1603845 (Refugee)

1603845 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 2368 (13 September 2017)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1603845
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Malaysia
MEMBER:Sophia Panagiotidis
DATE:13 September 2017
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Statement made on 13 September 2017 at 12:03pm

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Malaysia – Homosexuality – No issues concerning sexual orientation – Economic reasons – Came for work to help family – Will be able to find work in Malaysia
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H(1)(a), 5H(1)(b), 5J(1)-(6), 5K-LA, 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c), 36(2A) and (2B), 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration [in] March 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 [in] January 2016.
The applicant arrived in Australia [in] March 2015 after being granted an electronic travel authority subclass 601 visa which ended [in] June 2015.
In his application for a protection visa the applicant has made the following claims (in summary):
·He has been persecuted under the Penal Code 377 under Malaysian law for his membership of a particular social group.
·He fears persecution due to his sexuality if he returns to Malaysia.
·He has been disowned by his family and threatened by them to be reported to the police. He has been beaten, abused, both mentally and physically.
·He was made redundant from a senior government position as a direct result of his sexuality/membership of a particular social group.
·Seeking help in Malaysia would be deemed ‘consciousness of guilt’ and would place his human rights and freedom in genuine risk. It could lead to persecution under the sodomy laws and result in 20 years imprisonment. These laws apply nationwide and he does not think he can relocate to another part of Malaysia and be safe.
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that minimal detail had been provided by the applicant about incidents referred to in his claims. The delegate was also concerned that the applicant did not apply for protection in Australia until nearly ten months after he arrived. The delegate considered that such a lengthy delay tends to weigh strongly against the applicant's sincerity, or at least the depth of his stated fear of being persecuted in his home country.
The hearing
The applicant confirmed he was born in Selangor and he holds a passport that is current. He speaks Malay and he is a Muslim. His family live in Klang and his father is a [occupation]. His mother does not work. He has a brother who is married and has children works in a factory and always needs financial help. He has [other siblings], one works in a factory and is paid very poorly and the youngest is at school. The applicant is the [placement] child in the family and he is single. Since coming to Australia he has maintained contact with his family. He does not have family in Australia and did not know anyone. Has he been in touch with his family since coming to Australia? Prior to coming to Australia he mainly lived with his family in Klang and went to [location] once for work.
The applicant said he was working as a [occupation] from 2005 to 2011 and then did some work for [a government agency] from 2011 to 2012 doing [occupation]. He has been working in Australia [in] [location] and the surrounding [areas]. He said he finished his secondary education and went to college but did not complete [a certain] course.
The applicant was asked why he left Malaysia in March 2015. He said he left because his family has financial difficulty. He was living in Klang which is a small city and only working intermittently and his siblings were not able to complete their study.
The applicant was asked why he came to Australia. He said he heard that there was work.
The applicant confirmed he arrived in Australia [in] March 2015. He confirmed that he remained unlawfully after his [temporary] visa expired. He said his visa was for three months and after that he worked. He contacted the Department after the visa expired because he did not know he could apply for protection. A friend told him he could go the Department and get a new visa. He said he came to Australia with the intention of helping his family and did not have an idea how long he would remain.
The applicant was asked who helped him when he first arrived in Australia. He said that when he arrived he went to [a location] and looked on Facebook for any jobs. He stayed in [an accommodation] then travelled to the country for work. He has never travelled overseas before. The applicant said he had help from a representative who completed the application for the protection visa. He said he outlined his problems and the representative completed it. The applicant was asked if he agreed with the contents of the application. He said he did. The applicant was asked if he wanted to add anything to his claims. He said he did not.
The applicant was asked why he fears returning to Malaysia. He said he is very afraid he will not get a job and not be able to help his family financially.
The applicant was asked if he is aware of the claims made in his application form. He said his claims are about having freedom to work because there are not many jobs in Malaysia and he knows that he told the representative that he wants to help his family financially.
The applicant was asked if he discussed his sexuality with his representative. He said he did not. The applicant was asked if he fears persecution due to his sexuality if he returns to Malaysia. He said he does not.
The applicant was asked if he is a homosexual. He said he is not. The Tribunal outlined the claims that had been made in the protection visa application and asked for the applicant's response. He said they are not true claims and he was not aware such claims were made.
The applicant was asked if there were other reasons apart from financial and poor work prospects as to why he fears returning to Malaysia. He said he does not want to return because of politics and the financial situation in Malaysia. He said there is a lot of corruption in Malaysia and it is difficult for lowly skilled labourers to get work. He said there is corruption at all levels, especially during elections.
The applicant was asked if he had ever personally experienced disadvantage or discrimination because of corruption in politics. He said that when he votes he receives money to vote for the government and during the election campaigns they are given money to vote for them. They get paid about $50.
The applicant confirmed he is ethnic Malay. The Tribunal referred to country information contained in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s report on Malaysia which deals with ethnic Malays and indigenous people also known as bumiputera:
3.1 A Malay person is defined under the Constitution as being an individual with characteristics that include professing the religion of Islam, speaking the Malay language and conforming to Malay customs. The Constitution gives ethnic Malays and other indigenous groups, collectively known as bumiputera, special status. Government regulations and policies implement preferential programs to boost the economic position of bumiputera. Such programs promote increased opportunities for bumiputera to access higher education, careers within the civil service, commercial opportunities and housing. Some industries maintain race-based requirements that mandate a certain level of bumiputera ownership.
3.2 Until recently, public universities were required to meet a quota of 70 per cent bumiputera students before admitting students of other ethnicities. Bumiputera make up 85 per cent of the civil service. The 2016 national budget allocated around 11.5 per cent of the budget, or RM30.6 billion (approximately AUD10.2 billion), to advance the bumiputera agenda. This includes various entrepreneurship programs, educational placements and scholarships and equity ownership schemes that are separate and more extensive than those assigned to the Chinese Malaysian or Indian Malaysian communities. The budget also increased public sector salaries, which mostly employs bumiputeras. Affirmative action policies for bumiputera economic inclusion are contained in the Eleventh Malaysia Plan 2016-2020. Such positive discrimination policies have succeeded in creating a significant urban Malay middle class. However, some Malays still face relatively high rates of poverty, particularly in rural communities.
3.3 Given their preferential treatment, DFAT assesses bumiputeras would very rarely face discrimination or violence on the basis of their ethnicity. [1]
[1] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report, Malaysia, 19 July 2016
The applicant was asked for his comments.
The applicant said this information is correct but it is out of date. A long time ago this was the case but now although the leader is Malay, he does not help Malays. It is all for show. He only gives preferences for his own chosen people, those who lick his boots.
The Tribunal referred to requirements as outlines in s.5J(1) of the Act which states that 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 Malaysia. The applicant was asked if he fears persecution or any harm for a reason relating to his race, religion, nationality or membership of a particular social group or his political opinion. The applicant said his issue is not one of harm for those reasons. The applicant was asked if he had been discriminated in any way in trying to obtain work or for any other reason. The applicant said he has in a way because when he goes for an interview, the employer chooses their own friends of relatives. He knows this as he had overheard conversations and learned this. This is unfair and occurs everywhere.
The applicant was asked about the [government] work he did and how he obtained that job. He said it was for a fixed term and there was no ongoing work. He got the job through a [friend].
The applicant was asked what would happen if he were to return to Malaysia. He said that since he has been in Australia he has been able to help his family financially and there has been some improvement to their lives. [One sibling] has been able to continue back to school. He confirmed that as an ethnic Malay student [this sibling] does get some government help but it is very little. He wishes to continue to help his family.
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.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the criteria for a protection visa.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Country of reference
The applicant claims to be a citizen of Malaysia and provided a copy of his passport to the Department. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is a citizen of Malaysia and that Malaysia is the applicant’s receiving country for the purposes of the refugee and complementary protection assessment.
There is no available evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant has a current right to enter and reside in any safe third country for the purposes of s.36(3) of the Act.
Assessment of claims and findings
Essentially the applicant's claims do not concern fear of harm on the basis of his sexuality as originally included in the application for the protection visa. The applicant strongly denied any claims to do with sexual orientation and said that the person who he had paid to help him to complete the application form included these without his knowledge. His English is very limited and he trusted that the application included his reasons for coming to Australia.
The applicant told the Tribunal that he did not come to Australia with the intention of claiming protection and he was unaware he could do so. He came to Australia because he had been told he could find work here. After his visa expired and he became unlawful he asked around and was told he should contact the Department and he could claim protection.
The applicant's claim are essentially that he and his family are in financial hardship and the reason he came to Australia was to find work to help them. The applicant has cited lessening standards, corruption and cronyism as the reasons why it is difficult to get decent paying and ongoing work in Malaysia and this is due to government corruption. The applicant did not claim to have been harmed or threatened in the past by anyone, including the authorities but simply found it difficult to obtain work in what he described as a deteriorating economic environment.
The Tribunal asked the applicant questions about his life and experiences in Malaysia and whether he had ever felt he had been discriminated against or threatened for reasons of his race, ethnicity, religion, political opinion or for any other reason. The applicant said he had not. He confirmed his ethnicity and religion that his ethnicity is Malay and that he was a Muslim and he was indeed bumiputera. The applicant essentially said that he is relatively unskilled and found it difficult to find ongoing work and that his family were poor.
The Tribunal does not accept the applicant's characterisation of the economy in Malaysia based on DFAT's most recent report on Malaysia in which the economy is featured by relative strong growth, low inflation and low rates of poverty.[2] This was discussed with the applicant who said that his experience was different.
[2] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report, Malaysia 19 July 2016
While the Tribunal acknowledges the applicant will face difficulties and challenges arising from finding work if he were to return to Malaysia, it does not accept the applicant will not be able to access paid employment, given his overall motivation and work experience into the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant has genuine personally held fear regarding the cost of living being too high and the remuneration in low skilled work too low if he were to return to Malaysia.
In this regard, the Tribunal notes the relatively negligible poverty rates across all major ethnic groups in Malaysia. For these reasons, the prospects of finding work in Malaysia based on the applicant's circumstances does not amount to the applicant facing a harm that will amount to serious harm, in the sense that the applicant or his family will experience severe economic hardship deny them capacity to earn livelihoods that threatens the person's capacity to subsist or the applicant and his family will be denied access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person's capacity to subsist. Accordingly, the applicant does not have a real chance of serious harm arising from his economic circumstances for reasons mentioned in s.5J(1)(a) or any other claimed reasons, if he were to return to Malaysia from Australia, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Further, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds the applicant will be able to obtain an income from employment on return to Malaysia, and, having regard to both his work experience both in Australia and Malaysia as well as his capacity to work, the Tribunal does not accept that any financial hardship that the applicant may encounter will amount to serious harm or significant harm. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant will experience severe financial hardship that threatens his capacity to subsist or be denied the capacity to earn a livelihood, where the denial threatens his capacity to subsist or that he will be denied access to basic services, where the denial threatens his capacity to subsist or that he will be subject to any other form of serious harm non-exhaustively listed under s.5J(5) of the Act.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for these reasons.

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).
Complementary protection
The Tribunal has considered if there are any reasons as substantial reasons to believe, the applicant will face a real risk of significant harm arising from the applicant's economic circumstances as contemplated by s.36(2)(aa). Significant harm is different from the concept of serious harm as non-exhaustively required by 91R(1)(b) in the context of s.36(2)(a). As outlined above, based on the applicant's accepted personal circumstances, the applicant will face difficulties and challenges arising from finding work to support himself and his family, if removed from Australia. However it does not accept the applicant will not be able to access paid employment anywhere in Malaysia, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia or that those challenges amount to significant harm as required by s36(2A). Furthermore the Tribunal finds there is no intention on the part of the governing of the Malaysian economy in combination of market forces to inflict significant harm, including subjecting the applicant to cruel or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to the applicant's country of reference.
Based on the applicant's economic and personal circumstances of the applicant, the Tribunal is not satisfied there are substantial reasons for believing the applicant faces a real risk of significant harm, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia for Malaysia, based on the applicant's economic circumstances will amount to any significant harm outlined in s.36(2A). 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.
Having considered the applicant’s claims singularly and cumulatively, the Tribunal is not satisfied there are 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 the applicant will suffer significant harm.
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.
Sophia Panagiotidis
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 2368

13 September 2017

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Appeal