1601781 (Refugee)

1601781 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4752 (2 December 2016)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1601781
OUNTRY OF REFERENCE:  Fiji
MEMBER:Lilly Mojsin
DATE:2 December 2016
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 02 December 2016 at 3:56pm
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.
CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Fiji – Political – Sodelpa Party – Fear of harm by military – Parents’ inconsistent evidence – Credibility issues
LEGISLATION
Migration Act, 1958, s.36(2)(a), s.36(2)(aa), s.36(2)
Migration Regulations 1994, s.36
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Good A Predictor Is Fiji Junior Certificate Examination? - Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2013, US Department of State, 27 February 2014
DFAT Fiji report, 14/04/2015
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] February 2016 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa [PVA] under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Fiji, applied for the visa [in] September 2015.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
See Annexure A
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
In his PVA the applicant claimed that:
·he was assaulted by the military in [2013] at [School 1] during the compulsory training program.
·he and [other] boys were accused of stealing a camera from the military [camp]. He did not steal the camera.
·he and the [other] boys were tortured, made to crawl around on the ground while being kicked and punched in front of the whole school.
·he was embarrassed and humiliated by the experience.
·he was warned that if they didn't tell them where the camera was they were going to get another round of punishment.
·the bruises were so bad that they couldn't sit down and they were locked in a room. The next day they were again punished by the military officers.
·they all decided to escape through a wooden window on the second night. They walked for over 10km before a car came and gave them a lift to Suva where they stayed at one of the other boys homes.
·his parents turned up and took him home a few days after they escaped. His parents questioned him but he didn't tell them what had happened just that he didn't want to go back to school.
·one day while he was at [university] military officers came to his home looking for him. He immediately moved to Suva as he was scared of what they wanted.
·he kept moving from his [relative]’s home to friends’ homes to hide from the military. His father reported the incident with the military to the police but there was no action was taken and it took a very long time for them to respond.
The applicant attended a Protection visa interview on [date]/11/2015. He claimed that the harassment he has experience by the military is no longer in relation to the camera but that it is now in relation to the complaint, which has been made about the military. The military personnel had visited his parents' home while he was at [university] which made him know that they were "up to something" and necessitated his hiding from them. This was prior to the police complaint being made. He has not had any contact with the Military since the incident at school and his mother is the contact point for the harassment by the Military.
The applicant advised that when he moved to Suva, he felt unsettled and this was why he moved between different houses. During his time in Suva, his parents assisted in providing for him and for 7 months he worked as a [occupation] at [workplace]. He used his real name when working. The applicant advised that he didn't know what the other [boys] had experienced after the incident.
The delegate of the Department refused the visa [in] February 2016.
Tribunal hearing held on 5 October 2016
The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Fijian and English languages. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent, who attended the Tribunal hearing.
At the commencement of the Tribunal hearing the applicant’s advisor provided the following documents:
- Letter from [Mr A] dated [in] September 2016 stating that when the applicant’s father left in 2014 there were unexpected visitations by the Fiji Military personnel who were enquiring the whereabouts of the applicant’s father. His mother was so concerned that the neighbours moved in with her. The author has witnessed the few occasions the unexpected visitors came to check on the applicant’s father, the time they would come was random. Once they came early in the morning and another was late at night. The military also visited them again after the family left to check if they have returned. This was between December and February 2016.
- Letter from [Ms B] dated [in] September 2016 stating that she worked with the applicant’s mother at the [workplace]. Since the torture of her son at [School 1] in 2013, she has always been talking about the effects it had on her son both physically and mentally which resulted in her son leaving home to find shelter away from home for fear of his life. Since her husband's departure for Australia in 2014, she has been sharing all the problems she's been faced with. She has on a few occasions mentioned that she has been visited by some Military officers questioning her of the whereabouts of her husband. They also visited her on a few other occasions in the office but she had to request for their interview to be carried out elsewhere as it may affect her work. This has been an ongoing fear for the applicant’s mother.
- Letter dated [in] October 2016 from [Mr C], the former [official] of the SDL Party and now the [official] to the newly formed [association] that was established by AGM held [in] September 2016. He remains in close contact with the Sodelpa Leadership and the party secretariat in Fiji. Despite numerous assurances of the return of democracy in Fiji the country continues to be run by a military dictatorship. Members of the public continue to be detained and physically abused for voicing their opinion on political issues. Democracy is non-existent in Fiji. The last General election was rigged and fraudulent. Fiji citizens who have migrated overseas and are in the process of applying for Protection visas are seen as opponents of Government and are threatened. Most of the citizens who had migrated but have returned continued to be followed and interrogated by the military and the Police. The applicant’s father and his family are very strong supporters of the Sodelpa Party. As such all supporters of the Sodelpa party are seen to be working against Government and are viewed with suspicion by the military and the police in Fiji. Their daily activities continue to be monitored and threatened.
- Letter dated [in] October 2016 from [Ms D] - [Association 1] and [Association 2]. Confirming that the applicant’s father, his mother are members of [Association 1] and that their children automatically become members on the strength of their parents membership. The applicant’s father, mother and family are also members of the political group [Association 2]. Prime Minister Bainimarama issued a warning to Fijians living overseas who support the [movement], of severe punishment and many years in jail for anyone joining.
- [Ms D] further stated that [Association 2] is drawing the ire of Prime Minister Bainimarama, who has threatened to crush any opposition to his government. He described the people behind the insurrections as enemies of the country and would be tracked down and brought to justice. He pointed to "high profile figures" in Australia who were among the plotters who he described as enemies of a modern Fiji. Bainimarama also called on people to report any illegal activity and to tell anyone who may be involved they risk spending many years in jail. Opposition party SODELPA says the Prime Minister's urging family and friends to spy and report on each other is typical of the tactics of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. The applicant and his family, as members of this group, have become part of the threat which Bainimarama is rattled by. Bainimarama controls the media and has banned free speech; he's taken away everybody's civil liberties and continues to jail dissidents.
The applicant advised the Tribunal that he was born in [year], he was born in Suva. He has always lived in Suva. In 2009 they moved to [Town 1]. He went to [School 2], [Province 1], near Suva. He started there when he was [age]. He went to school in [Town 1] when he was [age]. He studied Year [grade] high school. He started [School 2] in Year [grade]. There are 3 school terms in Fiji, Term 1 January to April, 2 weeks off, May to July, 2 weeks off and then August to December. In 2010 he was in year [grade]. He transferred from [Town 1] at beginning of 2010, it was his dream school and he wanted to be there as it was a [type of] school with Cadet Training. He stopped at the school in [year]. He only did [number] years of high school. When asked for class year that he stopped he said it was year [grade] he got [a certificate] in Year [grade]. When asked why he went to school in [year], he said it is the main examination in [year]. When asked for the purpose of going on to year [grade] he said that we still have a few more exams to sit after the Junior Certificate.
It was put to the applicant there is no grade [number]. He finished his certificate in [year] and when asked why he was in school in [year] he responded that there is another exam.
It was put that the educational system[1] consists of three levels which are the primary, secondary and higher education. The secondary education is offered for four years from Grade 9 to Grade 12. The higher education is offered in universities or collegiate institutions led by the University of the South Pacific, which is financed by 12 countries in the region, and the University of Fiji. Year 10 external examinations are known as Fiji Junior Certificate Examination. The Fiji Junior Certificate Examination is taken by all pupils at the end of their fourth year in Fiji secondary schools. It provides a form of school leaving certificate for those students who do not wish to continue their schooling beyond the fourth form, and as such, is the basic minimum qualification required for semi-skilled, clerical or other wage employment. The second major purpose of the Fiji Junior Certificate Examination is to identify pupils who are likely to profit from a further year of study in the fifth form[2]
[1]
[2] How Good A Predictor Is Fiji Junior Certificate Examination?
The applicant said that he went to school in [year], he was in Grade [number]. He was in junior cadets run by the army, it was at that stage that they enquired about their camera, they had lost it during cadet training. This happened in Term [number], 2013, in April or May. They enquired and [number] of them were blamed for the missing camera. They were blamed by the military. During cadet training, he and his school [mates] were questioned by the military officers, when they found a camera missing. He did not know the names of the military officers. They were taken aside when they were outside during training. They were questioned and then punished. There were teachers around the grounds but they had no power to stop the questioning or punishment. They were brutally punished. He had just come out of the dormitory and one of the officers who found him punched him in the head and they made them crawl. It took only one day, it happened after lunch until afternoon, maybe 5 or 6pm. There was a bus tyre and they had to take it and run around the ground. They did not leave and told them if they do not return the camera “we will punish you tomorrow”. He confirmed that this occurred at [School 2].
When they came back the next morning they took them back to the parade ground. They made them crawl on their stomach and they suffered bruises and cuts. They were threatened that if they did not return the camera they would increase the punishment. Nobody came up to defend them. They managed to break out of the room and they walked to [a] town about 10 kilometres away.
When asked for the address of the school he said it was [Province 1]. When I again confirmed that he referred to the [School 2] the applicant then corrected himself saying it was [School 1].
He said after the assault he went to Suva and stayed with [Friend A]. On the next day he looked for another place to go to, it was to his [relative], he stayed there for 2 days. He went to some friends for 1 to 2 weeks he moved from home to home and then his parents came from [Town 1] to take him home. He told his parents that he did not want to go back to school. He was frightened of what happened. His other friends were disbursed. He never heard from his friends again. He went back to [Town 1]. After a few months he decided to enrol in [university], this was at the end of 2013 to study [a course]. He studied for a little while and he went back to Suva in September 2014. He enrolled at University in [year] and left [Town 1] at end of 2013.
It was put to the applicant that he was very vague about when he was enrolled and left school. He said that in [year] he left [School 1] around about May. He enrolled at University in September [year]. When he studied his course, it was from September [year] for 8 months, until May 2014. In May 2014 he applied for home studies. When asked if it was correct that he was at University in [Town 1] from September [year] to May 2014 he went to live in Suva and applied for home study. He then said that he moved to Suva at end of 2013. He went to his [relative]’s place. When he lived in [Town 1] his father complained to the police and then they came and started to look for him. His father complained to the police in 2013 it was right after he came from Suva to [Town 1]. From then they did not have any response from the police. It was put to the applicant that he was very vague about the dates.
When asked what house he belonged to at school he said it was [name]. He said [School 1] is close to [School 2]. The military is interested in the camera as he believes there are photos on the camera they did not want exposed. When asked why the military did not report the boys to the police, he responded that they did not take the camera. When put it was implausible that the military of Fiji, pursue him for so many years for one camera and they did not find him, he said they could not find him in Suva as he moved from one place to another. It was put to the applicant that it was implausible that such a powerful military who is able to come to his school and beat him for 2 days, but are not able to find him in a small place like Suva. He said they are the military, that is what they do. The police would do nothing.
When asked how he got a passport when the military are interested in him, and he was able to exit Fiji he said that after he got his passport done and visa they left from [town]. It was put to the applicant that DFAT has indicated all passengers are screened against a Stop Watch List. It was put that the military therefore were not interested in him. He said that his parents were all in [Town 1] when he was in Suva and the military personnel kept coming to their home when he was in Suva looking for him.
The applicant confirmed that he was never a member of any political party or movement in Fiji and he has not joined any political party or movement since he was in Australia. He fears returning to Fiji as maybe the military officers will come back after him. Recently the military is doing everything unknown and it is now exposed, the torture of people. When asked why they would toerture him, he said he is scared.
Independent evidence was discussed that it is political high profile people who may be harmed. He said every time he thinks about what has happened at school. It was put to him that the Tribunal was of the view it was implausible that the military would harm the boys at school and the school would not report the incident to the police. He responded that he is scared, if he goes back something will happen.
The applicant confirmed that he worked in Fiji in a part time job. He worked for while in Suva, from the beginning of 2014 until 2 months before he came to Australia in July 2015 ie in May 2015 he moved back to [Town 1]. He was working for [workplace] as a [occupation]. He worked as a [occupation] moving from one site to another. It was put to the applicant it was implausible the military could not find him in Suva as the military are more interested in their political opponents. He responded they could not find him because he moved from one place to another. It was put that when applying for a passport he has to fill out details of his name and address. He said he had a previous passport and renewed it.
His advisor submitted, with reference to the applicant’s credibility, that whilst he had some trouble explaining the high school curriculum when he started, it was due to nerves and this should not go to his credibility. The incidents occurred around 2013 and therefore the applicant was approximately [age] at the time. He may not have accurately recalled everything that happened then and had trouble converting Fijian high school grades or forms into Australian high school grades or forms. Those factors ought to be taken into consideration.
The Tribunal put to the applicant information pursuant to s.424A. His response [marked in italics] stated:
- You told the Department in your Protection Visa application that military personnel had visited your parents' home while you were at [university] prior to the police complaint being made and you immediately moved to Suva.
- Your mother, at the Tribunal hearing, claimed that your father made a report to the police in October 2013.
- Your father in his PVA said that in October 2013, after you experienced [symptoms], while playing rugby, he and your mother went to their local police station where they gave a statement about the assault.
- At the Tribunal hearing your father said that he lodged the complaint with the police in July 2014, about 2 months before left Fiji for Australia and he said that the military visited your mother after he left for Australia in September 2014.
This information is relevant to the review because you, your mother and father have provided inconsistent evidence in regard to when the military visited your home. It is relevant to the review because your mother and father provided inconsistent evidence as to when a complaint was made to the police. If we rely on this information in making our decision, we may decide it undermines your credibility and leads the Tribunal to conclude that your claims were not genuine.
The Military personnel did visit my parents place after my Dad had contacted the Military and I had been attending [university] then and it was then that I had to move to Suva.
Yes, my father was the one that made the complaint to the Police in October 2013 but she did accompany my father to the Police Station but it was my father who lodged the complaint.
They did go to the Police Station to complain because that was when they found out what actually happened to me but it was my father who lodged the complaint and not both of them but yes, my mother did accompany my father to the Police station.
Prior to my Dads second visit to Australia in September 2014 he called the Military up and verbally abused them but the only complaint that was lodged to the Police Department was in October of 2013, however, he contacted the Military department prior to his second trip to Australia and that is when the visitation by the Military guys started.
- You advised the Tribunal that you started at [School 2] at beginning of 2010 when you transferred from a [Town 1] school. You confirmed that the claimed assault occurred at [School 2]. You provided the address of the school being [Province 1]. You later corrected yourself and said the assault occurred at [School 1].
- Your parents advised the Department that you attended [School 1]. [School 1] address is at [Village 1], Fiji. [School 2] is at [location], [Province 1].
This information is relevant to the review because you and your parents have provided inconsistent evidence in relation to the school that you attended in 2013, the year of the claimed assault. If we rely on this information in making our decision, we may decide it undermines your credibility and lead the Tribunal to conclude that your claims were not genuine.
The torturing occurred at [School 1] in [Village 1], [Province 1]. I went to [School 2] prior to attending [School 1] and these 2 schools are in the same [Province 1] area. The mistake I made during my hearing was merely because I was so nervous during the hearing because I was not expecting to be the first to be called as according to the letter from the AAT I was supposed to be the 2nd interviewee and therefore I might have been misquoting the correct school that the incident happened but it was [School 1].
The torturing took place in [School 1] in [Village 1], [Province 1] however, he was also an ex-scholar of [School 2] and we did not mention anything about [School 2] because he had already left the school in [year] and because of the question posed on [the applicant] about his previous schools that [School 2] was mentioned.
We did not mention anything about [School 2] because there was nothing to complain about the school except for [School 1] and as evidence provided by the Vice Principal at the time of the torturing had confirmed.
- You told the Tribunal that after the assault at school, you and your [friends] fled to Suva and you stayed the first night with [Friend A], one of your [friends] with whom you escaped. You never again heard from your [friends], with whom you escaped school. On the 2nd night you stayed at your [relative]’s home and then went to stay with other friends for 1 to 2 weeks until collection by your parents.
- You told the Department in your PVA that after you ran away from school you went to Suva and your parents took you home after a few days.
- Your mother told the Tribunal that after you ran away from school she was told you were with friends and they collected you from one of those friends who had run away from school with you.
- Your father told the Department in his PVA that you were away in Suva for 3 days before being picked up.
This information is relevant to the review because you, your mother and father have provided inconsistent evidence in relation to where and when you were collected by your parents after the claimed assault. If we rely on this information in making our decision, we may decide it undermines your credibility and leads the Tribunal to conclude that your claims were not genuine.
My parents were only alerted about my missing from school after probably a week and a half which was purposely done that way to save the school from any accusation by our parents for the ill treatment that was made to us. My parents were advised by the School Chaplain that I have been missing from school for only a few days.
My parents had spent a whole day travelling to places they thought I would have been and it was late in the afternoon that they finally found the house I was in
My father was advised by the School Chaplain that I have been missing from school for the past few days.
- You told the Tribunal that you enrolled in [university] in [Town 1], at the
end of [year].
- Your mother told the Tribunal that you did not work at all in Suva. Your father said that he supported you
This information is relevant to the review because you and your mother have provided inconsistent evidence in relation to working in Fiji. If we rely on this information in making our decision, we may decide it undermines your credibility and lead the Tribunal to conclude that your claims were not genuine
I was enrolled later in [year] because my parents wanted to keep me in the system before I would lose interest in the school setting, and because it was towards the end of the year so I had to wait for the next scheduled class which started in the 2"d trimester of [year] just a month before my Dad left for his 2^nd visit to Australia
I started at [university] [Town 1] in Trimester 2 of [year] I was on trimester break and when I returned for the 3rd trimester my Dad was leaving for Australia.
- You told the Tribunal that you worked part-time in Suva as a [occupation] for a [company] from beginning 2014.
- Your mother told the Tribunal that you did not work at all in Suva. Your father said
that he supported you.
This information is relevant to the review because you have provided inconsistent evidence in relation to where you lived immediately prior to your departure. If we rely on this information in making our decision, we may decide it undermines your credibility and lead the Tribunal to conclude that your claims were not genuine.
When I left home to live in Suva, I was due for my industrial attachment or for my practical and that was when I was being engaged in this particular [company]. I was not remunerated but for experience.
He was not working but on Industrial Attachment a requirement for any Trade that one has to do some sort of attachment to allow them to graduate.
- You told the Tribunal that you moved back to [Town 1] 2 months before you came to Australia [May 2015]. Your mother said that you remained in Suva until you left.
This information is relevant to the review because you have provided inconsistent evidence in relation to where you lived immediately prior to your departure. If we rely on this information in making our decision, we may decide it undermines your credibility and lead the Tribunal to conclude that your claims were not genuine
I was travelling between Suva and [Town 1] just before we left for Australia specifically to come and sign forms and compile my application for my visa to Australia but I never stayed home because I feared my life.
- A letter was provided to the Tribunal that your father and his family are very strong supporters of the Sodelpa Party. You told the Tribunal that you were not involved in any political parties or movements in Fiji or Australia.
This information is relevant because you have provided inconsistent evidence to the Tribunal. If we rely on this information in making our decision, we may decide it undermines your credibility and lead the Tribunal to conclude that your claims were not genuine
It is true that my father was always supporting the Sodelpa Party in Fiji and has remained a staunch Sodelpa follower to this day but since he moved here he has not been actively associated with the Sodelpa Party as much as he was involved in Fiji
- Letter from [Ms D] - [Association 1] and [Association 2] confirms that your father and mother are members of [Association 1] and [Association 2] and that you have become member on the strength of your parents' membership.
- You told the Tribunal that you were not involved in any political parties or movements in Fiji or Australia.
This information is relevant to the review because have provided inconsistent evidence to the Tribunal. If we rely on this information in making our decision, we may decide it undermines your credibility and lead the Tribunal to conclude that your claims were not genuine
To become a member of the association, we ought to pay for our membership fee and this was done for by my mother and a copy of my receipt is attached.
Yes I did not know the name of the Association but I have been attending meetings with my mother on a few occasions and the name [Ms D] was new to me because I knew her as [name] as she is somewhat from the same island as my mother so I knew her as [name] and to be honest I never knew that the Association that we were attending the meetings on a weekly basis was called [Association 1] and [Association 2]. I am a financial member of the Association and I also have my receipt for my membership fee which was all paid for by my mum.
REASONS AND FINDINGS

I accept that the applicant is a national of Fiji and is not a national or citizen of any other country or has a right to enter and reside in any country other than Fiji. Therefore I find that the applicant is not excluded from Australia's protection by subsection 36(3) of the Act. I also find that Fiji is the applicant's “receiving country” for the purposes of s.36(2)(aa).
The assessment of the applicant’s credibility and reliability as a witness is a matter of central importance to my consideration and determination of the application. I am not required to accept uncritically any and all claims made by an applicant. In assessing his credibility, I have also been guided by the Tribunal’s 'Guidance on the Assessment of Credibility' and 'Guidance on Vulnerable Persons'.
The applicant claims, in his PVA, that he suffered harm in Fiji at the hands of the military in 2013, at a [school], when he and [other] students were blamed by the military for stealing a camera. After being punished brutally, the [boys] fled to Suva. The applicant returned to [Town 1]. The military continued to seek to harm him after this incident. He moved to Suva at the end of 2013, working as a [occupation] until just before he left Fiji, but he was in hiding.
The US State Department 2013[3] advises that corporal punishment is common in homes and schools in Fiji. DFAT 2015 Country Information Report Fiji[4] advises that allegations have been made of military brutality against a 12 year old boy whose 3 fingers were broken as punishment for graffiti.
[3] Fiji - Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2013, US Department of State, 27 February 2014
[4] DFAT Fiji report, 14/04/2015
I do not accept that the claimed incident of harm occurred as I do not accept that the applicant is a witness of truth. The applicant’s [mother] and the applicant’s [father] are both applicants before the Tribunal and their evidence is inconsistent with each other and inconsistent with their son’s evidence as discussed herein.
Firstly, the applicant and his parents have provided inconsistent evidence in relation to the school that he attended in 2013, the year of the claimed assault. [School 1] is at [Village 1][5]. [School 2] is at [location].[6]. The applicant told the Tribunal that he was harmed whilst a student at [School 2]. This was inconsistent with his PVA application and also his parents’ evidence. Later in the hearing he corrected himself and said that the harm occurred at [School 1].
[5] [Information deleted].
[6] [Information deleted].
The applicant’s recollection of when he obtained his Junior School Certificate was vague. When asked in chronological sequence regarding dates and year of study and which school he attended, the applicant was confused. Initially he told the Tribunal that after completing his Junior School Certificate, in [year] at [School 2], he commenced a further year of study but could not explain why. He said that he started at [School 2] at beginning of [year] when he transferred from a [Town 1] school. His advisor explained that this inconsistency was caused by nerves.
When put to the applicant by s.424A, he responded that the torturing occurred at [School 1] in [Village 1], and that he went to [School 2] prior to attending [School 1] and these 2 schools are in the same [Province 1] area. He made a mistake during the hearing because he was nervous, because he was not expecting to be the first to be called to give evidence to the Tribunal, because the letter from the AAT indicated he was to be the 2^nd interviewee and therefore he might have been misquoting the correct school but the incident happened at [School 1]. He was also an ex-scholar of [School 2] and this school was not mentioned because he had already left the school in [year].
Whilst I accept that applicants are nervous when attending Tribunal hearings, I do not accept that being asked to give evidence first of 3 witnesses can affect his ability to recall which school he attended when a claimed assault occurred. I find that the applicant attended [School 2].
Secondly, the applicant and his parents have provided inconsistent evidence as to where and when he was collected by his parents after the claimed assault. The applicant told the Tribunal that after the assault at school, he and his [friends] fled to Suva and he stayed the first night with [Friend A], one of the [friends] with whom he escaped from school. He said that he never again heard from his [friends] with whom he had escaped from school. He said that on the 2nd night he stayed at his [relative]’s home and then went to stay with other friends for 1 to 2 weeks until his parents came and took him home. the applicant told the Department, in his PVA, that after he ran away from school he went to Suva and his parents took him home after a few days.
The applicant’s mother told the Tribunal that after he ran away from school she was told the applicant was with friends. She and her husband collected the applicant from one of those friends who had run away from school with him. This contradicts his evidence that he was with other friends, not with one of boys he ran away with. The applicant’s father told the Department in his PVA that the applicant was away in Suva for 3 days before being picked up which contradicts the applicant’s evidence at hearing that he was in Suva on that occasion for 1 to 2 weeks.
When these inconsistencies were put to the applicant by s.424A he responded that his parents were only alerted about him being missing from school after probably a week and a half which was purposely done that way to save the school from any accusation by parents for ill treatment that occurred. His parents were advised by the School Chaplain that he had been missing from school for only a few days. His parents had spent a whole day travelling to places they thought he would have been and it was late in the afternoon that they finally found the house he was in.
I reject his explanation. Had the applicant been collected by his parents in Suva after fleeing from his school, the applicant and his parents should have provided consistent evidence regarding how long he was in Suva until he was picked up by his parents and where he was picked up from.
Thirdly, the applicant told the Tribunal that he worked part-time in Suva as a [occupation] for a [company] from beginning 2014. The applicant confirmed that he worked in Fiji in a part time job from the beginning of 2014. He was working for [workplace] as a [occupation] moving from one site to another. His mother told the Tribunal that he did not work at all in Suva.
When this inconsistency was put to the applicant by s.424A, he responded that when he left home to live in Suva, he was due for his industrial attachment or for his practical and that was when he was engaged in this particular [company]. He was not remunerated but worked there for experience to allow him to graduate. I do not accept that the applicant would have omitted to explain at the hearing that his work as a [occupation] was unpaid and this was a practical placement for his studies in [course], particularly as he was able to explain that his job was part-time and described that it involved moving from site to site.
Fourthly, the applicant and his mother have provided inconsistent evidence in relation to when he commenced tertiary studies. The applicant told the Tribunal that he enrolled in [university] in [Town 1], at the end of [year]. He said he was studying [course] for a little while and he went back to Suva in September 2014. He then said that he enrolled at University in [year] and left [Town 1] at end of 2013. The applicant’s mother told the Tribunal the applicant started tertiary education in September [year].
By s.424A response, the applicant said he was enrolled later in [year] because his parents wanted to keep him in the system before he would lose interest in the school setting, and because it was towards the end of the year so he had to wait for the next scheduled class which started in the 2^nd trimester of [year] just a month before his Dad left for his 2^nd visit to Australia. He started at [university] [Town 1] in Trimester 2 of [year]. He was on trimester break and when he returned for the 3^rd trimester his Dad was leaving for Australia. I reject his explanation. This response contradicts his evidence given at hearing that he was studying [course] for a little while in [year] and then, at beginning of [year], he went back to Suva. I am of the view it is an attempt to provide consistent evidence with that given by his mother.
Fifthly, the applicant told the Tribunal that he moved back to [Town 1] 2 months before he came to Australia [May 2015], whereas his mother said that he remained in Suva until he left Fiji.
When put to the applicant by s.424A he responded that he was travelling between Suva and [Town 1] just before he left for Australia specifically to sign forms and compile his visa application but he never stayed home because he feared for his life. I reject his explanation, had the applicant been travelling to and from Suva and [Town 1] before he came to Australia never staying home, some mention would have been made when giving evidence to the Tribunal.
Sixthly, when put to the applicant that it was implausible that the military or rogue elements of the military of Fiji would pursue him for so many years for one camera and were not able to find him, he said they could not find him in Suva as he moved from one place to another. He had also claimed that it was now about the complaint made against the military. I do not accept as plausible that a claimed powerful military or rogue elements of the military were able to come to his school and beat him for 2 days, would continue to pursue him for a camera or about a complaint having been made against them and they would not be able to find a part-time employed student in Suva, a city with a population of 175 000[7].
[7]
Seventhly, the applicant provided a letter from [Mr C], the former [official] of the SDL Party and now [an official] to the newly formed [association]. He opines that the applicant’s father and his family are very strong supporters of the Sodelpa Party. The applicant told the Tribunal that he was not involved in any political parties or movements in Fiji or Australia. His response, when put to him by s.424A letter explained that his father was always supporting the Sodelpa Party in Fiji and has remained a staunch Sodelpa follower to this day but since he moved here he has not been actively associated with the Sodelpa Party as much as he was in Fiji. I place no weight on this letter. It is inconsistent with the applicant’s evidence. I find that the applicant was not a supporter of the Sodelpa Party.
Eightly, I have considered a letter from [Ms D] [Association 1] and [Association 2] that confirms that the applicant’s father and mother are members of [Association 1] and [Association 2] and that the applicant became a member on the strength of his parent’s membership. The applicant told the Tribunal that he was not involved in any political parties or movements in Fiji or Australia.
The country information indicates both groups, [Association 1] and [Association 2], were established by [Ms D]. [Association 1] stated that it is a [certain] organisation. Its Facebook page describes it as a “[description deleted]”[8]. [Association 2 activities deleted].
[8] [Information deleted].
When this inconsistency was put to the applicant by s.424A, he responded that he was a member of the association, the membership was arranged by his mother and a copy of a receipt was attached. He confirmed that he did not know the name of the Association but he has attended meetings with his mother on a few occasions and the name [Ms D] was new to him because he knew her as [name] as she is somewhat from the same island as his mother. He never knew that the Association meetings they were attending on a weekly basis was called [Association 1] and [Association 2]. He is a financial member of the Association and he also has his receipt for membership paid for by his mum. I reject his explanation. The applicant told the Tribunal at hearing that he was not involved in any political parties or movements in Fiji or Australia. I find that the applicant did not join or attend meetings in Australia of [Association 1] or [Association 2] I am of the view his claim that he was not aware that [Ms D] was the same person as [name] is a late invention made to overcome the inconsistent evidence given to the Tribunal. I place no weight on this letter from [Ms D] as evidence of the applicant having a political profile in Australia. I place no weight on the membership receipts in light of the applicant’s evidence at hearing that he did not belong to any political party.
In light of the above discussed inconsistencies, I am satisfied that the applicant has created his claims of harm in Fiji in order to obtain the visa sought. I am satisfied that the applicant did not attend [School 1], he was not assaulted and harmed by the military for the alleged theft of a camera, the military. I am satisfied that the applicant did not flee school hiding in Suva until he was collected by his parents or that he fled [Town 1] after commencing studies there, I am satisfied that the applicant’s parent did not report an assault by the military to the police. I am satisfied the applicant lived in Suva from 2014 and worked as a [occupation]. I am satisfied the applicant’s father did not complain to the military and I am not satisfied that the military, or rogue elements of the military, harass or seek to harass or harm, either physically or verbally, the applicant and his family.
Letter from [Mr A] dated [in] September 2016 stated that when the applicant’s father left in 2014 there were unexpected visitations by the Fiji Military personnel and a letter from [Ms B] dated [in] September 2016 stating that she worked with the applicant’s mother at the [workplace]. Letter dated [in] October 2016 and attests to the military visiting the applicant’s mother. As I do not accept that the applicant is a witness of truth, and as I do not accept he suffered any harm in Fiji at the hands of the military, I place no weight on these letters.
I have considered all of the applicant’s evidence singularly and cumulatively. I do not accept the applicant is a witness of truth. I do not accept that the applicant fled Fiji fearing serious harm for a refugee reason. I am satisfied the applicant came to Australia as a visitor.
In assessing whether there a real chance of serious or significant harm occurring in the reasonably foreseeable future on the applicant’s return to Fiji, I have considered the applicant’s account of his experiences and circumstances in the context of that country information in relation to Fiji.
As I have found that the applicant was not harmed by the military, or rogue elements of the military for a camera or a complaint and I have found that the military did not seek to harm the applicant’s family, I am not satisfied the military seek to harass or harm the applicant on the applicant’s return to Fiji.
Since the election in September 2014, there have been significant changes in Fijian politics following the elections, and as a result of the return to constitutional government, the rule of law in Fiji has generally improved in comparison to the situation prior to the elections. The independent evidence[9] is that Fiji’s 2013 Constitution contains a comprehensive Bill of Rights. The Constitution specifically protects the rights to life, liberty, equality and freedom from discrimination, as well as the freedom of movement, assembly, expression and religious belief. Alleged breaches of the Bill of Rights are justiciable in the High Court.
[9] DFAT Fiji April 2015
DFAT states that although there continue to be limits on freedom of expression of political opinion, in late 2014 this was more open than in previous years and “public commentary on political issues, including criticism of government policies, is permitted and occurs regularly”.
The applicant initially told the Tribunal that he was not involved in any political parties or movements in Fiji or Australia but he provided a letter by [Ms D]. I have found that the applicant did not join or attend meetings in Australia of [Association 1] or [Association 2] I am satisfied that the applicant is not a member of any other political party or movement in Australia and he was not a member of any political party or movement in Fiji. I am satisfied that he has not taken part in any anti-Fijian government activity in Australia. On that basis I find remote the chance that the applicant will be imputed with an adverse political profile on his return to Fiji.
Recent responses to country information requests by the Tribunal relating to [Association 1] and [Association 2] report that the Fijian government had officially banned [Ms D] from travelling to Fiji and that Bainimarama had “publicly vowed to crush any attempt at insurrection”. Furthermore, “[information deleted]”, led by [Ms D], were detained in 2015. The report acknowledged that “the Fiji Government has demonstrated that it is willing to arrest and prosecute persons it accuses of inciting sedition or urging political violence in Fiji” and, “if a person returning to Fiji were accused of or suspected to have been involved in such activities, it is possible that they would be arrested and prosecuted for such activities”. The applicant does not claim to have such an involvement.
DFAT[10] has not been able to determine whether [Association 1] or [Association 2] are known in Fiji. It is noted that the Australian government has received no formal approach from the Fijian Government to extradite Fijian/Australian nationals in respect of the [movements].
[10] (C1160713115600374) Fiji: Country Information Request, 29 July 2016
I have considered the information provided to the Tribunal by [Ms D]. [Ms D] refers to [a media] Report, dated [in] August 2015, stating it aired a “[information deleted]”. She also states that [Association 2] is facing the ire of the Prime Minister Bainimarama who has threatened to “crush” any opposition to his government. [Ms D] also states that the Prime Minister pointed to high profile figures in Australia who were behind insurrections and are enemies of the country and he has called on people to report any illegal activity and to tell anyone who may be involved that they risk spending years in jail. The applicant is not a high profile figure.
The Fijian Government has demonstrated that it is willing to arrest and prosecute persons it accuses of inciting sedition or urging political violence in Fiji. In the case of a person returning to Fiji accused of or suspected to have been involved in such activities, it is possible that they would be arrested and prosecuted for such activities. DFAT[11] confirms that those at risk are high-profile public figures, including the leaders of organisations that might be seen to challenge the government's authority or undermine its legitimacy. DFAT was not aware of reports of ordinary individuals who were 'known' to be opposed to the regime being subject to harm unless they had also publicly expressed opposition to or criticised the regime. The applicant has not expressed publicly any political views or publicly criticised the regime. He does not claim to have had any involvement in the [movement] while living in Australia. Therefore, I find that the applicant would not be viewed by the Fijian authorities as inciting sedition and urging political violence.
[11] (C1160713115600374) Fiji: Country Information Request, 29 July 2016
I also accept the independent evidence that Prime Minister Bainimarama has at times made threatening comments in relation to those he perceives as his opponents and a group of persons associated with the [movement] in [locations] were arrested in August 2015. The applicant does not claim to have such an involvement.

I have no evidence before me to suggest that the applicant’s parents have an adverse political profile in Fiji. I find that the applicant was never involved in politics in Fiji, never been a member of the opposition party in Fiji and has no political profile whatsoever in Fiji or Australia. I do not accept that the applicant's parent’s involvement in [Association 1] or [Association 2], as detailed by [Ms D], will bring the applicant to the attention of the government in Fiji if he returns to Fiji or that he would be perceived as being anti regime or have an adverse political opinion imputed to him because his parents joined [Association 1] or [Association 2].
As for the views expressed by [Mr C] in relation to the current political situation in Fiji and the recent election, I prefer to rely on independent sources. His view that Fijian citizens who have migrated overseas and are in the process of applying for Protection visas are seen as opponents of Government and are threatened is not supported by independent evidence. I am of the view that were it the situation it would be known to independent sources such as DFAT, US State Department Reports on Human Rights Practices and Amnesty International. I am therefore not satisfied the applicant will face a risk of harm in Fiji because he applied for a protection visa in Australia.
I have considered [Ms D]’s views of the political situation in Fiji. I also place no weight on these political views expressed in that letter about the current circumstances in Fiji for its population. I prefer the advice of DFAT and other independent sources to [Ms D]’s views. I am of the view that were it the situation, as outlined by [Ms D], that the Fijian Attorney-General’s modus operandi is extermination and annihilation of the native Fijian race, it would be known to independent sources such as DFAT, US State Department Reports on Human Rights Practices and Amnesty International. I am not satisfied the applicant will face a risk of harm due to the current political situation in Fiji.
The country information noted earlier indicates that the Fijian Constitution guaranteed freedom of speech, expression and publication, assembly and association. There is more open public expression, including public gatherings, during which the government is criticised.
I am satisfied that the applicant does not hold any political views that are likely to bring him to the adverse attention of the Fijian authorities. I am also satisfied that he has no desire to engage in any political activities, upon his return to Fiji, that are likely to bring him to the adverse attention of the Fijian authorities.
I have considered all of the applicant’s evidence singularly and cumulatively. I do not accept the applicant is a witness of truth. I do not accept that the applicant is at risk of future serious harm.
For the reasons given above, I find that the applicant does not have a real chance that, if returned to Fiji, he would suffer persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a). I find that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for these reasons.
I find that the applicant is not entitled to complementary protection. As I have rejected the entirety of the applicant’s claims, I am not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Fiji, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. I find that the applicant does not meet the complementary protection criterion in s.36(2)(aa).
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). 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.
Lilly Mojsin

Member
ANNEXURE A
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.
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 4752

2 December 2016

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Remedies

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice