1600014 (Refugee)

1600014 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 5965 (3 July 2018)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1600014
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Bangladesh
MEMBER:Tania Flood
DATE:3 July 2018
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 03 July 2018 at 10:54am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Bangladesh – political opinion and activity – attacks and threats by government supporters – credibility – voluntary travel to home country – multiple visa applications and court appeals – delay in applying for protection – fear not well founded – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36(2), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), 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 on 14 December 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 Bangladesh, applied for the visa on 7 May 2015. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that he believed the applicant to be an untruthful witness. The delegate concluded that the applicant had invented his claims in response to his unsuccessful attempts to obtain permanent residency in Australia by other means.
The applicant’s migration history is set out in the delegate’s decision which is before the Tribunal for the purpose of this review. In summary, the applicant arrived in Australia [in] December 2007 travelling on a UC-457 visa. After departing and re-entering Australia in 2010 he applied for UC-457 associated visas for his dependents but his employer sponsor withdrew support for the dependent applicants. In 2011 the applicant made applications under the Employer Nomination Scheme which were ultimately refused. The applicant departed Australia [in] September 2013 and re-entered [in] October 2013. He appealed to the MRT to review the ENS refusal decision and the MRT affirmed the decision. Throughout 2014 and 2015 the applicant unsuccessfully appealed the MRT decision in the Federal Court, the Full Federal Court and the High Court. He also made an application for Ministerial Intervention. Before the application for Ministerial Intervention was concluded the applicant applied for an XA-866 Protection visa on 7 May 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.
Material under a public interest non-disclosure certificate
The Department file contains a public interest non-disclosure certificate in respect of s.438(1)(a) related documents. The Tribunal considers that the certificate is not a valid certificate as the material relates solely to ‘internal working documents and business affairs’ No reason has been provided as to why the disclosure of the documents would be contrary to the public interest. The Tribunal put this to the applicant during a hearing on 15 June 2018. The applicant was advised that irrespective of the validity of the certificate the information contained in the document would not assist the Tribunal to make its decision and accordingly it would not be relied upon. The applicant indicated that he understood the Tribunal’s advice and when invited to comment on the certificate he declined.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether there is a real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm if he returns to Bangladesh for reason of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion or alternatively, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to Bangladesh there is a real risk he will suffer significant harm.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Summary of claims
In his application for a Protection visa the applicant claims the following:
He was born in Gazipur, Dhaka, Bangladesh. His wife and daughter are residing in Bangladesh, as are his parents [and a number of siblings].
He arrived in Australia from Bangladesh [in] December 2007 travelling on his Bangladeshi passport. He entered the country as the holder of a 457 visa. His passport later expired and he has obtained a new passport from the Bangladeshi authorities in Canberra.
He states he has never been to Australia before. [In] July 2010 he returned to Bangladesh to visit family and he re-entered Australia [later in] July 2010. [In] September 2013 he returned again to Bangladesh and re-entered Australia [in] October 2013.
He fears persecution in Bangladesh on account of a bitter experience in the past. Government party members harass opposition party members. As his party is not in power he will not get effective protection from the government.
In a statement referred to in his application for a Protection visa the applicant states the following:
His father was [an Occupation 1] and also a freedom fighter. He was a soldier in the 1971 Independence War. His grandfather is [an office bearer] of the Bangladeshi Nationalist Party (BNP) in [location], Gazipur, Dhaka. He is also a member of the BNP in the same location.
From a young age he saw a lot of important political leaders meeting with his father at their house. This influenced him to become a political figure.
He got involved in the preparations for the election held in March 1996. He participated in many meetings and rallies with his father and his grandfather. Awami League (AL) workers told his father that if he continued to work for the BNP they would put up a false case against him and his father in court. His father was not scared and said they would govern again. Near the end of March 1996 some AL leaders filed a case against his father for murder and terrorism. It was a false case but his father had to go to jail. The reason behind this was to prevent his father from participating in the election. The AL also attacked his house and told his family that if he participated in any meetings or rallies they will destroy the family. Despite this he did not step back and kept going about his activities.
After [length of time] his father was released from jail. He was tortured in jail but did not bow down and when he returned he said they had to keep going with their political activities. However, the BNP lost the election.
In December 1998 while he was returning home from shopping he was kidnapped by a group of AL cadres and they kept him in an unknown place and ill-treated him. After a week he was released when his father paid a huge ransom. After that incident he was so scared and could not sleep and was plagued by nightmares which he still suffers.
[In] February 1999 at around 8pm while returning home from Gazipur Sadar he was attacked by a group of AL cadres and beaten mercilessly. When he was near to death they departed and local people found him and admitted him to the nearest private clinic. He was released from the clinic after seven days.
His parents went to the police station to file a case but were not able to do so. On the other hand a false case was filed against him to doom his political future. It was then that his father began to think about sending him overseas.
In 2000, the BNP won the eighth general election and they lived peacefully until 2007 when the BNP again lost power and the army backed caretaker government took power and started torturing BNP activists. Luckily he obtained a 457 visa and came to Australia.
By this time the AL formed government for a second time and did their best to wipe out the opposition parties, especially the BNP.
In 2013 he went to Bangladesh and found the situation had gotten worse. He returned within a few days.
He came to know from his father that in the week prior to him making the protection visa application, AL cadres attacked his house, beat his father and burnt their house. His father told him it was not safe to return.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
Country of reference
At the hearing the applicant produced a Bangladesh passport in his name and which lists his stated date of birth. He was asked whether he has ever gone by any other name or previously visited Australia and he said he has not. The Tribunal informed him that there is strong evidence available (the detail of which is set out in the delegates decision) that raises some concern as to his true identity and indicates that he might have previously come to Australia under a different name, namely [alias deleted], and applied for a Protection visa prior to 2007. The applicant agreed that in former proceedings there had been a discussion about photographs in the Departments possession which bear different names but both appeared to be of him. He reiterated to the Tribunal that he did not travel to Australia prior to 2007. He offered no further explanation.
Not without some considerable doubt, and for the reasons which are outlined below, the Tribunal is prepared to accept for the purposes of this decision that the applicant is who he claims to be. The Tribunal accepts the applicant is a national of Bangladesh and has assessed his claims against Bangladesh.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 15 June 2018 to give evidence in support of his case. His oral account of the reasons for his departure from Bangladesh was generally consistent with key aspects of his written claims. He said that his family are all BNP members and supporters and that consequently they were often tortured, threatened and beaten up by AL supporters. In 1998 he was kidnapped and only released when his family members paid a large sum of money to his captors. In 1999 he was beaten up and hospitalised for some days. All this ill-treatment occurred because his family were working for the BNP. He added that political violence involving the use of firearms is a daily occurrence in Bangladesh and BNP leaders are either in jail or have been killed. He said it is common knowledge that BNP workers are picked up and ‘disappeared’ and no one bothers to look for them or question it. He said that his family have advised him not to return to Bangladesh.
When asked about his family in Bangladesh he said that his wife, daughter, parents and [number] siblings are all still living in Gazipur. He said his father is still a BNP member although due to his age he is no longer actively involved in political affairs. He said that his [siblings] are often working in far off locations and don’t return home often. However, he said that one of his [siblings] was attacked last year while returning home.
When asked if any of the abovementioned incidents of violence had been reported to the police he said they had not because the police will not take complaints from BNP supporters. When asked if he had attempted to move to another part of Bangladesh to avoid his aggressors he said he instead decided to come to Australia.
The applicant was able to list with a reasonable degree of accuracy the four main principles of the BNP and was aware that national elections are scheduled for 2019.
Findings in respect of the applicant’s claimed political opinion and past harm for this reason
The Tribunal has serious overarching concerns about the credibility of the applicant’s claims based on the following:
Firstly, as discussed at hearing, the applicant’s written and oral evidence raises very serious instances of past harm at the hands of the AL in Bangladesh. For instance, they indicate that his father was arrested under false charges and imprisoned and tortured; that the applicant was kidnapped and mistreated in 1998 and beaten mercilessly by AL people in 1999, so much so that he required a 7 day stay in hospital. He further claims that he had a false case filed against him after the attack in 1999. The Tribunal pointed out at hearing that he also informed the Delegate that his [sibling] was attacked by government people in 2010 and that his father continues to be attacked all the time.
The Tribunal put it to the applicant that despite all of the above, he returned to Bangladesh in 2010 for approximately three weeks and again in 2013 for approximately one month. The Tribunal notes that this is also despite him claiming in his written evidence to be plagued by nightmares to this day following his kidnapping in 1998. The Tribunal acknowledged the applicants advice that he did not go back to his local area during those visits but pointed out that his evidence is also that his family are well known BNP activists and that he has a false case pending against him which might have presented a risk of him being detained on arrival and/or wherever he was in Bangladesh. The Tribunal put it to the applicant that his behaviour does not demonstrate that he has a genuine fear of harm in Bangladesh. The Tribunal suggested that his actions appear to undermine his claims to fear harm in Bangladesh. When asked to comment on the above the applicant’s only response is that he hopes he will have the opportunity to bring his family to Australia where they will be safe.
Secondly, irrespective of the above, the Tribunal noted at hearing the applicant’s oral evidence that on those occasions when he returned to Bangladesh nothing had happened to him despite remaining in the country for three weeks and one month on his respective visits. Furthermore, his evidence is that despite the claimed continual attacks on his father and brothers by AL people his family have all continued living at the same address in Gazipur. Given the level of claimed political activity of the applicant and his family, and the reported levels of political violence in the country[1], the Tribunal finds it difficult to accept the applicant’s family would not have sought to escape the continual violence by moving away from the area.
[1] DFAT Country Information Report, Bangladesh, 2 February 2018
Thirdly, the applicants conduct in Australia adds significantly to the Tribunal’s concerns. During the hearing the Tribunal put it to the applicant that based on his migration history it is evident that he is well acquainted with Australia’s immigration laws and the various avenues for appeal. The Tribunal informed the applicant that it is worrisome that he only applied for a Protection visa when he had exhausted all other avenues to remain in Australia. The Tribunal put it to the applicant that if he genuinely feared for his safety in Bangladesh it is difficult to accept he would have waited eight years to raise his claims for protection, particularly as he had frequent contact with the Department over the course of several years. The applicant declined to comment on the Tribunal’s opinion.
The only other evidence put forward to the Department by the applicant in support of his claims are photographs of a man the applicant claims to be his brother and who had been attacked by government people in 2010. The photos indicate the man in the photograph has [a] scar. In addition, the applicant produced a letter of support dated [November 2015] from the BNP in Dhaka.
At the time of the hearing the abovementioned documents were not available to the Tribunal. The applicant indicated that he could produce the documents and the Tribunal allowed time for him to do so. On 19 June 2018 the applicant provided copies of these documents to the Tribunal.
When asked about the content of the photographs during the hearing the applicant said his brother was coming home one night and was attacked with a knife. He said that people from the AL hit him on the head as well as on the upper part of the body. The photographs provided by the applicant post-hearing show an unnamed man with a bandaged head. A third photograph is a picture of [a] scar but does not identify the person bearing the scar. The Tribunal has no way of knowing who the person in the photographs is, whether he is related to the applicant or how the injuries were sustained. Further, the Tribunal notes that the applicant’s account of the claimed attack at hearing made no mention of any [injuries]. The Tribunal has considered the evidence but in the circumstances has not afforded it any weight.
The letter from the BNP in Dhaka dated [November] 2015 lends some support for the applicant’s claimed BNP activity in Bangladesh. However, as discussed with the applicant at hearing DFATs Country Information Report (2018) indicates that document fraud is not uncommon in Bangladesh. This, together with the concerns the Tribunal has expressed in relation to the applicant’s overall credibility has led to a conclusion that the letter cannot be relied upon as a genuine piece of evidence. The Tribunal has given the letter no weight.

Central to the applicant’s claims is that he and his family are fervent members of the BNP yet he has not claimed any association with the BNP in Australia in all the years he has lived here. While he was able to recite with some accuracy the four main principles of the party the Tribunal considers this information to be publicly available and easily committed to memory. His knowledge of these principles and awareness of the upcoming national elections does not overcome the Tribunal’s concerns in respect of his two return visits to Bangladesh and his failure to raise his fears of returning to Bangladesh in the eight years prior to him lodging a Protection visa application. In respect of the latter the Tribunal finds it significant the applicant did not even attempt to provide an explanation for the eight year delay in lodgement.
Cumulatively these concerns cause the Tribunal to doubt the applicant’s claims. Having considered all the available evidence, the Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant’s claims in respect of his political opinions and past harm in Bangladesh are not credible. The timing of his application for a Protection visa suggests to the Tribunal that his claims were fabricated in a bid to remain in Australia after he had exhausted all other avenues to obtain permanent residency.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant or any of his family are members of the BNP; that the applicant or any of his family have suffered any serious harm from AL members in the past, including physical harm, damage to property or having false cases brought against them or that he or they will face any serious harm in the future for reason of their support for and/or membership of the BNP. The applicant did not claim to fear returning to Bangladesh for any other reason. Accordingly the Tribunal finds the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution in Bangladesh. Therefore he does not satisfy the criterion at s.36(2)(a) of the Act.
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). For the same reasons already articulated the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Bangladesh there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. Therefore the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) of the Act on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2) of the Act.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Tania Flood
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.
…

[2018] AATA 5965

3 July 2018

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice

Standing

Statutory Construction