided in support of the applicant’s claims are on the department’s file - her birth certificate showing she was born in [Hospital 1] in NSW on [date]; the marriage certificate of her father and mother showing they were married in Queensland [in] December 2012; copies of pages of the Indian passports of the applicant’s parents; various medical records of the applicant’s mother in relation to her mental health and treatment from NSW Health dated in 2014, a medical certificate for the applicant’s mother dated 22 May 2014 from NSW Health, a psychologist’s report dated 17 May 2014 in relation to the applicant’s mother; a document called a “safety plan” from NSW Family and Community Services dated June 2014 in relation to the applicant’s mother.

The father of the applicant was invited to an interview with the delegate and this took place on 23 April 2015. The interview with the applicant’s father is referred to in the delegate’s decision record but it is noted there as having taken place on 23 April 2014 which appears to be a typographical error; a copy of the delegate’s decision record was provided to the Tribunal by the applicant. The applicant’s father submitted a written statement of claims by him (undated) and further documents in support of the applicant’s claims.

It is submitted in the father’s statement that the applicant’s parents are from different castes and religions, the mother being Sikh and the father being Hindu Baniya. It is submitted that the parents of the applicant married (“we did love marriage”) against the wishes of the mother’s family and they are threatening all of the family that they will kill them (the applicant and her parents) in an honour killing which is very common in India. Also it is submitted that the applicant’s father’s family does not accept the applicant and her mother because they wanted a baby boy. It is also submitted that the applicant is not safe in India and has no future in India; independent country information in support of those claims is also produced. It is further submitted that the applicant’s mother is not “mentally well” and has been seeing a psychologist and psychiatrist over the last year.

The statement explains that the family of the applicant’s father wants a boy because India is male dominated and boys are deemed more useful than girls; boys inherit the family name and property and they are also status symbols. The country is biased against girls and girls are thought of as a financial burden because they contribute a small income and there are costly dowry demands. Boys are traditionally the breadwinners in India and perform the “last rights” for the parents. The writer refers to statements and information submitted about gender inequality in India. The writer states that his family blames his wife for giving birth to a girl and his family pressured him to find out whether the applicant was a boy or a girl; although sex identification tests are banned in India they can be done easily if you have money. The writer refers to instances of, and information about, female foeticide and female infanticide in India and states that his brother’s wife had two abortions because his family wanted a boy child.

The applicant’s father further explains in the statement that his love marriage to the applicant’s mother is not accepted by his parents in law who have threatened to kill his family; submitted is a transcript of a recording of a conversation between the applicant’s mother and her mother (the applicant’s maternal grandmother) saying that if the wife and child return to India they will be killed. The writer refers to examples of honour killings in India which he submits are very common.

The applicant’s father refers to the prevalence of crimes against women and young girls in India, including female foeticide, rape, sexual harassment, trafficking, kidnapping, abduction, dowry related murder, suicide, child sexual abuse and to the long term decline in the number of girls in India. Reference is made to laws that do not adequately address discrimination against girls in India and even promote it.

The writer states that his wife is not mentally well and she is not able to look after the applicant. The doctor has said that the applicant’s mother should not be left alone with the applicant; relevant medical reports are submitted.

The writer also submits that he cannot get a good job and provide a good future for the applicant in India and they would need a lot of money to resettle. They do not have any support in India and there is not enough money for the applicant’s studies and her marriage or for the applicant’s mother’s medical expenses.

In support of the applicant’s claims that she will suffer harm in India the writer states that the applicant and her mother and himself fear for their lives in India because his in laws will kill them. He cannot manage his sick wife, the applicant’s future expenses and daily needs there. They need a lot of money and support which they do not have. He states that his application for permanent residency was rejected and is now with the Court and his wife’s case is “in Ministry” and this (application for visa) is their last hope.

In support of the applicant’s claims the applicant’s father produced a document described as a translated transcript of an audio conversation between the applicant’s mother and her mother (the applicant’s maternal grandmother) about the harm the applicant and her parents will face on return to India as the applicant’s mother has caused shame to her family in India. The document also outlines abuse the applicant’s maternal grandmother has received in India from the applicant’s mother’s father and uncles because the applicant’s mother married the applicant’s father in Australia. The document contains requests that the applicant’s mother not contact her own mother (the applicant’s maternal grandmother) again in India. The document also refers to the presence in Australia of the applicant’s maternal grandmother at the applicant’s mother’s wedding, “I was helpless there and I had to give my consent to you there when you told me about your decision to get married. I had no other choice…”.The Tribunal notes that there is no indication on the translated transcript document as to when the conversation took place but the translation is dated 5 March 2014 and refers to the applicant, who was born on [date] according to her birth certificate; this leads to the conclusion that the audio/conversation took place sometime between these two dates in early 2014 after the birth of the applicant.

Also produced are further reports and records dated in 2014 and in 2015, including from NSW Family and Community Services, in relation to the mental health problems of the applicant’s mother and her treatment, risks for the applicant arising out of the mental health issues of her mother, reports from psychologists about the mental health of the mother of the applicant, and letters from a psychologist in relation to treatment.

Further extensive media and other material and articles in respect of gender inequality and violence and crimes against women and girls in India are produced in support of the applicant’s claims.

Application for Review

In her application for review the applicant makes no new claims. The applicant/her representative initially completed the application for review using an incorrect form but then submitted an application using the correct form which was treated as a duplicate application for review. The application for review attaches, and refers to attaching, a copy of the

notification letter from the department about the refusal of the visa, which itself attaches a copy of the delegate’s decision record. The applicant’s father also gave the Tribunal a copy of the delegate’s decision record dated 27 August 2015 at the Tribunal hearing held on 20 February 2019.

Tribunal Hearing on 20 February 2019

During the Tribunal hearings the Tribunal discussed generally with the applicant’s father that the applicant’s departmental protection visa file contains a non disclosure certificate given under s. 438 of the Act by a delegate of the Minister. It explained to the applicant’s father that in its view the certificate was not a valid certificate. The Tribunal generally described the materials in the folios covered by the certificate to the applicant and asked him if he wanted to make any comment about the certificate or the material in the folios covered by the certificate. The applicant’s father indicated that he did not want to make any comment about the certificate.

At the hearing on 20 February 2019 the applicant’s father, her representative, gave the Tribunal a submission in writing (undated) explaining that he came to Australia on a student visa in 2007, the applicant’s mother came to Australia on a tourist visa in December 2012, they married in Australia in December 2012, the applicant was born in Australia in [month, year], he applied for protection for the applicant in July 2014 and this application was refused in 2015.

In the submission the applicant’s father, on the applicant’s behalf, addressed the concerns of the delegate including that there was a delay in claiming protection for the applicant. The applicant’s father submitted that he delayed claiming protection for the applicant from her birth on [date] until 1July 2014, [as] her mother was depressed following the birth and was being assisted by a psychologist, and he was caring for both the mother and the applicant. He was responsible for the family including being responsible for registering the applicant as a newborn child, getting documents and getting her an Indian passport which took time to process, almost two months. In the submission the applicant’s father also addressed the difficulties of relocating in India without money and support and the difficulties finding employment in India as a [age] year old man; he provides details of high unemployment figures for 2017-2018 from the National Sample Survey Office. It is further submitted that although the delegate wrote about government organisations which work to assist children and women in India, in reality these systems have significant failings, examples of which are given in the submission. The applicant’s father submits further that although any individual or NGO can file a petition the reality is that there are millions of cases “stuck” in various courts in India because there is a shortage of judges and there is a substantial increase in crime including against women and children. The applicant’s father further submits that India is one of the most polluted countries in the world and the applicant will face permanent or temporary illness if she returns there because of the polluted environment, especially given that she is coming from Australia which is the “least polluted country in the world”. The applicant’s father states also that he visited India only once in the last 7 years; in India the Aadhar card is mandatory as proof of identification; and the crimes against women and children in India are not mere speculation. It is further submitted that, “…you cannot deny the fact that Australia is better place to live … as compare to India”.

At the hearing the applicant’s father, her representative, gave the Tribunal a further copy of the delegate’s decision record refusing the applicant a protection visa and a bundle of printed media articles and materials relating to the failings in government schemes and organisations set up to help women and children in India, the rise in crime in India and pollution in Indian cities.

At the Tribunal hearing the Tribunal spoke to the applicant’s father, the applicant’s representative, about the applicant’s claims and relevant background including the following- the improved health of the applicant’s mother and her role as a witness at the hearings rather than as the applicant’s representative; why he himself has not claimed protection in Australia given the claims made on the applicant’s behalf; his visa history including that he is awaiting the outcome of an application about another visa and his comment that “I don’t have to apply for anything”; his returns from Australia to India to the family home of his family on two occasions, in 2011 and in 2014; his family home which is about two hours from his wife’s family home in Punjab; his family and education in India; his contact with his family in India; his mother’s visit to Australia in November 2013 and her stay with him and his wife in Australia for three months including at the time of the applicant’s birth in [month, year]; his wife’s mother’s visit to Australia in December 2012 and her stay in Australia for three months, including her attendance at the marriage when he and his wife were married in Australia; how and when he met his wife; that he did not meet his wife face to face before they married in Australia; his wife’s family in India; that he first met his wife’s mother when she was in Australia; threats to him by phone (5 to 10 calls) in Australia from his wife’s uncles or father which he initially said occurred while his wife’s mother was visiting in Australia in Feb 2013 but then said that these calls happened about one week after his wife’s mother left Australia; why he returned to India in September 2014 given that he had received serious threats of harm in February/March 2013 if he returned to India from members of his wife’s family in India; the recorded conversation his wife had with her mother after the applicant was born and why the call was recorded when many other calls were not; the circumstances of the applicant’s mother coming to Australia with her own mother [in] December 2012 and his marriage to the applicant’s mother [in] December 2012; the assessment of documents produced by him in support of his application for a [skilled] visa as bogus documents which is relevant to his general credibility in relation to the claims made on behalf of the applicant; the refusal of his application for review and appeal to the Court about his skilled visa and the refusal of his appeal in about 2017; the main reasons the applicant cannot return to India described as, firstly, because she/they do not have any support in India and do not have enough money to survive in India and/or relocate and, secondly, because of his wife’s family who will harm them; what he has been doing in Australia; his poor employment prospects in India because his studies in India were done some 15/20 years ago and because of increasing unemployment in India; his educational qualifications being a [Qualification 1], and an [Qualification 2] obtained in Australia; his work in Australia as a [Occupation 1] from 2007 until 2009; why he left that employment to start his own business ([Industry 1]) which he worked in until February 2018; his wife’s occupation [Occupation 2] after they finished their business; the claim that if they return to India his wife’s family will harm the applicant and they will get no support/financial help from his family as it is not possible for them to help financially; that he was sent to Australia to help his family financially and he did not do so; that the applicant, himself and his wife will have no money and/or support in India which they would need to settle and/or relocate there.

The Tribunal asked the applicant’s father more about the harm he claims his daughter, the applicant, will face in India. He said that anyone from his wife’s family/her relatives will harm her if they know that they (the applicant and her parents) are in India because he and his wife are from different castes. He said that does not know much about his wife’s relatives. He later said however that his wife’s uncles would harm his daughter, the applicant, because his wife married him and this spoiled their name in society; people will know that the applicant’s mother married someone from a different caste. He said that the uncles make all the decisions in the family as they are the eldest and they are in politics. When the Tribunal asked the applicant’s father about the political positions of the uncles he said that he does not know much but they are in a position to harm someone; they fight elections in the Congress Party at the local level. The Tribunal generally discussed country information with the applicant’s father which indicates that the acceptance of inter caste and inter religious

marriages depends on the families involved and whether they support the marriage. The applicant’s father said that they do not have the support of the families and honour killings are common. The applicant’s father said that his daughter, the applicant, would be harmed also by society generally and when asked why that would happen he said that there is a high rate of crime against girls in India and girls as young as 6 months have been raped. When the Tribunal reminded the applicant’s father that it had to consider whether there is a real risk or real chance of harm for his daughter he said that she would be a target as she lives safely here and it would not be good for her to return to India where she would have to start from “scratch”.

The applicant’s father said that as well as harm his daughter might suffer from his wife’s uncles and because of the crime rate for girls and also because of lack of support/financial support the applicant will be badly affected by India’s pollution especially as she has been living in the least polluted country in the world, Australia. Further the applicant claims that there are not enough schools/no proper class rooms and her father will be without employment because his qualifications are outmoded. The Tribunal generally discussed relevant country information about education and unemployment levels in India with the applicant’s father.

The applicant’s father said that the applicant fears harm from her mother’s uncles if they find out she and the family are back and she/they cannot get protection from the police as they are too many cases and they cannot protect the applicant and her family all the time.

At the conclusion of the hearing on 20 February 2019 the Tribunal noted that in the Response to Hearing Form provided by the applicant’s father, his spouse, the applicant’s mother, was named as a witness for the applicant. The applicant’s father told the Tribunal that his wife could not attend the hearing as she had to pick up the applicant from school. The Tribunal told the applicant’s father that it would arrange another hearing to give the applicant’s mother the opportunity to provide evidence in person as a witness in support of the applicant’s claims.

Further Hearing dates and statement/submission from witness, the applicant’s mother

The Tribunal arranged a further hearing for the applicant and the applicant’s witness to attend on 6 June 2019 but on 27 May 2019 the Tribunal received an e mail from the applicant’s father requesting that the Tribunal not ask the applicant’s mother any questions about “whatever happened 5-6 years ago and about her and my family” because he thought it would cause the applicant’s prior mental trauma/condition to return and she is “happy and feeling well at the moment”, adding “ But if it is necessary for you to ask her about our past to make your decision then you are free to refuse our claims”. Given the applicant’s father’s concerns about the effects on his wife of her giving evidence and being questioned by the Tribunal the Tribunal vacated the June hearing date and gave the applicant’s father the opportunity to provide a statement in writing to the Tribunal from the witness, the applicant’s mother. The applicant’s father then stated in an e mail to the Tribunal received 7 June 2019, “I was asked to send written submission from my wife, which is confusing for me. I can send her submission but what about the questions the member has for my wife”.

On 11 June 2019 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant’s father explaining as follows – “……Given the concerns that you expressed in your e mail sent to the Tribunal on 27 May 2019 about the Tribunal questioning your wife at a hearing, the hearing set down for 6 June 2019 was postponed so that your wife, who, as I understand, is to be a witness in your child’s application, could initially send the Tribunal a written statement of her evidence. This statement can include anything your wife wishes to say in support of the applicant’s application. It may then still be necessary for the Tribunal to arrange another hearing so that the Tribunal can speak with you and your wife and question you both about the evidence in

your wife’s statement and matters arising from it. As previously requested if your wife wishes to provide a written statement of her evidence to the Tribunal could you please send that statement to the Tribunal on or before 28 June 2019. If your wife does not wish to make a written statement in support of your child’s application but wants to give oral evidence to the Tribunal, the Tribunal will arrange another hearing for you and your wife to attend to complete the hearing and your wife can provide her oral evidence to the Tribunal at that hearing. The Tribunal will ask both you and your wife questions that may arise from the evidence. If, for the reasons that you address in your e mail dated 27 May 2019, your wife does not want to answer questions from the Tribunal about the evidence that she gives, either in a statement or orally, that will lessen the weight that the Tribunal can place on that evidence. While the Tribunal spoke with you at the hearing, on 20 February 2019, and asked whether your wife intended to give evidence in support of your child’s application (she was named as a witness in your response to hearing application sent to the Tribunal on 3 February 2019), and adjourned the hearing to enable her to do so, it is a matter for you whether you now wish your wife to provide evidence, either orally or in writing, in support of your child’s application. If your wife does not want to provide evidence to the Tribunal as a witness for the applicant the Tribunal will determine the application of your child on the basis of the evidence that it has before it at the time of decision….”

On 20 June 2019 the applicant’s father provided a written submission to the Tribunal from the witness, the applicant’s mother. In that submission the writer states that she married the applicant’s father in a “love marriage”. They expected the applicant’s father to get permanent residency and her plan was to return to India after that and apply for a spouse visa to come to Australia. “But nothing went as planned”. The writer states that when her father “came to know”, her father and the family “started frightening” her and her husband. “As I belong to a political and financial good family…. they considered me a black spot on their well-made name. I knew what they are going to do to me so I dropped the plan to go back” to India. The writer continues that she married against the wishes of her family. When the applicant was born, she (the applicant’s mother) missed her parents and had pressure from her in laws because she gave birth to a girl. She called her mother as the situation was depressive but her mother refused to talk to her and she felt alone and became depressed; she has provided medical records to the Department about her post pregnancy mental trauma. The writer states that she had to apply for protection herself because “I had life threats in India” although it would have been easier for her to return to India and await her husband’s permanent residency application which was “under process”, or apply for a student visa. The writer addresses her concerns about her own application for protection visa which was refused by the delegate and the RRT and the handling of it by the Department and also how she and her husband have had unsatisfactory dealings with the Department where “every officer bends rules to his own convenience”. She claims that it would not be easy for her or her husband to find a job in India and they have financial difficulties in Australia as they have been jobless for one year. Her daughter, the applicant, has lived in Australia for [number] years and calls herself Australian. She might suffer from depression or because of the environmental change if she had to return to India, especially as she has never been to India. The writer claims that India is a dangerous country for girls/women according to a UN report; she gives examples of harm and crimes against women and girls in India. The writer states that although there are organisations working for girls/women there are billions of people there and the policies are not enough. The writer states that her husband, the applicant’s father, has been in Australia for thirteen years, she herself has been in Australia for seven years and she asks that her daughter’s life not be “spoilt”. The writer states that she is supporting her daughter’s case as “I know in India they never leave me and my daughter as I am a black spot to their family and if I go back maybe [her husband, the applicant’s father] will leave us under his family pressure”.

Tribunal Hearing 10 December 2019

The applicant’s witness, her mother, did not attend the hearing to give oral evidence.

The applicant’s father confirmed with the Tribunal that his wife’s protection visa refusal was referred to the Minister for consideration and intervention but now has been finalised but not in her favour. He said that his appeal to the Full Federal Court in relation to his skilled visa also was not successful but he has appealed about another visa and that is still to be finalised by the Court. He has not claimed protection in Australia.

The Tribunal asked the applicant’s father more about his wife, the applicant’s mother, and her family. He said that he first met his wife one or two times in India in 2011/2012. The Tribunal reminded the applicant’s father that he had said at the first Tribunal hearing that he had not met his wife face to face before they married in Australia when she came here in December 2012. He said that maybe he did not understand the question.

The Tribunal asked the applicant’s father more about the applicant’s mother’s family and he said that he hasn’t met her family except for her two brothers in Australia although one of those brothers is not now in Australia but he is in Europe. The applicant’s father said variously that he had never met his present wife’s parents personally, that he saw his present wife’s mother once in India before he married his present wife, that he was introduced to her in India in 2011 and then he met her (his wife’s mother) in Australia when he married his present wife, that he met his wife’s mother in India at a bus stop when his present wife was waiting for her mother and when she ( his wife’s mother) came he left and her mother asked who he was, that he knows her family in India because they are famous .

The applicant’s father told the Tribunal that in the beginning his wife’s mother was supportive of her (the applicant’s mother), but this stopped when his wife became pregnant and the applicant’s mother’s family did not like this. He agreed that his wife’s mother provided a statutory declaration in support for his wife’s application for protection visa in February 2013 when she was in Australia but said that her support changed when she returned to India from Australia when she was “pressured”; his wife’s mother probably has some sympathy for her daughter ( the applicant’s other) but is “pressured” by the family in India.

The applicant’s father told the Tribunal that he is not worried that his own family will harm the applicant if they return to India however they will pressure him to leave the marriage as they wanted a boy child and a girl is outside of their culture. He said that his wife is Sikh and he is Hindu and the applicant, their child, is Hindu. He said that his parents don’t talk to him or his wife/daughter as he married outside of his religion and had a baby girl and he and his wife refuse to have another child.

The Tribunal told the applicant’s father that it was a concern for it that given the claims the applicant makes about what will happen not only to his wife and the applicant but also to himself on return to India, namely that they all would all be harmed there, that he returned to India, to his family home, in 2014 and stayed there for about 10 days after the birth of the applicant. His visa history/return to his country in 2014 is set out in the delegate’s decision record which he gave the Tribunal. He also told the Tribunal that he did return to India in 2014 but it was because his grandmother had cancer and she wanted to see him. The Tribunal also asked him why given the claims he makes about what his wife’s family will do to the applicant and the family, including himself, if they return to India, that he himself has not claimed protection in Australia and he said that he intends to apply for protection if his current appeal to the court about his visa is decided against him. He agreed that he did not apply for a protection visa for the applicant until July 2014, which was after his wife’s application for protection was refused but said that it took time to get her Indian passport issued.

The Tribunal asked the applicant more about the threats he claims he/his wife have received from his wife’s family. He said that they received lots of threats from her cousins/uncles and her father from January/February 2013 but then they stopped picking up the calls; they last heard from the family in 2013/2014 after the applicant was born. His wife last called her mother when the applicant was born. He said that his wife recorded a conversation with her mother a translated transcription of which was given to the Tribunal. The applicant’s father said that his wife is not in contact with her family in India but she has a brother here in Australia whom she talks to.

The applicant’s father concluded that he has suffered a lot for 13 years in Australia; all his friends who came here are settled and have houses. There is no point sending them back to India; the applicant is [age] years old and has never been to India and it would not be good to send her there as he has set out in his submissions. He has done everything legally in Australia, has worked and paid his taxes but now neither he nor his wife have visas to allow them to work and it is hard for them financially day to day.

s.424A letter and response/comments

On 4 March 2020, the Tribunal sent the applicant an invitation pursuant to s.424A of the Act, to comment on, or respond to information, which the Tribunal considered would, subject to the comments or response received, be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review.

The particulars of the information in the invitation and relevance to the application for review were set out as follows;

“The particulars of the information are;

The Tribunal has before it the present applicant's mother's departmental and RRT files in relation to the mother's application for protection visa, which was refused by a delegate of the Minister, and the applicant's mother's application to the RRT for review of the delegate's decision. Evidence given by the present applicant's mother and father as contained in those files shows that the present applicant's mother and father gave inconsistent evidence including evidence about the development of their relationship, how, when and where they met, whether the present applicant's father met the present applicant's mother's parents in India and whether the present applicant's mother's relatives in India had political influence and connections to the police.

The present applicant's mother said at interview with the delegate that they first met on an Indian website, [Site 1], and then met in person two to three months later in December 2011 but the present applicant's father said that the first time they met was face to face at a friend's get together but they used social media to keep in touch. The present applicant's mother later told the RRT that they met on social media website "[Site 2]" not [Site 1].

Further at the delegate's interview the present applicant's father said that he and his present wife met once in India when he was there and then continued to communicate. At interview the present applicant's mother said that she and the present applicant's father met three times in India when he was there from December 2011 until February 2012; in December 2011 for the first time, then at the end of December 2011 and then at the end of January 2012. At the RRT hearing the present applicant's mother then told the RRT member that she had met the applicant's father two times in India.

Further, at the delegate's interview the present applicant's mother did not say that her parents met her husband when he was in India in December 2011 but after the present

applicant's father said when he was in India in December 2011 he met his wife's mother and also met her father one or two times but that there was no reason they met, the present applicant's mother then said she had introduced him as a college friend.

Further the present applicant's mother said at the interview with the delegate that her family has political influence and connections with the police force and she told the RRT member that her two uncles were police officers, including one who was high ranking. The present applicant's father did not however mention his wife’s family's political/police connections but rather said that they were “goons” but told the RRT that he was not asked the question about the relatives being politicians.

Relevance to the present application for review:

This information is relevant to the present application for review as the Tribunal may conclude that neither the present applicant's mother or father are reliable and/or truthful witnesses in the present applicant's application for review, in particular in relation to their evidence about how and why their relationship developed, the claimed objections of their families to their " love" marriage and the birth of the applicant, and about the harm/threats of harm the present applicant, and themselves as the present applicant's parents, have received and/or may face on return to India because of their mixed religion and mixed caste marriage and because of the birth of the applicant, a female child.

Particulars of Further Information:

The Tribunal also has before it a copy of the present applicant’s father’s Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) file which includes a decision of that Tribunal, made [in] March 2014, affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration made [in] November 2013 to refuse to grant the present applicant’s father a [skilled] visa. Information on that file indicates that the present applicant's father provided documents to the department in relation to his claimed employment at [a business] that were not genuine and also that he provided information on his application form, namely that he was employed at [a business] from June 2008 until June 2009, that was false and misleading in a material particular, to assist him to be granted a visa.

Relevance to the present application for review

The information is relevant to the present review as the Tribunal may conclude from it that the present applicant's father is not a reliable and /or truthful witness, including in the present applicant's application.”

On 17 March 2020 the Tribunal received an e mailed response to the s. 424A letter from the applicant’s father. Essentially the response states that the s.424A letter shows that the Tribunal is trying to connect his wife’s case, his own case and his daughter’s case because the Tribunal has already made up its mind about the applicant’s application. Further the writer states that “You want to refuse my daughter’s application because we don’t remember exactly how many times me and my wife met before marriage or have I met her father or mother, are you serious? All these incidents happened when my daughter was not even born. If we knew these things are so relevant then we could have make the notes at that time of everything. When we started keeping the proofs as e mails, phone calls then we were told you are fabricating the proves to support your claims…”. The writer continues that he has a recording of “our first interview with the delegate and he never said at the first interview with the delegate that he met his wife only once before marriage, “I said that I met her couple of times when I was in India from December 2011 to February 2012…… I never said I met my wife’s father ever. My words were ‘I know her father but never met him’. Then the delegate asked me then how you know her father? I replied because they are very

reputed family in the area because of their political links so everybody knows her family. Her uncle is in police and her cousins are goons…”. The writer also states that he cannot remember through which dating site he met his wife as he had an account on a number of sites at the time and was sending 5 requests to different girls everyday. He and his wife were just flirting with each other and not serious about their relationship. As regards his own application for skilled visa the writer states that all the papers he submitted “were genuine from my side, however, I was failed to prove that in the department and the court. But I presented all the evidences which could be helpful to make the right decision but no one from the department bothered themselves to check the authenticity of the documents….. I was not allowed to apply for any visa for three years which is already finished. Which means I already got punishment for that. You cannot judge me for my whole life on the basis of that decision. If someone can steal the papers from my safe and send them to the department so it is highly possible that he might had made few changes in my documents. I am attaching the statutory declaration from the owner of that [business]… who was ready to come as a witness but no one called him. Just think if all the papers were fake and I paid him for the papers so why he wished to provide more evidences in court”. The writer states that the department has made many mistakes in relation to his case and his wife’s case. He states that the Tribunal member who decided his application for review of the decision to refuse him his [skilled] visa only took two days to refuse the application and did not give attention to the evidence he provided, including “more than 100 documents” he submitted to support his case “Because she also thought we are not reliable or/and truthful people”. The writer also states that the department made a mistake because “they just started considering her (his wife) with my case with no reason but she had different visa conditions”; she previously had work rights and a Medicare card but they changed her visa in November 2018 because he went to court in December 2017 “against AAT decision”. The writer explained that his daughter has been sick for two years but they do not currently have a Medicare card and have no work rights to pay for her medical expenses. He asks that a Medicare card be issued for his daughter, the applicant, or that he or his wife be given work rights. He states,” I will not give up like that. I will take this matter to the court and other organisations such as human rights, current affairs or ministerial intervention. …’

Attached to the email in response to the s.424A letter are copies of four documents being- a medical certificate dated 12 March 2020 certifying that the applicant “is unable to work from 11/3/2020 to 13/3/2020 inclusive due to a medical condition”; a statutory declaration declared 26 February 2014 by a person described in the document as [owner] of a named [business] stating that during the period August 2007 and July 2009 the applicant’s father was employed at the [business] as an assistant [Occupation 1] and then as a [Occupation 1] paid part time; a copy of a bridging visa grant notice from the department to the applicant’s father (Bridging E (class WE) Bridging E (General) (subclass 050)), grant date 15 January 2018 noted as having a “no work” visa condition as well as other conditions; a copy of a bridging visa grant notice from the department to the applicant’s mother (Bridging E (class WE) ( Bridging E (General) (subclass 050)) grant date 6 August 2018 noting that she has permission to work when her visa comes into effect.

Non Disclosure Certificate under s.438 of the Act

The Tribunal has considered the certificate on the applicant’s departmental file issued by the delegate under s. 438 of the Act. The certificate refers to information in ten folios on the applicant’s departmental file as being restricted because the disclosure of the information would be “contrary to the public interest because: [the ten numbered folios] contain information relating to an internal working document and business affairs”. As noted above the Tribunal discussed the certificate with the applicant’s representative, her father, and invited his comment; he did not wish to comment. The Tribunal has had regard to the High Court decision in MIBP v SZMTA; CQZ15 v MIBP; BEG15 v MIBP [2019] HCA 3 and the Federal Court decision in MZAFZ v MIBP [2016] FCA 1081 (Beach J, 7 September 2016)

and the Tribunal considers and finds that the s.438 certificate on the applicant’s file is not a valid certificate. The Tribunal considered the material referred to in the certificate and concludes that the folios relate to administrative records/checklists of the department relating to the applicant and her parents; the Tribunal has not taken the material in the folios into account in determining the application for review.

Country Information

The Tribunal has before it the country information referred to in the delegate’s decision record refusing the applicant’s visa, a copy of which decision was provided by the applicant to the Tribunal. This information includes country information in relation to the availability of state protection in India, programmes, services and education for children in India and the availability of mental health care in India. The Tribunal also has before it various information, reports and articles provided by the applicant/her representative, in relation to the very high levels of pollution in Indian cities, increasing crime and violence against women and girls/children in India, including honour killings in India, articles in relation to the inadequacy of the legal system in India and the lack of effectiveness of programmes and services to assist children, child care and children’s education in India. In addition the Tribunal consulted DFAT Country Information Report India, 17 October 2018, in particular paragraphs 3.42 to
3.46 in relation to inter-faith and inter-caste marriage, paragraphs 2.21 to 2.23 in relation to the education of children; paragraphs 2.24 to 2.25 in relation to employment; and paragraphs 3.33 to 3.41 in relation to women and gender based violence in India. The Tribunal generally discussed the relevant country information with the applicant’s father at the hearings.

FINDINGS AND REASONS

Essentially the applicant, who is now [age] years old, claims that she cannot return to her country, India, because she fears that she, and her parents, will suffer harm there from her mother’s father and other family members/relatives/uncles including by way of an honour killing, because her mother married her father, who was a divorced man, against the wishes of the family in an inter religious and inter caste marriage which has brought shame/a black mark on the applicant’s mother’s family in India. She claims that, in particular, her maternal uncles, will harm her as they are in politics and they make the family decisions and that she and her parents have received threats in Australia by telephone from her father/uncles in India. The applicant also claims that her father’s family in India will not accept her and not support her and her parents because her father married outside of his religion (Hindu) and because she is a female child and they want a male child; she will suffer harm because of this lack of support and acceptance. The applicant’s father told the Tribunal at the hearing that his family members will not harm the applicant but they want him and his wife to have another child which they refuse to do and that they will put pressure on him to leave the applicant and her mother and then the applicant and her mother will have no support/financial support. The applicant also claims that she fears harm from Indian society because she is a female and that gender inequality, crime and violence against women and girls, including rape of young girls, is prevalent in India and that organisations, policies and schemes set up to assist women and girls in India are not effective because of the large numbers involved. The applicant also claims that because her parents’ marriage is inter caste/inter religious she could face harm from society by way of an honour killing. The applicant also claims that she will suffer harm in India because she/her parents will have no support, no financial support and her parents will have no employment in India; she and her parents will be unable to relocate, including because of this lack of support/financial support. The applicant also claims that she will suffer harm because of the high pollution in India especially as she was born and has lived her whole life in Australia which has low pollution and has never lived in India where the rate of pollution is very high. Further the applicant claims that there are not enough schools and no proper class rooms in India and that she

will be unable to get an education in India. The applicant’s mother in her statement indicates that the applicant might suffer from depression or suffer because of the environmental change. Further the applicant claims that her mother has suffered from mental health issues and this will affect her ability to look after the applicant. The applicant claims that she cannot get protection from the harm she fears in India and cannot relocate to avoid harm there.

Identity and Country of Reference

The Tribunal accepts and finds that the applicant is who she claims to be, that she is an Indian national, that she was born in NSW on [date] and that her father and mother are Indian nationals; a copy of the applicant’s NSW birth certificate, a copy of her Indian passport issued at Sydney [in] 2014 and copies of her parents’ Indian passports, are on the applicant’s protection visa departmental file. In addition, the applicant’s father produced to the Tribunal his Indian passport issued in Sydney [in] 2018.

The Tribunal finds that the country of reference for this application is India.

Visa History/Travel history of applicant’s parents and relatives

The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s father, her representative, first arrived in Australia [in] May 2007 and then left Australia and returned to Australia on two occasions before he married the applicant’s mother in Australia in December 2012. The Tribunal also finds that the applicant’s father left Australia again and returned to India [in] September 2014 and then returned to Australia [in] September 2014. These details are contained in the applicant’s father’s travel/migration history referred to in the delegate’s decision record dated 27 August 2015, a copy of which was provided to the Tribunal by the applicant. Also the applicant’s father told the Tribunal at the hearing that he returned to Punjab in 2011 for two months for his divorce from his prior wife, explaining that he married in India previously in May 2009, and divorced there in late 2011. He also told the Tribunal at the hearing that he went back to Punjab, India, in September 2014 which was after his marriage to the applicant’s mother and after the birth of the applicant, and he stayed for ten days because his grandmother, who has since passed away, was ill and wanted to see him. The applicant’s father also told the Tribunal, and the Tribunal finds, that on the occasions in 2011 and in 2014 when he returned to his country the applicant’s father stayed with his parents at the family home in Punjab where he grew up. He said that his parents, his brother and his married sister still live in Punjab and that his brother lives with his parents.

The Tribunal also finds that the applicant’s father has not himself claimed protection in Australia. When the Tribunal asked him why he had not done so given the claims he has made on the applicant’s behalf, which involve claims that he himself, as well as his wife and the applicant, may be harmed by the applicant’s mother’s family in India, he agreed that he himself has not claimed protection in Australia, saying that he does not have to apply for anything as he is awaiting the outcome of an appeal in relation to another visa. He told the Tribunal that although the proceedings he took in relation to the refusal of his skilled visa application have been finalised his application for a visa under the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme is still awaiting a hearing in the Federal Court.

The Tribunal also finds that the applicant’s mother entered Australia [in] December 2012 on a tourist visa expiring [in] March 2013 and has never returned to India. The Tribunal finds that she applied for protection in Australia on 28 February 2013, the application was refused by the delegate on 15 August 2013 and on 29 August 2013 the applicant’s mother applied to the RRT for review of the delegate’s decision to refuse the visa application; in June 2014 the RRT affirmed the delegate’s decision to refuse the applicant’s mother a protection visa. The applicant’s mother then applied for ministerial intervention on 18 July 2014. This finding is based on the visa history set out in the delegate’s decision record, a copy of which was

given to the Tribunal by the applicant. The applicant’s father spoke to the Tribunal at the hearings about his wife’s application for a protection visa and said that her request for ministerial intervention in her own application for protection visa was not successful.

Based on the applicant’s father’s evidence to the Tribunal, the Tribunal also finds that the applicant’s mother came to Australia [in] December 2012 to marry the applicant’s father and that she came to Australia with her own mother at that time. Based on the applicant’s father’s evidence to the Tribunal, the Tribunal also finds the applicant’s mother’s mother (the applicant’s maternal grandmother) stayed in Australia for three months after arriving [in] December 2012 and that she attended the wedding of the applicant’s mother and father in Queensland [in] December 2012.

Based on the applicant’s father’s evidence before the Tribunal the Tribunal also finds that the applicant’s father’s mother (the applicant’s paternal grandmother) came to Australia in November 2013 and stayed with the applicant’s mother and father in Australia for three months, including during the time the applicant was born on [date], before she returned to India.

Applicant’s/applicant’s parents’ religions and castes

The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s father was divorced before he married the applicant’s mother and that the applicant’s parents are of mixed castes and mixed religions as claimed, the mother being Sikh and the father being Hindu. The Tribunal also finds that the religion of the applicant is Hindu; this was the applicant’s father’s evidence before the Tribunal.

Applicant’s mother’s mental health issues

Given the medical reports on the applicant’s departmental file about the applicant’s mother’s mental health issues, including- a discharge/transfer summary indicating that the applicant’s mother was treated/admitted for treatment by NSW Mental Health between 23 May 2014 and 30 May 2014; a letter dated 17 June 2014 stating that she was a client of [a named] Mental Health Services as at that date; a document indicating that she was treated at [a] Hospital as an inpatient from 18 to 20 May 2014; a sickness certificate stating that she was found to be unable to undertake normal occupational duties from 21 May 2014 until 1 (maybe 6) June 2014; a NSW Family and Community Services “safety plan” issued because of depression and thoughts of self harm [in] June 2014; and a psychologist’s report dated 17 May 2014 stating that the applicant’s mother had severe depression with risk of suicide taking into account her symptoms following her recent interview with the Immigration Department and her fear that her family in India will harm her due to her unapproved marriage; the Tribunal finds that around the time of these documents and reports, that is May/June 2014, the applicant’s mother was treated for mental health issues following the birth of the applicant, as outlined in those documents.

Credibility Concerns about claims

The Tribunal does not accept as truthful however the evidence, given by the applicant’s father on the applicant’s behalf, about her claims for protection. The Tribunal does not accept as true that the applicant and/or her mother and/or father will be harmed in India as the applicant claims for the reasons that she claims, namely that she/they will suffer harm from her mother’s family members/relatives/uncles, including by way of an honour killing, because her parents married against the wishes of her mother’s family in an inter religious and inter caste marriage which has brought shame/a black mark on her (the applicant’s mother’s) family, and/or because her father was a divorced man, and/or that the applicant’s father’s family in India will not accept the applicant and not support her or her parents, and

will put pressure on the applicant’s father to leave the applicant and her mother, because her father married outside of his religion (Hindu) and because they want a male child. The Tribunal does not accept as true that any of the applicant’s parents’ family members, maternal or paternal, oppose the marriage in Australia of the applicant’s parents, or the applicant’s birth, or that they have made threats to harm the applicant, or her parents, including because the marriage is inter caste/inter religious or because the applicant is a female and not a male child and/or because the applicant’s father is a divorced man. The Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm in India or a real risk that she will suffer significant harm in India for these reasons or any one of them, if she returns to her country.

In the Tribunal’s view if it were true that the applicant and her parents cannot return to India because she/they will be targeted for harm/mistreatment there by the applicant’s mother’s family members and/or her father’s family members, including because of her parents’ inter caste/inter religious marriage, and/or because the applicant is a female child, the applicant’s father would not have returned to his country and stayed in the area where he has always lived in India in the family home with his parents in India, without difficulty, between [September] 2014 and [September] 2014; this period was after his marriage to the applicant’s mother in Australia [in] December 2012 according to the marriage certificate on the applicant’s departmental file, which marriage the applicant’s mother’s mother attended in Australia, and also after the applicant’s birth on [date] according to the copy of the applicant’s birth certificate provided by the applicant, at which time the applicant’s father’s mother was staying with the applicant and her parents in Australia.
When the Tribunal asked the applicant’s father why he returned to his family home in India in September 2014, and told him that was a concern given his claimed fear of harm/mistreatment/pressure there for the applicant and also himself and his wife, he mentioned that his grandmother was ill and wanted to see him and also said that his family are “ok” with him but “they are forcing me to leave [the applicant]’s mother”. He said his family had to accept him back because he is their son and the grandmother wanted to see him. Further although he said that he feared harm for himself and his wife and the applicant from the applicant’s mother’s family members, especially the applicant’s mother’s uncles who are in politics and in a position to harm them, he also told the Tribunal that his wife’s family lived just two hours away from his own family home in Punjab to which he returned in September 2014. He told the Tribunal that his wife has relatives and family in India and they are wealthy, they live in the one area and look after each other. Also he told the Tribunal that around February 2013 he and his wife, the applicant’s mother, had about 5 to 10 phone calls from those who identified themselves as the applicant’s mother’s uncle or father threatening “we will break your legs, we will kill you” and he also told the Tribunal that one of the main reasons that his daughter, the applicant, cannot return to India is that she/they fear the applicant’s mother’s family will harm the applicant and themselves (the other reason identified as one of the main reasons that the applicant cannot return to India was that they do not have enough money to relocate or survive in India). When the Tribunal queried why then he returned to Punjab and stayed at his family home for about 10 days, given the claims made about the applicant’s mother’s family and their threats, the applicant’s father said that no one knew he was there, he did not think anyone would know he was there, it was a short visit, he had no option but to go, it was the last time he saw his grandmother and he never went back again. The Tribunal considers that given the seriousness of the claims made on behalf of the applicant, the applicant’s father did not give a reasonable or plausible explanation for his return to India in September 2014 for about ten days, and his stay at his family home in Punjab which is the family home of the applicant’s paternal grandparents/brother according to the applicant’s fathers evidence to the Tribunal, and which is relatively close to (two hours away from) the family home of the applicant’s maternal grandparents/family members/relatives.

Further in the Tribunal’s view if it were true that the applicant and her mother and her father, have received the very serious threats of harm on return to India that the applicant claims they have received, in particular from the applicant’s mother’s family members, the applicant’s father would have claimed protection in Australia; he told the Tribunal at the hearings that he has not done so. The Tribunal accepts that it may have taken the applicant’s father until 1 July 2014 after the applicant’s birth on [date] to make her application for protection visa for the reasons that he claimed in his submission to the Tribunal, namely because the applicant’s mother was depressed following the birth and was being assisted by a psychologist, he was caring for both the mother and the applicant, he was responsible for the family including being responsible for registering the applicant as a newborn child, getting documents and getting her an Indian passport which took time to process. However when the Tribunal asked him why he himself had not applied for protection given the very serious claims he makes about what will happen to him and his family on return to India, including that they would be killed, the applicant’s father said that he doesn’t have to apply for anything, he was waiting for the outcome of his other visa applications; although his skilled visa has been refused by the Federal Court, and his wife’s application for ministerial intervention has been finalised unsuccessfully for her he said that he has still another application in the Federal Court about his other visa under the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme which was refused by the Migration Tribunal. He said that he intends to apply for protection if his outstanding Federal Court appeal in relation to his other visa is not successful. In the Tribunal’s view the applicant’s father’s explanation for why he has not applied for protection and his statements that they were told to apply for the protection visas separately, does not answer the Tribunal’s concerns about the applicant’s father’s failure to apply for protection in Australia given the very serious claims he makes on behalf of the applicant that the applicant, himself and his wife, her parents, will be harmed on return to India.

The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s father’s evidence about the applicant’s claims, in particular her claims about the opposition of his family, and the applicant’s mother’s family members, to the marriage of the applicant’s parents, and also their opposition to the applicant herself, and the consequent threats to harm the applicant and her parents including because of the inter caste/inter religious marriage, and because she is a girl child, is not reliable. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s father has given confused and conflicting evidence to the Tribunal about meeting his wife and the commencement of the relationship with her and also about when and where he met his wife’s mother which the Tribunal considers undermines his general credibility including his credibility in relation to the claims he makes on behalf of the applicant. He initially told the Tribunal at the first Tribunal hearing that he first met his current wife in April/May 2012 on the internet and said that around July 2012 they decided to marry. He said that he did not meet his wife face to face before they married in Australia in December 2012. When the Tribunal asked him again at the first hearing if he had not in fact met her in India when he was there in 2011/2012 for two months he said that at that time in India he had heard about the applicant’s mother through a friend and he then found her on the internet through a dating site and sent her a friend request through the dating site; they started talking on the site then. He said that the main reason his wife (the applicant’s mother) came to Australia in 2012 was to see him, as he proposed in July 2012 and in July or August 2012 they decided to marry. At the second Tribunal hearing however when the Tribunal asked the applicant when and where he first met his wife, the applicant’s mother, he said that it was in 2011/2012 in India. When the Tribunal reminded him that at the last hearing he had said that he did not meet her face to face before they married in Australia he said that he met her one or two times in India and previously he did not understand the question. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant did not understand the question about when he first met his wife when it asked the applicant’s father about it at the first hearing. At the first hearing the Tribunal specifically went on to ask the applicant’s father if he had not met his wife in 2011/2012 in India when he was there for two months and his response was that at that time he had only heard of her

through a friend and then found her on the internet on a dating site and they started talking on the dating site after he sent her a “friend” request. The applicant’s father in the response to the Tribunal’s s. 424A letter to him repeated that in the delegate’s interview in relation to his wife’s case “I said that I met her couple of times when I was in India from December 2011 to February 2012……”. While the Tribunal accepts that it might be difficult to remember precisely how many times he and his wife met before they married as he states in his response to the Tribunal’s s.424A letter, and also accepts that he does not remember through which social media dating site he met his wife as he was chatting to 5 different girls every day, in the Tribunal’s view it is reasonable to think that the applicant’s father would remember whether he ever met this wife face to face before they married in Australia in December 2012.

Further the Tribunal considers that the applicant’s father’s evidence about meeting the applicant’s mother’s mother is confused and conflicting. When the Tribunal asked the applicant’s father at the first Tribunal hearing when he met his wife’s family members he said that he never met his wife’s family at all in India; he just knew about them but did not meet them. He said that he first met her mother when she was “here”, that is in Australia when she came with the applicant’s mother in December 2012. The Tribunal clarified with him that he first met his wife’s mother when she was in Australia; he agreed that was the case. He said that he knew about her family as they are famous in Punjab. He said that he never met his wife’s family at all in India but his wife’s uncle/ family members called when he married his wife. He said that he knew about her family from her after he met her. At the second Tribunal hearing however the applicant’s father said variously that he never met his wife’s parents personally but then said that he saw his wife’s mother once in India; he was with his present wife before they were married and he had a short introduction and this was in 2011. He said that he then met his wife’s mother in Australia when he and his wife married. He reiterated that he has never met any of her family members apart from her two brothers who were in Australia, although one has now left Australia. When the Tribunal reminded the applicant that at the last hearing he had said that he first met his wife’s mother when she came to Australia in December 2012 with the applicant’s mother and had never met her parents at all in India the applicant’s father then said that he saw his wife’s mother in India, that they had met at a bus stop when his wife was waiting for her mother. When he left the mother asked who he was. This evidence also puts the applicant’s father with his wife in India in 2011 having a short introduction to the applicant’s mother’s mother and contradicts the applicant’s father’s evidence to it at the first Tribunal hearing that he had never met his wife face to face at all before she came to Australia to marry him in December 2012.

It is correct as the applicant’s father states in the response to the S.424A letter that the events relating to his meeting the applicant’s mother and the applicant’s mother’s family/mother occurred prior to the time of the applicant’s birth. In the Tribunal’s view however these events are relevant to the applicant’s claims because the conflicting evidence given by the applicant’s father undermines his general credibility about the applicant’s claims, in particular her claims about the opposition of the applicant’s mother’s family members, to the marriage of himself and his wife, the applicant’s parents, and also their opposition to the applicant herself, and the consequent threats to harm the applicant and her parents because of the inter caste/inter religious marriage and because she is a female child. In the Tribunal’s view the applicant’s father’s credibility about these claims is also undermined by the fact that he told the Tribunal that his own mother in fact came to Australia in November 2013, that is after the marriage of himself and the applicant’s mother in December 2012, and stayed in Australia with him and his wife for three months including during the time the applicant was born on [date]. He also said that his wife’s mother came to Australia [in] December 2012 with her daughter (his wife, the applicant’s mother) and stayed in Australia for three months. Although the applicant’s father said that his wife’s mother came to Australia to visit her son (the applicant’s mother’s brother) who lives in Australia, and stayed with the son in Queensland, and that he and his wife did not see the

mother apart from “maybe once in Sydney when her mother was going back to India”, he also said that his wife’s mother (the applicant’s maternal grandmother) attended their wedding in Queensland at the home of the applicant’s mother’s brother although she would not sign any documents; the applicant’s mother’s brother and his partner signed the relevant documents. When the Tribunal asked the applicant more about his mother’s attendance at his marriage to the applicant’s mother he said that although his wife came to Australia with her mother, the mother was not aware they were going to marry and only her brother knew. When the Tribunal queried this the applicant’s father agreed that she knew her daughter was getting married at the time but said that she was upset and did not know the procedures.
Given the credibility concerns that the Tribunal has about the applicant’s father’s evidence it does not accept as true that the applicant’s mother’s mother did not know her daughter was getting married to the applicant’s father in Australia when she came to Australia with her daughter in December 2012; the Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s mother’s mother did not sign any documents but it does not accept that she did not sign the relevant documents because she opposed the marriage and was upset about it.

The Tribunal raised with the applicant’s father that it appeared that the applicant’s mother’s mother was supportive of the applicant’s mother and her marriage to the applicant’s father and not opposed to it given that she attended in Australia when the applicant’s mother married him (the applicant’s father). He then said that in the beginning at that time she was supportive but then she got pressured when she returned to India; she stopped being supportive when the applicant’s mother became pregnant as the applicant’s mother’s father did not like it. The applicant’s father said that the applicant’s mother’s mother probably has some sympathy for them but the family in India put pressure on her about that. The Tribunal does not accept as true that the applicant’s mother’s mother has been pressured by other family members in India as the applicant’s father claims for the reasons that he claims, including as set out in the document purporting to be a transcript of conversation between applicant’s mother and applicant’s maternal grandmother.

The Tribunal further considers that the applicant’s father’s general credibility, including his credibility about the applicant’s claims, is undermined by documents he sought to rely on in his application for[a skilled] visa; the documents were found to be false documents by the departmental delegate of the Minister and the Migration Tribunal member on review. The applicant’s father also told this Tribunal that he appealed the decision of the Migration Tribunal about his skilled visa, involving the finding about the false documents, to the Federal Court but his appeal was unsuccessful. When this Tribunal at the hearings gave the applicant’s father an opportunity to comment on the documents and allegations/findings that he had sought to rely on bogus documents on a past occasion, explaining to him that this was relevant to this Tribunal’s assessment of his general credibility, he essentially said that someone changed his documents so they appeared bogus. He said variously that the papers were genuine but someone took them and changed the papers and he thinks the person he lived with at the time did this; that someone took his papers from his wardrobe and told the department they were bogus and also took papers so he could not give them to the Department. He said that he has presented evidence of this in reviews and did provide other documents but no one checked the authenticity of the new documents. In answer to the Tribunal’s s.424A letter the applicant said that he lodged the application for the skilled visa in 2009 and said of the findings about the bogus documents that all the documents he presented were genuine but he failed to prove that to the department and the court and he said that no one from the department checked the authenticity of the documents. He also indicated that someone stole the papers from his safe and sent them to the department “so it is highly possible that he might had made [a] few changes in my documents.”. The Tribunal does not consider that the applicant’s father’s explanation about his reliance in a prior visa application made in 2009, on documents that were found to be false/bogus by the departmental delegate, the Migration Tribunal whose findings were upheld by the Federal

Court according to the applicant’s father’s evidence, is reasonable or plausible and it does not allay the Tribunal’s concerns about the applicant’s father’s credibility.

The Tribunal accepts that the person who declared the statutory declaration which was given to this Tribunal in response to the s.424A letter to the applicant, described in the document as [owner] of a named [business], will state, if contacted by the Tribunal, as invited by the declarant in the declaration made in February 2014 to do so, that during the period August 2007 and July 2009 the applicant’s father was employed at the [business] as an assistant [Occupation 1] and then as a [Occupation 1] paid part time. The Tribunal notes that this statutory declaration was also provided by the applicant’s father to the Migration Tribunal when it considered the issue of the bogus documents in the application for review in relation to the applicant’s skilled visa application. The Tribunal does not consider that the evidence of the declarant about the applicant’s father’s employment in 2007/2009 overcomes/ would overcome the Tribunal’s concerns about the applicant’s father’s general credibility, including in relation to the applicant’s claims.

Document purporting to be transcript of conversation between applicant’s mother and applicant’s maternal grandmother in early 2014 after birth of applicant

The Tribunal does not consider that the document produced on behalf of the applicant, claimed to be a translated transcript of an audio conversation that took place some time in early 2014 after the birth of the applicant, between the applicant’s mother and her mother (the applicant’s maternal grandmother) about the harm the applicant and her parents will face on return to India and the pressure put upon the applicant’s mother’s mother by family members in India, is reliable evidence of the facts in it. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept as reliable the statement in that document seeking to explain the attendance of the applicant’s mother’s mother at the marriage of the applicant’s mother and father in Australia in December 2012 after her arrival in Australia [in] December 2012 with the applicant’s mother. When the Tribunal asked the applicant’s father about the recorded conversation and why it was recorded he said that around January/February 2014 his wife recorded the conversation on her phone but she does not now have the recording. He said that he/they had many calls but never recorded them and that if this conversation had been recorded for evidence they would have recorded other calls as well. He then however said that the conversation may have been recorded for evidence although there were no other recordings of conversations. When the Tribunal asked him again why the call was recorded he then said that their agent “would have said this was useful as evidence” and may have told his wife to record conversations. The applicant’s father did not provide to the Tribunal a reasonable or plausible explanation for why it was that this telephone conversation amongst all others he claimed took place, was recorded, and why it would have been recorded from the very outset of the conversation. Given the general credibility concerns that the Tribunal has about the applicant’s father’s evidence the Tribunal does not consider that this document is reliable evidence of the facts in it and/or that a genuine conversation as reported in the document took place between the applicant’s mother and her own mother as claimed by the applicant’s father for the applicant.

Statements/evidence of applicant’s mother’s mother

The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s mother is not a reliable witness in relation to the claims for protection of her daughter, the applicant.

Given the credibility concerns that the Tribunal has about the applicant’s father, and given that the applicant’s mother has an interest in the favourable outcome of this application and is not an impartial witness in the Tribunal’s view, and also given that the applicant’s mother and father have provided conflicting evidence on a prior occasion as set out in the s.424A letter to them referred to earlier in this decision and further given that the Tribunal has not

had the opportunity to test the applicant’s mother’s evidence at the hearings, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s mother’s statement/submission is not reliable evidence in relation to the applicant’s claims.

To the extent that the applicant’s mother’s medical records set out details supporting the present applicant’s claims in relation to a fear of harm from, and threats from, family members of the applicant’s mother or father in India, the Tribunal does not consider the medical records are reliable evidence that those facts and events took place as reported given that the writer of the reports has recorded the account of those events and facts given to the writer by the applicant’s mother; the Tribunal finds, for reasons given above, that the applicant’s mother’s evidence, including that contained in her written statement/submission to the Tribunal, is not reliable.

Claim that applicant will suffer harm because of her mother’s mental health issues

The Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance or real risk that the applicant will suffer serious harm or significant harm in India because of her mother’s mental health problems. Although the Tribunal has found above that around the time of the documents and reports submitted, that is mainly around May/June 2014, the applicant’s mother was treated for mental health issues following the birth of the applicant, as outlined in those documents, the applicant’s father told the Tribunal that the applicant’s mother was now “better”; he said that she is not taking medication, that she is ok now and is looking after the applicant. Further in the written submission/statement from the applicant’s mother sent to the Tribunal on 20 June 2019 the applicant’s mother describes her mental health condition as “post pregnancy mental trauma” following the birth of the applicant in [month, year]. The evidence before the Tribunal does not indicate that the applicant’s mother continues to have mental health issues. To the extent that the applicant claims that her mother will have mental health issues on return to India because of her family, and/or the applicant’s father’s family, the Tribunal does not accept that claim given that it has found above that it does not accept as true that any of the applicant’s parents’ family members, maternal or paternal, oppose the marriage in Australia of the applicant’s parents, or the applicant’s birth, or that they have made threats to harm the applicant, or her parents, including because the marriage is inter caste/inter religious or because the applicant is a female and not a male child and/or because the applicant’s father is a divorced man. To the extent that the applicant claims that her mother will suffer postnatal mental health problems if she has another pregnancy in India the applicant’s father told the Tribunal that he and his wife do not plan to have any more children, noting that it is now some years since the applicant was born and that they have had no other children.

Statutory declarations/statements of other relative/s

To the extent that the applicant relies on them the Tribunal places no weight on the statutory declaration of the applicant’s mother’s mother declared at [Suburb 1] NSW on 23 February 2013 and the statutory declaration of the applicant’s mother’s brother declared at [Suburb 2] on 22 February 2013 and the statutory declaration of the applicant’s mother’s brother’s wife, [Ms A] made 3 May 2014. These declarations were not provided specifically in support of the applicant’s claims in her application for protection visa but they form part of the material before the Tribunal; they were made in support of the applicant’s mother’s application for protection visa which has been considered separately by another Tribunal. Given the credibility concerns that the Tribunal has about the applicant’s father, and given that the Tribunal has found above that the applicant’s mother’s evidence, including that contained in her written statement/submission to the Tribunal is not reliable and further given that the applicant’s relatives have an interest in the favourable outcome of this application and are not impartial in the Tribunal’s view, the Tribunal places no weight on their declarations for the purposes of this application for review.

Evidence in e mails referred to by applicant’s father in s.424A response

The applicant’s father told the Tribunal at the hearing that he sent emails to the Department about the threats received from the applicant’s mother’s family. Further in his response to the Tribunal’s s.424A letter to the applicant the applicant’s father refers to “proofs as e mails” which were provided to the delegate in support of the applicant’s mother’s claims that she will be harmed by her family members on return to India. The e mails and translations of these e mails are on the applicant’s mother’s departmental protection visa file and relate to an exchange of emails between the applicant’s mother and the applicant’s mother’s father on 9 and 10 February 2013 before the applicant’s mother lodged her own application for protection visa on 28 February 2013. The e mails essentially threaten the applicant’s mother with harm should she return to India because of her inter caste marriage to a divorced man (the applicant’s father) which has brought shame on the family. Given the credibility concerns that the Tribunal has about the applicant’s father, and given that e mails can be created to support claims (the Tribunal notes that the applicant’s mother claimed protection in Australia on 28 February 2013 shortly after the date of these e mails) the Tribunal finds that the e mails referred to by the applicant’s father, including in the response to the Tribunal’s s.424A letter to the applicant, are not reliable evidence of the facts and events referred to in those e mails.

Claims that the applicant will be harmed by society in India because she is female and not male, including by way of honour killing and other crimes which are prevalent in India, for example rape.

The Tribunal accepts that there is independent country information, including country information, references and reports provided by the applicant’s father and the applicant’s witness (her mother), to support the applicant’s claims about honour killings sometimes in India by family members/those directed by family members. There is also some information which indicates that sometimes honour killings by those in society outside family members take place on occasions including where there are inter caste and/or inter religious marriages. In the Tribunal’s view however the country information consulted by it does not indicate that honour killings by those in society outside the family group readily occur in situations where the family supports, or does not oppose, the marriage. At paragraph 3.45 and 3.46 of DFAT Country Information Report India, 17 October 2018 it is reported, “
…sources observed that acceptance of marriages outside of castes or religion, or even of marriage partners not chosen by the family depended heavily on individual family beliefs… DFAT assesses that the treatment of people in inter religious or inter caste marriages varies according to the families involved…..” . When the Tribunal discussed generally this country information with the applicant’s father at the hearing and suggested that country information indicates that if the family supports/does not oppose an inter caste/inter religious marriage then society does not intervene he did not dispute it but said that he and his wife and child did not have the support of their families in India. For the reasons given earlier in this decision the Tribunal does not accept that either the applicant’s maternal or paternal family members oppose/do not support the marriage of the applicant’s mother and father or the birth of the applicant, a girl child. The Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance or real risk that the applicant will suffer serious harm or significant harm in India, including because of an honour killing either of herself and/or of her mother or father, by members of society acting independently of the family group or by members of her maternal or paternal family group or those directed by them, because her parents have married inter caste and inter religion and/or because the applicant is a female not a male child.

The Tribunal accepts that there is independent country information before it, including information provided by the applicant, that indicates there is sometimes gender based violence , including rape, against women and girls, in India and that reports of rape in India have increased over recent years: see for example paragraph 3.34 of DFAT Country

Information Report India,17 October 2018. While the Tribunal accepts that there is some chance or risk that women and girls might suffer gender based violence in India the Tribunal finds on the evidence before it that for this applicant that chance and/or risk is remote. The Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance or real risk that the applicant will suffer serious or significant harm because of crimes, including gender based crime/rape, committed against her if she returns to her country. When the Tribunal spoke with the applicant’s father about why the applicant would suffer harm from the society in India for these reasons he said that there is a high rate of crime against girls in India and even girls as young as six months old have been raped. When asked why his daughter, the applicant, would face such harm he said that she would be a “target” but did not explain to the Tribunal when asked why she would be a target saying that it would not be good for her to go back to start from “scratch” and it was hard for him to go back; they are “living safely here”. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant would be a target for gender based violence from society if she returns to India, including because she has been living safely in Australia.

Claim about availability of education/schools for the applicant in India

The applicant’s father told the Tribunal that the applicant cannot return to India as she will not get an education there; he said that in public education there are no schools or not enough schools and students have to sit on the ground. When the Tribunal told the applicant’s father that country information consulted by it (see paragraph 2.21 of DFAT Country Information Report India, 17 October 2018) indicated that education was available in India and that it was free and compulsory for children aged 6 to 14 he said that there are still not enough schools and no proper class rooms. At the Tribunal hearing he gave the Tribunal submissions including references to reports addressing problems with schools in India meeting the requirements under the Right to Education Act which came into effect in India in 2010 and which was mentioned in the delegate’s decision record.

Accepting that there are problems in India with the number of schools and the standard of class rooms the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant could not access a school and/or education in India on return there. Having regard to the evidence before it, including the country information discussed with the applicant’s father at the hearing, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance or real risk that the applicant will suffer serious harm or significant harm in India because she cannot be provided with an education at a school in India.

Claim that the applicant will suffer harm in India because of lack of support/financial support, including because her father/parents will be unemployed

The applicant claims that she cannot return to India because she/her parents cannot survive financially there; they could not get enough money there to survive and they have no support in India. The applicant’s father told the Tribunal that he has a [Qualification 1[ and studied to obtain an [Qualification 2] in Australia. He said that he worked as a [Occupation 1] in Australia and left that work because he wanted to start his own business which he did; he worked in his own business in Australia till February 2018. He said that when the business finished his wife worked doing [Occupation 2]. He said that in Australia it has been hard for them since then as his visa does not allow him to work now and his wife does not have a visa to work either. He said that has been given money from a friend to help him survive here because he cannot work due to his visa conditions. When the Tribunal asked him why his qualifications/skills would not enable him to find a job in India as he and his wife have done in Australia when their visas allowed them to work he said that in India no one would hire him as the study he did there was done 15 to 20 years ago, because of his age (he told the Tribunal he was in his late [age range]’s) and in India there is no link between education and work and also unemployment is increasing. At the Tribunal hearing he gave the Tribunal submissions including references to reports addressing the increasing

unemployment in India. The Tribunal pointed out to him that country information it had consulted (paragraph 2.24 of DFAT Country Information Report India, 17 October 2018) indicated that although there was unemployment in India there were still jobs there. He said that there are too many highly qualified people applying for work. He said that no one from his family would help them as he was sent to Australia to help the family and he did not do so and no one from his wife’s family will help them, although he said they were wealthy.

While the Tribunal accepts that there is some unemployment in India which has increased over recent times, given the country information consulted by the Tribunal, which was discussed generally with the applicant’s father at the hearings, given also the applicant’s father’s qualifications and experience, including his qualifications and experience gained in Australia, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s father/parents could not find some work/employment in India which would enable them to earn enough money for themselves and the applicant to subsist. Further given the credibility concerns that the Tribunal has about the evidence given by, and/or produced by, the applicant’s father, and its concerns about the reliability of the statement of her mother, and given also that both the applicant’s maternal and paternal grandmothers have visited the applicant’s parents in Australia, one being present for their wedding and the other being present during the time of the applicant’s birth, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant and her parents will not receive support from the applicant’s parents’ families if they return to India.

The Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance or real risk that the applicant will suffer harm amounting to serious harm or significant harm in India because the applicant’s father/parents will not get work to enable them/the applicant to survive financially or because the applicant/her parents will have no support in India.

Claim that the applicant who has spent her life in Australia will suffer harm in India because of the high level of pollution there and also suffer depression on return to India from Australia because she has lived in Australia since her birth in 2014

The Tribunal accepts that there is a high level of pollution in India and that the level of pollution in some cities there is higher than the pollution levels in cities in Australia. The applicant however claims that she will be affected by pollution in India to a greater degree than most of the population because she has lived since she was born in Australia. There is no medical or other evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant personally will suffer harm to a greater degree than the rest of the population in India for any reason and the Tribunal does not accept this claim. The Tribunal finds that the applicant will not be targeted for harm, or face a risk of harm personally from the pollution in India. The Tribunal finds that there is no real chance of serious harm for the applicant for the purposes of the refugee criterion or real risk of significant harm for the applicant for the purposes of the complementary protection criterion because of the pollution in India.

For the same reason the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant will become depressed on return to India; there is no medical or other reliable evidence to support this claim which in the Tribunal’s view is speculative.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well founded fear of being persecuted for a Convention reason in India. The Tribunal finds that she is not 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). In the Tribunal’s view there are not substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, in this case India, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’).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.

Ms Christine Long Member

[2020] AATA 3780

3 August 2020

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Appeal