1515964 (Refugee)

1515964 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 3929 (2 June 2016)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1515964
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Malaysia
MEMBER:Filip Gelev
DATE:2 June 2016
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Statement made on 02 June 2016 at 5:16pm

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 [in] November 2015 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 Malaysia, applied for the visa [in] June 2015.
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 issue in this case is whether Australia has protection obligations in respect of the applicant. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Country of nationality
The applicant claims to be a citizen of Malaysia and provided a copy of his passport to the Tribunal. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is a citizen of Malaysia, that Malaysia is the applicant’s country of nationality for the purposes of s.36(2)(a) and receiving country for the purposes of the complementary protection assessment, s.36(2)(aa).
Third country protection
There is no evidence before me to suggest that the claimant has the right to enter and reside in any safe third country for the purposes of s.36(3) of the Act.
Claims
The applicant was born [in] Selangor state. He lived in [Kuantan] district in the state of Pahang. It is on the east coast of peninsular Malaysia.
The delegate’s decision a copy of which was attached together with the application for review shows that the applicant first entered Australia [in] June 2014. He did not lodge the application for protection until more than a year later, [in] June 2015.
The applicant’s claims for protection are set out in Part C of the application form.
Q90: Why did you leave [Malaysia]?
I left Malaysia in June, 2014 because of an incident that happened to me in Malaysia in March 2012. The incident was as follows. I was in [a venue] near Kuala Lumpur [at] night. All of a sudden, two men with guns came in and were attempting robbery. There were only three people in the [venue]. Me, the man next to me and one staff. The man next to me immediately stood up and pulled out a gun, pointed it at the robbers and shouted that he was police and not to move. One of the men fired a shot, and so did the policeman and one of the men fell to the floor and the other ran away. The man later died. I then became a witness against the other man who was caught by the police. I continued my life as usual but had to go to court as the main witness in [2013] for the prosecution of the man who was caught. After I provided my witness statement against the man in court, I was escorted out of court and did not know the outcome of the trial. I continued my life with my family as usual, until April 2014. One evening, when I arrived home and got out of my car, some men grabbed me and pushed me into a van, and drove off. They hit me for many hours until I passed out. I later woke up on the side of the street, severely hurt and could not walk for many weeks. I was very afraid for myself and my family that they would return and hurt us. I received some calls after where they threatened me for money to compensate for the man who was now in jail. They said that if I did not pay, they would kill me. My wife and Mother were very afraid for my life and we decided that the best thing for me to do was to leave the country as soon as possible. That is why I came to Australia in June, 2014.
Q91: What do you think will happen to you if you go back to that country?
If I go back to Malaysia, I am sure that they will hurt me or kill me if they see me. They may also hurt my family. After I left, and until recently, they did come to my house and ask my family where I was. I would not be able to live a normal life because I would not be able to live back in my home town. I am very scared to return back as I do not feel safe in my country anymore.
The applicant said that he could not seek help from the authorities, because they (the criminals) threatened to hurt him and his family if he did so.
At the Tribunal hearing the applicant confirmed that he arrived in Australia: [in] June 2014.
He said that he used to lived in Kuantan district of Pahang state but moved to Kuala Lumpur at the end of 2012 or in early 2013 for a better paid job at [Company 1].
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether anyone had helped him with the application form to the Department of Immigration. He said a woman called [name] had helped him in[location] . When asked if the person interpreted the contents back to Mandarin Chinese, he said no. Then he said that the person spoke a bit of Chinese and the two of them used a dictionary to put together the application.
The Tribunal invited the applicant to explain why he left Malaysia. He said he had witnessed a robbery. After he gave evidence in court, a few months later, this person’s friends came to the applicant and said that it was his fault that the man was convicted. They tried to take revenge.
The Tribunal asked where and when the robbery happened. He said it was around 7am in the morning, [in] Selangor. He was there for work. He said he was ordering [goods]. He said it happened he was not 100% sure but he thought it was in April or May 2011. The Tribunal pointed out that according to his application (employment history) he was meant to be working for [Company 2] at that time; he did not start working for [Company 1] until later. He said he did not have the pay slips with dates so he was not sure of the exact dates when he worked for different employers. When asked to confirm the month, he confirmed the year – 2011 – but said he was not sure about the month; he thought it was April or May.
The Tribunal pointed out that at the time he was working for [Company 2] according to his employment history he was not working for [Company 1]. He said that he was not sure exactly when he changed jobs, because he did not have the pay slips in front of him.
The Tribunal asked him to say who was his employer at that time. He said that thinking again he was working for [Company 2] and he had to carry [samples] [for] testing. He was not there to purchase [goods].
He confirmed that the incident happened in the morning. Two robbers came in to the [venue] when the applicant was there. There was also a police officer who got up and shot one of the robbers. The [venue] owner ran away.
The police officer shot and killed one of the men. The other one escaped. The robbers also fired shots. He said he was not sure who fired how many shots, but it was a total of about 7 shots.
The police officers asked the applicant to stay back to wait for the arrival of other police. When other police officers arrived, they placed cards next to the bullets and the dead body.
The applicant was brought to the police station and stayed there overnight. The next day he did a police interview. After that he was released, but a week later he was asked to do another interview.
He said that he spent the first night in remand together with criminals. He agreed with the Tribunal’s suggestion that it sounded like a bad idea to put the applicant in a cell with criminals, if he was to be a police witness.
A few months later, he was again taken to the police station he was asked to identify police suspects through a glass. He identified the second robber, the one who had run away.
A few more months passed and the police asked him to be a witness in court. When asked when it happened, he said in 2013, but he could not remember the month. Then he said July or August 2013.
The Tribunal pointed out that if the events had taken place in 2011, it means a long time had passed for the trial to happen. The applicant agreed but he said he did not know what caused the delay.
The Tribunal said that a few months (until he was taken to identify the suspect) and a few more months does not equal more than two years which is how long passed between the murder and the court case.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether the incident was reported in the local media. He said he had an article some time ago, but he did not have it anymore.
The Tribunal asked him whether he had any paperwork relating to the court case. He said that they called him on the phone and told him to attend court, that is, he was not sent any paperwork. He was also not given anything after the case finished. The Tribunal observed that this sounded unusual and normally the court would issue a subpoena. The applicant said he knew that was the normal practice but this was not happened in his case.
He said that he did not know the name of the defendant against whom he testified. When the Tribunal said that it found that very hard to believe, he replied that the Malaysian police act “lightly”, that is, they do not follow the right procedure). He said he also did not know the name of the robber who was killed.
The Tribunal noted that the police would have been happy to promote the story in the media – the authorities managed to catch a criminal and put him in prison. The applicant said that they wanted to keep this particular story quiet, because during the trial it transpired – the prosecutor told the applicant about this – that the defendant used to be in the military.
The applicant said that immediately after giving evidence against the robber, he was removed from court. The Tribunal asked whether it was a public case, he said that it was a public case. The Tribunal asked why then he was removed from the court, he said that he did what he was asked.
In February or March 2014 a few people came and claimed that they were friends of the defendant. They blindfolded the applicant, took him in a vehicle that he thought was a van, and “took revenge”: they kicked and beat him with something that felt like a wooden log. After that they abandoned him in a park.
The Tribunal asked what his injuries were. He said he suffered “bleeding, swelling, bruising”. When asked where, he said foot, hand and face. He was bleeding from the hands and arms, and from the face, and he had a swollen foot. The Tribunal asked the applicant many questions about the exact injuries and whether he had to stay at home. He said he had to stay home for about a month. The Tribunal then asked: “Did you have problems or, like, getting out of bed?” He said “no problem”. The applicant then said that he was resting for about a month, and some two weeks later the gangsters came again to ask for money.
The Tribunal advised the applicant that there were inconsistencies between what he said in his written statement and his oral evidence at the hearing. First, in the statement he said that the shooting happened in March 2012 whereas at the hearing he said it was definitely in 2011, probably in April or May of that year.
Secondly, in his statement he said that the shooting took place at night, while today at the hearing he said it was 7am in the morning.
The applicant said that when he asked this Australian friend, [name], to help him with the application, she said she was quite busy. She only gave him two hours of her time. Subsequently he remembered things more clearly. He said that when he turns [age] he will get [amount] Ringgit from his father’s insurance policy and he will be able to pay the gang so they will not pursue him anymore.
The Tribunal referred to the inconsistencies again. He said that the incident happened in 2011 and maybe he was asked to go to the police in March 2012.
In terms of the time of day or night when this happened, he said he had first gone to the [venue] late at night, about 2-3am but the incident was at 7am. When asked what he did that during the night, he said he was playing [games] until the morning.
The Tribunal pointed out that there was an inconsistency in his oral evidence at the hearing too. He first said that he was in this town to pick up some [goods] but then he said he was there for some [samples] for a different employer. He said it was around the time he changed jobs and that was why he was not sure which employer had sent him there. The Tribunal said this was not the case: according to his employment history he changed jobs in early 2013. He replied that before starting at [Company 1] in 2013 he already knew the employer and sometime did work for them. The Tribunal observes that the two employers were in different cities.
The Tribunal asked the applicant to comment in relation to further differences between his oral and written evidence. The statement says that the criminal trial was in October 2013 in his statement and July-August 2013 at the hearing; and that the assault happened in April 2014 in his statement whereas at the hearing he said it was February or March 2014. The Tribunal said both of these inconsistencies were not major, but were inconsistencies nonetheless. The applicant said that he does not think about these events all the time and he is giving his evidence as best as he remembers it.
The Tribunal said that a further more significant inconsistency concerned the injuries he received. He said in his statement that he had problems walking for many weeks after the assault, whereas he told the Tribunal that he had no problem walking. He said that he thought the Tribunal was asking him earlier whether at present he could walk. After the beating in 2014 he had problems walking.
The Tribunal has listened again to the recording of the hearing. While it has not asked for an independent interpreter to check whether the interpreter asked about the applicant’s ability to walk in the past, as a result of the beating,[1] the Tribunal notes that the applicant should have known from the context that he was being asked whether he could walk after the assault.
[1] The Tribunal is not referring to the use of the past tense by the interpreter, because Mandarin Chinese does not have verb tenses.
The Tribunal also commented that it found his evidence problematic in relation to the claim that the police and court gave him no paperwork at all and he did not know the name of the robber who was killed or the defendant against whom he was testifying. He asserted that his claims were true.
The Tribunal advised the applicant that based on the inconsistencies and problems as discussed with him, it might find that he has fabricated his evidence. The applicant insisted that it was a major case and the Australian government could make its own inquiries. The Tribunal said that it was not sure that this would be particularly straightforward. Is the Tribunal to ask about all murder cases prosecuted 2013 in relation to a murder that happened either sometime in 2011 or 2012.
The applicant said that the police have his name on their database. The Tribunal said that the Malaysian authorities will probably not respond to a general request for information from Australia. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he cannot obtain information himself. He said it was because he needs to approach the authorities in person with his ID card; while he is outside of Australia he obviously cannot go in person.
He said that his wife could go to the police and try to obtain documents. He said that about two and a half months ago he had asked and he was told that he needed to appear in person.
He said that when the criminals approached him, he called the police, but they did not take it seriously. They told him he could avoid these men.
The Tribunal gave the applicant until 13 May 2016 to provide further evidence in support of his claims. He made no further contact with the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has given careful consideration to the applicant’s request that the Tribunal contact the Malaysian authorities, who will confirm that the applicant was a witness in a murder case. However, the Tribunal has decided that to make such inquiries may create a sur place claim. It is not appropriate for the Tribunal or the Australian authorities to be contacting the authorities of a county from which the applicant seeks protection, even in circumstances where the claimed fear is from non-state actors.
Well-founded fear of persecution
For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was ever a witness of a murder and therefore it also does not accept that the applicant was a witness in a trial and suffered problems as a result.

There were a number of significant inconsistencies between the applicant’s written and oral evidence: the time of day/night when the murder happened, the year when it happened, the injuries he received, what he was doing in this town and which employer sent him there, the time of the trial, and the time when he was assaulted by the criminal gang after the trial.
The Tribunal does not accept that the manner in which the written application was prepared – with the help of someone who is not a qualified migration agent or lawyer and who is not fluent in Mandarin Chinese – can explain all of the above inconsistencies.
The Tribunal finds it far-fetched that if the criminal trial was open to the public – even if the government did not want to publicise it – because the defendant was not a career criminal but had served in the military – that the applicant would not have received any paperwork, that he would not know the name of the murdered man or the defendant who was put in prison thanks in part to the applicant’s evidence at trial.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant has fabricated all his claims, that he is not a witness of truth and that his claims are to be rejected in their entirety.
The applicant did not witness a murder, has never been a prosecution witness, has never been threatened or harmed by criminals for any reason and has not been asked to pay money by a criminal gang.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for any reason. He did not come to Australia because he feared for his safety and he does not have a fear of returning to Malaysia for any reason.
For the reasons given above, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under 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).
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal has no grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Malaysia, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm for any reason. Therefore, 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.
Filip Gelev
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.
…

[2016] AATA 3929

2 June 2016

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice

Standing

Statutory Construction