1602007 (Refugee)

[2019] AATA 876

1602007 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 876 (8 January 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1602007

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  China

MEMBER:Linda Symons

DATE:8 January 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 08 January 2019 at 12:33pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – China – religion – underground church – credibility issues – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5H, 5J - 5LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, schedule 2

CASES

MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559
Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155

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

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 4 February 2016 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of China, arrived in Australia [In] February 2015 as the holder of a [temporary] visa that was valid until 28 February 2015. On 27 February 2015, he applied to the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) for a Protection visa and was granted an associated Bridging visa on 2 March 2015. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that he is not a person in respect of whom Australia has any protection obligations. On 19 February 2016, he applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision.

3. On 21 November 2018, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and informed him that it had considered the material before it but was unable to make a favourable decision on that information alone. The Tribunal invited him to appear before it on 8 January 2019 to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in his case. The letter informed the applicant that if he did not attend the scheduled hearing, the Tribunal may make a decision without taking any further action to allow or enable him to appear before it or may dismiss his application for review without any further consideration of the application or information before it.  

4. The Tribunal’s letter dated 21 November 2018 was sent to the applicant by email on 21 November 2018 to the email address provided by him. The letter was not returned undelivered. The Tribunal did not receive the Response to Hearing Invitation form from the applicant as requested. On 31 December 2018, a Tribunal officer sent the applicant a text message to his mobile telephone reminding him of the hearing date. On 7 January 2019, a Tribunal officer sent the applicant another text message to his mobile telephone reminding him of the hearing date.

5. The applicant did not attend the hearing scheduled on 8 January 2019. He did not contact the Tribunal to request a postponement of the hearing or to explain his non-appearance. 

6. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has decided to proceed to make a decision on the review.

7. The issues that arise on review are whether the applicant is owed Australia’s protection under the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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).

11. 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.  

12. 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

13. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and relevant country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS

14. The applicant’s claims in his visa application are summarised as follows:

    ·He experienced hardship and torture in China and is seeking protection in Australia. His life would be at risk if he is forced to return to China.

    ·His mother was a Christian and took part in activities organised by the underground Church. He and his mother were the victims of a crackdown by the local authorities on the underground Church.

    ·The local Public Security Bureau (PSB) broke into a meeting that his mother and other Christians were attending. The Police surrounded the house and used sticks to beat people. People fought back. A friend of his mother escaped and told him to rescue his mother. When he got there he saw a Policeman beating his mother and she was bleeding all over her face and forehead. He [hit] the Policeman [information deleted]. He was cuffed by other Policemen and taken to the Police Station.

    ·He was beaten and tortured “really hard”. He was denied water, food and sleep. He could hardly stand on his feet and could only lie on his bed after he was released. He was released after paying the Police some money.

    ·The Police thereafter kept “looking after” him and visiting his home. They almost destroyed his home. His family was scared. As there was no chance for him to survive in China he managed to come to Australia.

15. The applicant has provided to the Department a copy of the bio data page of his Chinese passport issued [in] 2014.

16. The applicant attended an interview with the Department on 3 February 2016. During that interview he gave evidence that was not consistent with his written claims. He also made new claims that the Police Officer he assaulted was involved with the “underworld” and the Mafia, “underworld” figures went to his home and threatened to kill him and he feared harm from them if he returns to China. On 4 February 2016, the delegate refused his application for a Protection visa.

17. The applicant has provided to the Tribunal a copy of the Department’s Decision Record dated 4 February 2016.

    Receiving country

18. The applicant claims to be a citizen of China and has provided a copy of the bio data page of his Chinese passport to the Department. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal finds that he is a citizen of China. The Tribunal finds that China is the receiving country for the purpose of assessing his claims for protection.

    Third country protection

19. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant has the right to enter and reside in any safe third country for the purposes of s.36(3) of the Act.

    Assessment of claims

20. The mere fact that a person claims a fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is “well founded” or is for the reason claimed. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant himself/herself in as much detail as is necessary to enable the decision maker to establish the relevant facts. A decision‑maker is not required to make the applicant's case for him/her. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all of the allegations made by an applicant. (MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169‑70.)

21. In this case, the applicant’s claims are made in general terms and they are unsubstantiated. As he did not attend the hearing on 8 January 2019, the Tribunal was unable to obtain further details of his claims and to test their veracity.

22. If the applicant had attended the hearing, the Tribunal would have asked him for further details of his mother’s practise of Christianity in China, whether he is also a Christian and a member of the underground Church and whether he fears any harm for this reason if he returns to China.

23. If the applicant had attended the hearing, the Tribunal would have obtained further information about the incident with the PSB, whether he was charged in relation to assaulting a Police Officer and, if so, the outcome of that charge and his ongoing contact with the Police after he was released from Police custody.

24. If the applicant had attended the hearing, the Tribunal would have discussed with him the new claims he made during his interview with the Department and why he did not make those claims in his visa application. The Tribunal would also have discussed with him the inconsistencies between his written claims in his visa application and his oral evidence during his interview with the Department.

25. If the applicant had attended the hearing, the Tribunal would have ascertained how he was able to obtain a genuine passport and continue working [for his employer] after having assaulted a Police Officer and discussed with him relevant country information. The Tribunal would also have discussed with him his trip to [Country 1] in December 2014, why he did not claim asylum in [Country 1] and why he voluntarily returned to China.

26. If the applicant had attended the hearing, the Tribunal would have asked him how, as a person who was of adverse interest to the Chinese authorities, he was able to depart China twice without any problems. The Tribunal would also have asked him why he delayed applying for protection after he came to Australia and waited until the day before his [temporary] visa expired to do so in light of his claim that he fears for his life if forced to return to China.

27. The evidence before the Tribunal is not sufficiently detailed for the Tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant suffered serious harm in China or that he is at risk of serious harm or significant harm if he returns to China.

    Does Australia have protection obligations to the applicant under the refugee criterion?

28. On the limited evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for reason of his actual or implied religion, actual or implied political opinion or any other reason set out in s.5J(1)(a) of the Act, that there is a real chance that he would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of China. Therefore, he does not meet the definition of refugee set out in s.5H of the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a) of the Act.

    Does Australia have protection obligations to the applicant under the complementary       protection criterion?

29. As the Tribunal has found that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal has considered whether he may nevertheless meet the criterion for the grant of a Protection visa pursuant to the complementary protection criterion.

30. As indicated above, the applicant has failed to provide sufficient details regarding his claims for protection. As he did not attend the hearing on 8 January 2019, the Tribunal was unable to obtain further details of his claims and to test their veracity. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk that he will be arbitrarily deprived of life, the death penalty will be carried out on him, he will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or he will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment if he returns to China now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

31. On the evidence before it, 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 China, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa) of the Act. 

    CONCLUSION

32. 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 s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.

33. 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

34. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Linda Symons
         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.

…