1603689 (Refugee)

1603689 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 3067 (1 May 2017)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1603689
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Malaysia
MEMBER:B. Mericourt
DATE:1 May 2017
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 01 May 2017 at 2:10pm
CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Malaysia – Ethnic Chinese – Racial discrimination – Involved in a hit and run car crash – Involved in political activities – Credibility issues – Previously held a valid visa – Unlawful citizen for a substantial period – Inconsistent claims
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 5H, 5J, 5K- LA, 36, 65, 438, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and McIllhatton v Guo Wei Rong and Pam Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445
Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347
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 [date] February 2016 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Malaysia, applied for the visa on [date] March 2015. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that he was not satisfied that there was a real risk or real chance that the applicant would suffer serious or significant harm if he were to return to Malaysia now or in the foreseeable future.
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.
BACKGROUND
The applicant was born in [year] in Malaysia and he is a citizen of Malaysia. He is an ethnic Chinese and claims to speak read and write Cantonese and English. He stated that he has two children [in] Malaysia. His ex-wife, parents and one [brother] also reside in Malaysia. He completed high school in [year] and stated that he worked as a [occupation] for seven years and also did casual work in Malaysia before he entered Australia.
On [date] October 2008 the applicant was granted a visitor [visa] and he entered Australia on [date] November 2008. He was granted a student [visa] on [date] March 2009 which ceased on [date] October 2010. He was granted a bridging visa on [date] January 2011 which ceased on [date] October 2011. He remained in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen. He lodged his application for protection on [date] March 2015. The Department refused his application on [date] February 2016 and the applicant lodged an application for review of the Department’s decision with the Tribunal on 18 March 2016.
The applicant provided a copy of the Department’s decision to the Tribunal.
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 about why the disclosure of the documents would be contrary to the public interest. Furthermore, the Tribunal considers the material to not be relevant to its decision as it relates to the identification of the applicant which is not in dispute.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
In his written statement of claims, the applicant said that, as an ethnic Chinese person he suffered racial discrimination from the Malaysian government. Ethnic Chinese have to pay more for the same goods or services than other Malaysians. He was investigated and persecuted by the police for taking part in the campaigns against racial discrimination policies and for being the member of an underground organisation (unspecified). Not daring to return to Malaysia he has settled in Australia but without a valid visa he is living in fear of being discovered and repatriated. He has to hide himself in the community. He is used to living in Australia and regards this country as his homeland. He is a skilled worker in his profession but he is under great pressure economically and psychologically. However, in Australia it is still possible for him to carry on the cause of [a Chinese group] and struggle for his political demands.
TRIBUNAL HEARING
The Tribunal discussed the applicants background, current circumstances and claims for protection which are summarised as follows:
The applicant said that he speaks with his family mostly by SMS messages. He last spoke with his children about three weeks ago. He previously worked as a [occupation]. The applicant was divorced in Malaysia. He came to Australia with his girlfriend. She applied for a student visa and the applicant was her dependent. After they arrived in Australia he broke up with his girlfriend. He decided to stay in Australia without a valid visa. He did casual [work].
The applicant said that he did not lodge an application for protection because he did not know what to do. Nor did he ask anyone what to do because he felt sad due to the break up of his relationship with his girlfriend. He thought this happened in about 2010. Also his friends told him he could not apply for permanent residence once his substantive visa was cancelled. He eventually heard from friends about applying for protection.
The applicant is confident that his written application is accurate as he can read some English.
Claims
The applicant said that he cannot return to Malaysia as some Malays are racist.
The applicant claims around mid-2007 he had a car accident in which he hit two people on a motor bike and they were killed. As it was a hit and run and there were people looking for him he ran away from where it happened. He reported the accident the following day to the police. He was not charged as the motorcycle was coming the wrong way on the road and he was not culpable. There was a newspaper article about the accident the following day. The applicant thinks that the bikies related to those who were killed would still be looking for him. They saw his car number plate and could bribe the police to get his name. The Tribunal asked the applicant if anyone came looking for him or threatened him after the accident and before he left Malaysia over a year later in October 2008. He said nothing had happened.
The Tribunal put to him that he remained in Malaysia for more than a year without suffering harm from anyone and asked the applicant why bikies or anyone else would look for him and find him 10 years later. He said that he moved around at that time so they didn’t find him but it may be possible they are still waiting for him.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he remembered what he claimed to fear in his application. He said that it was a long time ago when he wrote it and he only remembered that he said he feared racism. The Tribunal read his written statement to the applicant in which he stated he was involved in campaigns against racially discriminatory policies in Malaysia and was a member of an underground organisation. The applicant said that when he was younger he was a gang member. The boss of the gang asked members of the gang to be involved in various activities. The Tribunal asked him if he had been involved in any political activities that he thought would lead to him being subjected to harm on his return to Malaysia. He said the car accident was the only thing he was involved in that would lead to harm if he were to return to Malaysia
The applicant said that he didn’t draw attention to himself when he was involved in political activities as he was not a leader or organiser. He couldn’t remember the name of any political activities in which he claimed to be involved nor could he remember any dates or details. He acknowledged it was not a reason he feared returning to Malaysia.
When asked by the Tribunal, the applicant said there were no other reasons he fears returning to Malaysia.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
Nationality
On the basis of the applicant’s passport provided to the Department, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is a citizen of Malaysia. There is nothing in the evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant has a right to enter and reside in any country other than Malaysia. Therefore the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not excluded from Australia’s protection by subsection 36(3) of the Act. As the Tribunal has found that the applicant is a national of Malaysia, the Tribunal also finds that Malaysia is the applicant’s “receiving country” for the purposes of s.36(2)(aa).
Credibility
The Tribunal is aware of the importance of adopting a reasonable approach in the finding of credibility. In Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and McIllhatton v Guo Wei Rong and Pam Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445 the Full Federal Court made comments on determining credibility. The Tribunal notes in particular the cautionary note sounded by Foster J at 482:
…care must be taken that an over-stringent approach does not result in an unjust exclusion from consideration of the totality of some evidence where a portion of it could reasonably have been accepted.
The Tribunal also accepts that ‘if the applicant's account appears credible, he should, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, be given the benefit of the doubt. (The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, Geneva, 1992 at para 196). However, the Handbook also states (at para 203):
The benefit of the doubt should, however, only be given when all available evidence has been obtained and checked and when the examiner is satisfied as to the applicant's general credibility. The applicant's statements must be coherent and plausible, and must not run counter to generally known facts.
The Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any or all of the allegations made by an applicant. Further, the Tribunal is not required to have rebutting evidence available to it before it can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been made out (see Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451 per Beaumont J; Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347 at 348 per Heerey J and Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547.)
In considering an applicant’s account, undue weight should not be placed on some degree of confusion or omission to conclude that a person is not telling the truth. Nor can significant inconsistencies or embellishments be lightly dismissed. The Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any and all claims made by an applicant.
The Tribunal carefully considered the applicant’s written statement. It then carefully considered the oral evidence provided by the applicant at the hearing before this Tribunal. Having done so, the Tribunal formed the view that the applicant was unaware of the claims he made in his written statement and the applicant acknowledged himself that these claims have no substance.
The Tribunal places significant weight on the length of time between when the applicant’s relationship with his girlfriend ceased in about 2010 and he was no longer the holder of a valid visa and when he lodged the visa application almost 5 years later in March 2015. The Tribunal considers that if the applicant genuinely feared returning to Malaysia he would have sought protection in Australia sooner than he did. The Tribunal does not accept his explanation that he did not know about protection visas and was too sad to make any enquiries. The Tribunal considers that information about protection visas would be readily available amongst the Malaysian people of Chinese ethnicity with whom he resided and worked. The Tribunal finds it far more likely that the applicant did not seek protection sooner because he did not, and does not, actually fear suffering serious or significant harm in Malaysia, rather than because he was unaware that he could seek protection in Australia at that time. The Tribunal considers the applicant’s delay in making the visa application reflects poorly in the credibility of his claims to fear persecution if he returns to Malaysia.
Does the applicant have a well-founded fear of being persecuted in Malaysia for one or more of the five reasons set out in s.5J(1)?
The applicant claims he fears harm as a result of his involvement in a traffic accident in which a person was killed. He thinks that other bikies will look for him and harm him if he returns to Malaysia. His fear of harm is not for one of the five reasons set out in s.5J(1).
The applicant also said that he feared persecution as a result of racism, that is discrimination against people of Chinese ethnicity. This is one of the five reasons set out in s.5J(1).
The applicant has given evidence that he has some suffered discrimination but has never suffered serious or significant harm for reasons related to his ethnicity.
The 2016 DFAT Country Report - Malaysia states that Chinese Malaysians are the second largest ethnic group in Malaysia. There are no laws or constitutional provisions that directly discriminate against Chinese Malaysians.
3.9 On 12 to 13 July 2015 a disturbance, referred to as the ‘Low Yat riot’, occurred at a popular retail centre in central Kuala Lumpur. More than 100 Malays shouted anti-Chinese slogans, destroyed property and attacked bystanders following social media reports that a Chinese Malaysian vendor cheated a Malay man over a fake smart phone. Police detained 25 people for writing, sedition and theft. Officials dismissed any fraud by the vendor, and downplayed racial elements blaming the outburst on social media. Credible contacts told DFAT that the incident was not indicative of a broader trend of societal violence against Chinese Malaysians.
3.10 DFAT assesses that Chinese Malaysians generally do not experience discrimination or violence on a day-to-day basis. However, they may face low levels of discrimination when attempting to gain entry into the state tertiary system or the civil service.[1]
[1] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report Malaysia, 19 July 2016, p.10
Based on the above information, the Tribunal is unable to be satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm as a result of being an ethnic Chinese.
In his written statement, the applicant has also claimed that he will suffer persecution as a result of his political activism that is, his political opinion. This is a reason set out in s.5J(1).
Given the applicant could not recall any political activities in which he was involved, any dates of such activities or any details of such activities, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has ever been involved in political activism in Malaysia. At the hearing, the applicant acknowledged he does not fear returning to Malaysia for reasons of his actual or imputed opinion.
The Tribunal is therefore unable to be satisfied on the evidence before it that the applicant’s fear is well-founded or that there is a real chance that he will be threatened, harassed, detained or otherwise persecuted for one or more of the five reasons set out in s.5J(1) of the Act if he returns to Malaysia now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).
Are there substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Malaysia, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm?
Based on the applicant’s evidence as discussed above and given the Country Information referred to in paragraph 34 above, the Tribunal is unable to be satisfied that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm in Malaysia as a result of his Chinese ethnicity or his actual or imputed political opinion.
Although the applicant provided no supporting evidence relating to his claim related to a traffic accident, the Tribunal accepts that in about mid-2007, he was involved in a traffic accident in which two motorcyclists were killed when he ran into them. The Tribunal accepts that he ran off at the time but then reported it to the police the following day. He was not charged with any offence. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant remained residing in Malaysia for more than a year after the accident and he did not suffer any significant harm from anyone during this period.

The Tribunal is not satisfied that anyone looked for the applicant after the motor vehicle accident or that, if he were to return to Malaysia now or in the foreseeable future, that anyone would look for him, find him or harm him in any way or for any reason.
Based on the above findings, the Tribunal finds that there are no substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Malaysia, there is a real risk that he will be arbitrarily deprived of his life, that the death penalty will be carried out on him, that he will be subjected to torture or that he will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or that he will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment as defined.
CONCLUSION
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).
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.
B. Mericourt
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.
…

[2017] AATA 3067

1 May 2017

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice

Standing