1513666 (Refugee)

1513666 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 676 (19 April 2017)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1513666
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Fiji
MEMBER:Chris Thwaites
DATE:19 April 2017
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 19 April 2017 at 9:53am
CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Fiji – Complementary protection – Victim of domestic violence – History of violence with former husband – Previous domestic violence orders not effective – Relocation not possible
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5H(1), 5J(1), 5K-LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Fiji, applied for the visa [in] January 2015.
[In] September 2015 the delegate refused to grant the visa.
On 7 October 2015 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision.
CRITERIA FOR A 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, he or she 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 because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).
Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
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 the 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 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’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and relevant 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.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The Tribunal has before it the Department’s file relating to the applicant’s protection visa application and the Tribunal’s file relating to the review application. The Tribunal has also had consideration of the delegate’s decision record provide to the Tribunal by the applicant.
The applicant’s written reasons for claiming protection are contained in her visa application forms.
The applicant indicates she has experienced harm in her country and states that she was married for [number] years and has [children] from the marriage. During this time she faced abuse, violence, and inhumane treatment. She feels she has been punished continually by her former husband, who is the father of her children. The applicant states she has been hospitalised twice by her former husband, and all [the] children have been traumatised because of the abuse and violent acts of her former husband towards her.
The applicant describes one of the violent incidents where she was dragged [outside] of her home and kicked and punched. This occurred in front of her children.
The applicant states that after this incident a restraining order was issued against her former husband and he was taken into custody for a few nights. The applicant’s [Sibling 1], who has sided with her former husband, bailed him [out]. From that day the applicant refused to stay with her former husband and doesn’t want ever go back to him.
The applicant states she fears that she will continue to live in constant fear, and will be threatened and abused if she returns to her country. The applicant states everything will be the same and even worse than before she left for Australia. The applicant states she fears she will be followed around without freedom and constantly fearful. She states she won’t have her rights, as in her country, women who leave their husbands and home and travel to another country without taking their children are considered to have abandoned her cultural customs.
The applicant states she fears her former husband’s acts of violence, abuse and ill-treatment against her will continue and never stop. She states he is full of pride, gets jealous very easily and is extremely short tempered.
The applicant indicates that she does not think the authorities of her country can and will protect her if she returns, and states the Court awarded her a restraining order against her former husband, but it lasted only a few months, and did not stop the assaults and abuse.
The applicant states her former husband’s acts of violence are known by the Court, and the police department, and her neighbours. Sometimes her children are kept at [Ms A]’s family for protection, as her former husband can and one day will kill the applicant. [Ms A]’s [family member] has saved the applicant during her pregnancies when her husband kicked and abused her.
The applicant states her former husband dragged her [outside] and abused her, and even when the Court and the police tried to intervene, there was not much they could do. This behaviour remained ongoing and she fears it will continue if she returned to Fiji.
The applicant provided copies of a number of documents in support of the application including a letter headed [title], dated [in] December 2014 from [the] applicant’s [other sibling]. The letter outlines [his/her] knowledge of the abuse the applicant suffered from her former husband, and is consistent with and supports the applicant’s claims. The letter also states that the applicant’s [Sibling 1] has taken the former husband’s side, and has verbally abused the applicant, and bailed her former husband out when he was arrested.
The applicant also provided a copy of a written statement from [Ms A] detailing her knowledge of the abuse suffered by the applicant from her former husband. This letter is consistent with and supports the claims of abuse made by the applicant.
The applicant also provided a copy of a letter from [a] Police Station, dated [in] December 2014, certifying that the applicant called at the [Police] Station [in] August 2008 and reported that she was assaulted by her husband.
As noted above, [in] September 2015 the delegate refused to grant the applicant a protection visa.
The delegate’s decision record indicates that after interviewing the applicant and considering country information, the delegate accepted the applicant’s claims that she suffered ongoing domestic violence perpetrated by her former husband during their marriage. The delegate also accepted that the applicant’s former husband regularly made harassing, intimidating and abusive telephone calls to the applicant at her workplace in 2012 and occasionally subsequently. The delegate also accepted that the applicant’s [Sibling 1] perpetuated sibling abuse against her because of rivalry and [his/her] disagreement with the applicant wanting to end her marriage.
The delegate accepted the applicant’s former husband was a violent person who has seriously injured the applicant in the past and caused her physical or mental harm. The delegate accepted the harm and violence was perpetrated while they lived together, and the verbal abuse and threats extended into the period of marital separation.
Nevertheless, on the evidence before her, the delegate was not sufficiently satisfied the applicant’s former husband continued contacting and threatening and abusing the applicant after 2012.
The delegate was therefore not sufficiently satisfied the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm in the form of physical assault or psychological abuse in Fiji within the reasonably foreseeable future. Similarly, the delegate was not satisfied the applicant’s [Sibling 1] will cause her serious harm in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The delegate was not satisfied there was a real chance of persecution, and therefore found the applicant was not a refugee as defined by the Act. Therefore she did not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a protection visa under s.36(2)(a) of the act. The delegate was also not satisfied there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there was a real risk the applicant would suffer significant harm. Therefore the delegate found the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the grant of protection visa in s.36(2)(aa). Therefore the delegate refused to grant the applicant a protection visa.
As noted above, on 7 October 2015 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 13 April 2017 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from [Ms A].
During the hearing the applicant confirmed she has tried to initiate a divorce from her former husband but he has refused to sign any papers, and therefore she remains legally married to him. Therefore, while the Tribunal finds they continue to remain legally married, for convenience sake, and in order to stay consistent with the written material and the applicant’s preference in referring to this person, the Tribunal will continue to refer to him as her former husband.
During the hearing the applicant told the Tribunal she continued to fear returning to Fiji because she believed her former husband would find her and harm her. She told the Tribunal he continues to ask family and friends about her whereabouts, and she believes he remains angry and jealous and will harm her if she returns. The applicant also provided photographs of her after her release from hospital in 2012, showing [injuries].
[Ms A] told the Tribunal she had known the applicant since they were children as they were neighbours and grew up together.
She told the Tribunal she witnessed the applicant’s former husband’s violence towards the applicant over many years, as they remained living as neighbours, and often she would shelter the applicant and her children.
She told the Tribunal that even when the applicant was granted a domestic violence restraining order by the Court and was sheltering in her home, her former husband climbed a [tree] in an attempt to enter the property and get to the applicant.
[Ms A] told the Tribunal she continues to live in Suva and had travelled to Australia to visit the applicant and to attend the hearing. She told the Tribunal she has witnessed the ongoing violence since the applicant’s early married years. She told the Tribunal the applicant’s former husband continues to ask about her whereabouts, and she believes he will seek to harm her if she returns to Fiji.
The Tribunal has had the advantage of more evidence than was before the delegate, particularly the oral evidence of [Ms A] which the Tribunal found consistent and persuasive, and for the following reasons the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
Nationality
On the basis of the applicant’s consistent information provided to the Department and Tribunal about her place of birth and citizenship of Fiji, as well as the copy of her Fijian passport she provided to the Department, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is a national of Fiji. There is nothing in the evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant has a right to enter and reside in any country other than Fiji. Therefore the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not excluded from Australia’s protection by subsection 36(3) of the Act. As the Tribunal has found that the applicant is a national of Fiji, the Tribunal also finds that Fiji is the applicant’s “receiving country” for the purposes of s.36(2)(aa).
Refugee Convention criterion: s.36(2)(a)
The Tribunal found the applicant’s oral evidence generally consistent and compelling. While there were some minor discrepancies in relation to dates, overall the Tribunal accepts the applicant has told the Tribunal the truth in relation to the history of violent abuse from her former husband.
The applicant’s oral evidence was supported by the documents she provided to the Department and the photographs provided at the hearing.
While the Tribunal notes many of the documents provided do not address whether the violence continued after 2012, and this concerned the delegate, the Tribunal has had the advantage of further evidence, specifically the oral evidence of [Ms A].
As noted above, the Tribunal found the oral evidence of [Ms A] consistent and persuasive and the Tribunal is satisfied she has told the Tribunal the truth in relation to her knowledge of the violence and abuse suffered by the applicant, and the applicant’s former husband’s continued interest in the applicant’s whereabouts.
On the evidence before it the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s claims that she suffered ongoing violence perpetrated by her former husband during their marriage. The Tribunal also accepts the violence and abuse continued after the applicant separated from her former husband in 2011, and that she was hospitalised after a particularly violent incident in 2012.
The Tribunal also accepts the applicant’s claims that while she had a number of domestic violence restraining orders issued by the Court, her former husband continued to abuse her.
While the Tribunal accepts the occurrences of physical abuse lessened over time, especially after the applicant separated from her former husband, the Tribunal also accepts the abuse did not cease, and the applicant’s former husband continued to telephone her and harass her and threaten her with harm. The Tribunal also accepts the applicant’s former husband continues to contact family members and friends seeking the applicant’s whereabouts.
Given the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s former husband has abused and assaulted and threatened the applicant over a number of years, and continues to seek information about her whereabouts, the Tribunal also accepts there is a real chance the applicant’s former husband will try to harm her again in the future.
During the hearing the Tribunal raised its concerns that the reasons why the applicant’s former husband wishes to harm her appeared to be personal, due to jealously and a short temper, and not for the reasons required by the Act. The applicant told the Tribunal she had heard that her former husband has also abused another partner.
The Tribunal has considered the particular social group of ‘women in Fiji’. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s husband is motivated beyond jealousy and issues in his personal relationships, and the Tribunal does not accept he wishes to harm all ‘women in Fiji’.
While the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s former husband may have abused a number of his partners, and the Tribunal accepts there is a real chance the applicant’s former husband will try to harm her again in the future, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant’s former husband’s reason for wanting to harming the applicant are for the reasons of race, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Therefore the Tribunal is not satisfied there is a real chance that if the applicant returned to Fiji, she would be persecuted for one of more of the reasons mentioned in s.5J(1)(a) of the Act.
Therefore the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution as defined in s.5J and does not meet the definition of refugee as defined in s.5H
For the reasons given above the Tribunal finds the applicant is not a refugee as defined by the Act, and does not satisfy s.36(2)(a) for the grant of a protection visa.
Complementary protection criterion: s.36(2)(aa)
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative complementary protection criterion in s.36(2)(aa). This criterion is met if there are 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.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s claims that she suffered ongoing violence perpetrated by her former husband during their marriage. The Tribunal also accepts the violence and abuse continued after the applicant separated from her former husband in 2011 and that she was hospitalised after a particularly violent incident in 2012. The Tribunal also accepts the applicant’s claims that while she had a number of domestic violence restraining orders issued by the Court, her former husband continued to abuse her.
While the Tribunal accepts the occurrences of physical abuse lessened over time, especially after the applicant separated from her former husband, the Tribunal also accepts the abuse did not cease and the applicant’s former husband continued to telephone her and harass her and threaten her with harm. The Tribunal also accepts the applicant’s former husband continues to contact family members and friends seeking the applicant’s whereabouts.
Given the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s former husband has abused and assaulted and threatened the applicant over a number of years, and continues to seek information about her whereabouts, the Tribunal also accepts there is a real risk the applicant’s former husband will try to harm her again in the future.

The Tribunal accepts the applicant has suffered significant harm in the past, including when the applicant was hospitalised after a serious assault in 2012. The Tribunal accepts the feared harm is significant harm, as it includes intentionally inflicting sever pain and suffering.
During the hearing the Tribunal discussed with the applicant whether it would be reasonable for her to relocate to an area of Fiji where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm.
The applicant told the Tribunal Fiji is a small country and she fears her former husband will find her anywhere she goes in the country. She told the Tribunal she had lived in Suva all her life and all her family live in Suva, including her children. She also told the Tribunal her former husband’s family members have reported on her movements to her former husband in the past.
The Tribunal accepts Fiji is a relatively small country with a relatively small population. The Tribunal accepts the applicant has lived her whole life in Suva and does not have any family connections outside that city. The Tribunal also accepts the applicant’s children live with their [relative] in Suva and have some contact with their father. The Tribunal also accepts the authorities in Fiji have failed to protect the applicant from her former husband in the past.
As noted above, the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s former husband continues to seek information about her whereabouts, and the Tribunal accepts there is a real risk the applicant’s former husband will try to harm her again in the future, wherever she is in Fiji.
Given the above, the Tribunal is not satisfied there is an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm.
The Tribunal also accepts the authorities in Fiji have failed to protect the applicant from her former husband in the past, and the Tribunal accepts that she could not obtain such protection that there would not be a real risk that she would suffer significant harm in the future.
The Tribunal also accepts that the real risk is faced by the applicant personally and is not one faced by the population of Fiji generally.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal accepts that there are 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 she will suffer significant harm.
Therefore the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.
Chris Thwaites
Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)   the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)   there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)   the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note: For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note: For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)   conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)   conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)   without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in them practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)   that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)   the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)   the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)   a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)   significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)   significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)   significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)   denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)    denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)   disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)   disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)   a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)   the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)   any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)   the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)   protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)   the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)   the person can access the protection; and
(b)   the protection is durable; and
(c)   in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
..
36Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)   the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)   the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)   it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)   the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)   the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2017] AATA 676

19 April 2017

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction