1516411 (Refugee)

[2019] AATA 5840

1516411 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 5840 (4 June 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1516411

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Nepal

MEMBER:Paul Noonan

DATE:4 June 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants’ protection visas.

Statement made on 04 June 2019 at 11:18am

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Nepal – political opinion – Congress Party supporter – fear of attacks by Maoists – extortion – refusal to be recruited – fear of kidnapping – exceptional economic, scientific, cultural or other benefit – Ministerial Intervention requested – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 36, 65, 91R, 417
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

CASES

Chan v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 572
MIEA v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicants Protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicants who claim to be citizens of Nepal applied for the visas on 5 June 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visas on 24 November 2015.

3. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 25 March 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Nepali and English languages.

4. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent. Their representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

   RELEVANT LAW

5. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, the applicant is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

   Refugee criterion

6. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).

7. Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:

   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.

8. Sections 91R and 91S of the Act qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the Regulations to a particular person.

9. There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.

10. Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s.91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve ‘serious harm’ to the applicant (s.91R(1)(b)), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s.91R(1)(c)). Examples of ‘serious harm’ are set out in s.91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.

11. Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors.

12. Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition - race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase ‘for reasons of’ serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s.91R(1)(a) of the Act.

13. Fourth, an applicant’s fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a ‘well-founded’ fear. This adds an objective requirement to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution under the Convention if they have genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted for a Convention stipulated reason. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.

14. In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. The expression ‘the protection of that country’ in the second limb of Article 1A(2) is concerned with external or diplomatic protection extended to citizens abroad. Internal protection is nevertheless relevant to the first limb of the definition, in particular to whether a fear is well-founded and whether the conduct giving rise to the fear is persecution.

15. Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.

    Complementary protection criterion

16. 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’).

17. ‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s.36(2A): s.5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s.5(1) of the Act.

18. There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s.36(2B) of the Act.

    Section 499 Ministerial Direction

19. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines and any country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

    Member of the same family unit

20. Subsections 36(2)(b) and (c) provide as an alternative criterion that the applicant is a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen mentioned in s.36(2)(a) or (aa) who holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant. Section 5(1) of the Act provides that one person is a ‘member of the same family unit’ as another if either is a member of the family unit of the other or each is a member of the family unit of a third person. Section 5(1) also provides that ‘member of the family unit’ of a person has the meaning given by the Regulations for the purposes of the definition. The expression is defined in r.1.12(1) of the Regulations. With reference to this regulation, and the relevant definitions contained in r.1.05A, the Tribunal was satisfied and so found that the family head is the first named applicant who is the main visa applicant. The Tribunal found that the second named applicant is the spouse of the first named applicant and as such is a member of the family unit. The Tribunal was satisfied that the sixth named applicant is [an age] year old child who is dependent upon the first named applicant as per r.1.03 and is a child of the first named and second named applicants as per s.5CA of the Act. In respect to the third, fourth and fifth named applicants they are also the children of the first and second named applicants and are aged between [age range] years. However they all reside at the family home of the first and second named applicants. They have obtained some casual work but are primarily studying. The Tribunal was satisfied, and so found, that the third, fourth and fifth named applicants are wholly or substantially reliant on the first person for financial support to meet their basic needs for food, clothing and shelter and are accordingly dependents of the first named applicant.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

21. The applicants’ representative provided a submission prior to hearing which advised the Tribunal that the applicant is no longer relying upon the protection claims in his application for a Subclass 866 Protection visa. Instead the applicant wishes for Tribunal consideration of noting in its decision that this case should be brought to the Minister’s attention.

22. At the commencement of the hearing the Tribunal explained to the first named applicant that the Ministerial Guidelines state that he would require a decision from the Tribunal in respect to his claim for protection before the Minister would consider his claim. After consultation with his representative the first named applicant advised he now wished to rely upon his protection claims and wished to proceed with his appeal accordingly.

23. For the following reasons the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed. However, after reviewing the matter, the Tribunal considers the matter should be referred for consideration for Ministerial Intervention. The Tribunal’s considerations in respect to this recommendation are set out later in these reasons.

    Refugee criterion

24. The first named applicant confirmed that he does fear harm should he return to Nepal. He fears harm from Maoists. In his 2014 written claim for protection he stated that if he returned to Nepal Maoists would pressure him to join their party and if he did not they will kidnap or kill his family members.

25. The applicant confirmed to the Tribunal that in the past he was a supporter of the Congress Party and he was under pressure from Maoists to support them instead. He was threatened by them and they used to ask him and his brother for money. He decided to escape to [a named country]. This occurred in July 2001. The applicant noted that after he left Nepal his brother continued to have difficulties with the Maoists. However he confirmed that the last contact either he or his brother had with Maoists was in around 2007 or 2008. He confirmed he received a call in 2007 while in Australia from Maoists asking for money. He has had no contact with Maoists since then. He noted that he has not been in Nepal for a long time and he gets his information from his brother. His brother advises him that Maoists are still active in his area and he retains fear of them. The applicant agreed that his brother had not suffered any harm from Maoists active in his area since 2008. He agreed he had returned to Nepal in 2008 to visit his mother and had not suffered any harm but that he was fearful of Maoists for the time that he was there. He agreed he had visited his local area and Maoists had approached him and asked for money while he was there however he had not suffered any harm and had not provided them with money. The Tribunal noted that while the first named applicant’s brother still expresses some fear of Maoists to him it is clear his brother resides in his local area unharmed and has done so for many years. After weighing up the evidence before it the Tribunal concluded that it is highly unlikely that the first named applicant will experience any harassment or harm from Maoists should he return to his local family area in Nepal.

26. The Tribunal put to the applicant recent country information in respect to the political situation in Nepal. This information produced in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country (DFAT) Information report dated 1 March 2019 relevantly states as follows:

    2.9 Several changes of government, including realignment of coalitions, resulted in two further changes of Prime Minister before national elections were held over two phases in November and December 2017. These saw landslide results in favour of the Left Alliance comprised of the CPN-UML and the CPN-Maoist Centre parties. The two parties merged in early 2018 to form the Nepal Communist Party (NCP), which now holds a close to two-thirds majority in the Federal Parliament, led by Prime Minister KP Oli for his second term. The coming years will see Nepal’s complex transition to a new federalist system.[1]

    3.38 All Nepali citizens 18 years and older are eligible to vote. Under the 2015 Constitution seats in the Federal Parliament are reserved for women through quotas, and substantial, proportional allocations made for Madhesis, Dalits, and other minority groups.

    3.39 Political affiliation, both at an organisational and individual level, is an important aspect of identity. This was a cause of instability during the conflict and in the years immediately following. Political youth wings, bandhs (strikes, see Private Sector/Business Community), demands for donations from local authorities and the private sector, and the obstruction of tender-bidding processes in line with political interests all contributed to this instability.

    3.40 A diverse and competitive array of political parties operates in Nepal, though the system has faced considerable instability in recent years. Unlike the 1990 constitution, the 2015 Constitution has no limitation on parties formed along ethnic lines leading to many ethnic groups to participate formally in political processes, motivated by a belief that they have been excluded from a society that has historically been ruled by dominant ethnic and caste groups.

    3.41 Nepal has enjoyed several years of political stability. A lively political environment provides an opportunity for diverse political parties and views, and an individual’s membership of a political party, along with their ability to be identified as a member and to be politically active, is generally respected. DFAT assesses the risk of a return to widespread violence is low. [2]

    [1] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country Information Report – Nepal, 1 March 2019, p.9

    [2] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country Information Report – Nepal, 1 March 2019, p.19

27. In its latest report DFAT also provides an analysis of the current situation in Nepal with respect to Maoists as follows:

    3.42 Communist parties won the 2017 elections in both the parliament and the provincial assembly. The main far left parties, Communist Party Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) CPN-UML and Communist Party Nepal (Maoist Center) merged in 2018. Before political groups were allowed to politically organise in 2015, Maoists recruited from among ethnic minorities who participated in their insurgency.

    3.43 Tens of thousands of people displaced by the long period of conflict in Nepal (see Recent History) remain displaced. As part of the peace process, Maoists and the government agreed on a programme to allow displaced people to return to their homes. The land once belonging to many displaced people had since become occupied illegally or been given away or sold by the Maoists during the civil war. Some displaced people lack documentation, preventing them from reclaiming their property.

    3.44 While the two main Maoist parties have merged, the movement has a history of internal splits and the ideology of the two main groups, while merged, is inconsistent. Historical claims of abuses during the insurgency remain unresolved.

    3.45 Maoists have the potential to control the national agenda without resorting to violence. In general, DFAT assesses that political opponents of Maoists do not face violence, unless they participate in violent political demonstrations, in which case they face no greater threat of violence than other participants.[3]

    [3] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country Information Report – Nepal, 1 March 2019, p.19

28. The applicant reiterated that he continued to fear harm from Maoists should he return to Nepal. While he agreed the political situation is currently peaceful he noted it has not been peaceful in the past and worries about a potential return to this situation. In addition he raised concerns in respect to his family. He stated they have not been to Nepal. There is a drug problem in Nepal. His daughters may also be harmed by Maoists however he did not elaborate on why this would occur. He confirmed that dowry issues are now not a concern in respect to his daughters. The Tribunal also noted previous concerns raised by the applicant about the low standard of living in Nepal, the children’s inability to communicate in Nepal, and his son being forced to carry a gun.

29. A fear of being persecuted is well-founded if there is a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted.[4] In Chan v MIEA Mason CJ observed that various expressions have been used in other jurisdictions to describe ‘well-founded fear’ – ‘a reasonable degree of likelihood’, ‘a real and substantial risk’, ‘a reasonable possibility’ and ‘a real chance’. His Honour saw no significant difference in these expressions, but preferred the expression ‘a real chance’ because it conveyed the notion of a substantial, as distinct from a remote chance, of persecution occurring and because it was an expression that had been explained and applied in Australia.[5]

    [4] Chan v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379 per Mason CJ at 389, Toohey J at 406-7, Dawson J at 396-8, McHugh J at 428-9.

    [5] Chan v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379 at 389.

1. The Tribunal noted that the first named applicant’s most recent contact with Maoists was in 2008 when he returned to his home area. He gave evidence that even at that time he suffered no harm despite Maoists being aware of his presence in the area. He has had no further contact with Maoists since then. Further country information assesses that political opponents of Maoists in Nepal do not face violence for peaceful opposition activities. The Tribunal considered that on balance the first named applicant’s history of interactions with Maoists indicates it is highly unlikely that he, or any member of his family, will now be specifically targeted for harm by Maoists should he return to Nepal now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

2. After reviewing the country information above in respect to the current political situation, and the situation for opponents of Maoists, and the applicant’s evidence the Tribunal concluded that there is no real chance of persecution of the applicant or any member of his family by Maoists should they return to Nepal. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept the first named applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution now or in the reasonably foreseeable future for this reason claimed if he returns to Nepal.

3. In respect to the other grounds raised by the first named applicant he raised concerns in respect to the prevailing general economic and security situation in Nepal, drug use in Nepal, in respect to his daughter’s safety in respect to dowry concerns, the children’s inability to communicate in Nepal, and his son being forced to carry a gun. The first named applicant did not seek to elaborate on these fears in the hearing.

4. A fear of persecution is not well-founded if it is merely assumed or if it is mere speculation. In MIEA v Guo, the Court said:

   Conjecture or surmise has no part to play in determining whether a fear is well‑founded. A fear is “well-founded” when there is a real substantial basis for it. As Chan shows, a substantial basis for a fear may exist even though there is far less than a 50 per cent chance that the object of the fear will eventuate. But no fear can be well-founded for the purpose of the Convention unless the evidence indicates a real ground for believing that the applicant for refugee status is at risk of persecution. A fear of persecution is not well-founded if it is merely assumed or if it is mere speculation.[6]

   [6] MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 572; cf MIEA v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 293.

5. The Tribunal considered fears raised in respect to drug use and its impact upon the applicant’s family and his son being forced to carry a gun. The Tribunal was unable to find any country information detailing a prevalent use of illicit drugs in Nepal or the forced carriage of guns and associated crimes in Nepal. Neither was the first named applicant able to provide such evidence in support of his claims in this regard. The Tribunal concluded that these claims are highly speculative and there was no basis put forward for these claims to be considered anything else. The Tribunal also noted that the first named applicant stated that he now holds no fears in respect to his daughter’s safety in respect to dowry concerns and the Tribunal accepted this to be the case.

6. The Tribunal did not consider grounds raised in respect to general economic and security conditions, and the children’s inability to communicate in Nepal demonstrated persecution for reasons enumerated in the Convention definition of a refugee. The Tribunal noted that persecution which the first named applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons being race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The Tribunal was unable to discern why these grounds raised would lead to persecution for any such reason nor was the first named applicant or his representative able to do so.

7. Given the above reasoning it follows that the Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance that the first named applicant will be persecuted for one of the Convention reasons to the extent that the persecution involves serious harm for any reason claimed if he returns to Nepal, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept the first named applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for these reasons claimed if he returns to Nepal.

8. In considering whether the first named applicant meets the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa) of the Act the Tribunal considered whether it has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the first named applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. Relying on the reasoning above, (with the exception of the non-nexus claims detailed at paragraph 34) the Tribunal considered the first named applicant’s fear of persecution is mere speculation. Accordingly the Tribunal finds that there are no substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the first named applicant being removed from Australia to Nepal that there is a real risk he will suffer significant harm.

9. In respect to general economic and security conditions, and the first named applicant’s children’s inability to communicate in Nepal, the Tribunal noted that Nepal is amongst the poorest and least developed nations in the world.[7] However the first named applicant has family connections in Nepal to assist in relocating and he is educated with an international employment history in [a specified industry]. In respect to the general security situation in Nepal the Tribunal has already noted country information which states that the political environment in Nepal is currently relatively peaceful. After considering the above factors the Tribunal concluded that it is highly unlikely that the first named applicant will suffer significant harm due to the prevailing economic conditions or due to the general security situation. Further the children of the first named applicant’s inability to speak Nepalese will be overcome by them learning the language. The three oldest children are well educated and adults and there was no suggestion they would be unable to learn the language. Further there was no country information that suggests the first named applicant’s children would be targeted for significant harm due to their inability to speak Nepalese nor did the first named applicant make this specific claim.

   [7] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country Information Report – Nepal, 1 March 2019, p.9

10. Having had regard to the first named applicant’s claims both singly and cumulatively, the Tribunal concluded that there is not a real risk that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the first named applicant being removed from Australia, that he will suffer significant harm.

    Consideration of referral for Ministerial Intervention

11. The Tribunal considers whether it should recommend Ministerial Intervention pursuant to s.417 of the Act. The Tribunal has taken note of PAM3: Ministerial powers Minister’s guidelines on ministerial powers (s351, s417 and s.501J) in determining whether to make a recommendation. Those guidelines include recommendations based on unique exceptional circumstances including whether there are:

    ·exceptional economic, scientific, cultural or other benefit would result from the person being permitted to remain in Australia;

    ·compassionate circumstances regarding the age of the person that if not recognised would result in serious, ongoing and irreversible harm and continuing hardship to the person;

    ·strong compassionate circumstances that if not recognised would result in serious, ongoing and irreversible hardship to an Australian citizen or an Australian family unit, where at least one member of the family is an Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident;

12. In addition these guidelines highlight information on other relevant issues including:

    ·the level and nature of the person’s integration into the Australian community and the length of time they have been in Australia, both as a lawful and unlawful non-citizen.

13. The Tribunal noted that the first named applicant arrived in Australia [in] March 2005. The second, third, fourth and fifth named applicants arrived in Australia [in] July 2006. The sixth named applicant was born in Australia on [date]. He will be eligible for Australian citizenship on [date] which is in less than 12 months. He has never departed Australia and is currently completing [grade] at [a named] Primary School. The Tribunal accepts that the sixth named applicant’s situation is as described and that he has no ties to Nepal and further that in the near future the other applicant’s will be members of an Australian family unit. The Tribunal noted country information that Nepal is one of the poorest countries in the world and considered it likely that serious ongoing and irreversible hardship would result should they be required to return to Nepal. 

14. In addition to the above considerations the Tribunal noted that the third, fourth and fifth named applicants are all studying at tertiary level. The third named applicant is completing a [degree] at [a named] University. The fourth named applicant is studying for a [degree] at [a different] University and the fifth named applicant is studying for a [degree] at [another] University. In the Tribunal’s view these circumstances appear to fit within the consideration of exceptional economic, scientific, cultural or other benefit would result from the person being permitted to remain in Australia.

15. Finally the Tribunal noted extensive documentation in the papers evidencing and attesting to the family’s general integration and involvement in their community including participating in school functions and activities, volunteering for charity, and generally assisting their local community and their educational institutions. The Tribunal also noted the length of time that the family has resided in Australia now being around 13 years.

16. After considering the above matters the Tribunal considered that this is a matter that should be recommended for consideration for Ministerial Intervention pursuant to s.417 of the Act. This consideration is made particularly in regard to the criteria of: exceptional economic, scientific, cultural or other benefit would result from the person being permitted to remain in Australia.

    OVERALL CONCLUSION

17. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the first named applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).

18. Having concluded that the first named applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the first named applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

19. There is no suggestion that the first named 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 first named applicant does not satisfy the criteria in s.36(2).

20. In respect to the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth named applicants they are joined to the application as dependants of the first named applicant. The Tribunal was not satisfied they are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations for the purposes of s.36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act.

21. For the reasons indicated, the Tribunal considers that the matter should be referred for consideration for Ministerial Intervention pursuant to s.417 of the Act.

    DECISION

22. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants’ protection visas.

    Paul Noonan
    Member