1605519 (Refugee)

1605519 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 4999 (16 October 2018)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1605519
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  China
MEMBER:Tania Flood
DATE:16 October 2018
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 16 October 2018 at 10:06am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – religion – Catholic – adverse credibility concerns – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 5H, 5J, 5K, 5L, 5LA, 36, 65, 438, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 23 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 China, applied for the visa on 12 October 2015. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant was unable to demonstrate any knowledge of Catholicism and departed China using her own passport. The delegate found her claims were not credible and that she is not a refugee as defined in section 5H and in paragraph 36(2)(a) of the Act. Similarly, the delegate found that there are no grounds for believing that there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm if she is returned to China.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).
Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and relevant country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
Material under a public interest non-disclosure certificate
The Department file contains a public interest non-disclosure certificate in respect of s.438(1)(a) related documents. The Tribunal considers that the certificate is not a valid certificate as the material relates solely to ‘internal working documents and business affairs’ No reason has been provided 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 for the purposes of this review. This was discussed with the applicant at hearing and she indicated that she understood.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether there is a real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm on return to China for reason of her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion or alternatively whether there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her being removed from Australia to China there is a real risk she will suffer significant harm. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Summary of claims and evidence
In her application for a Protection visa, the applicant claims to be from Fuqing, in Fujian Province China. She claims to belong to the Han Chinese ethnic group and to be a Christian. She said she was married in February 2004 and divorced in July 2015. Her parents and two sons live in Fuqing. She claims she left China using a fake [passport]. She spent nine days in [Country 1] from [date] July 2015 to [date] July 2015. She claims to have lived at three different addresses in Fuqing prior to her departure from China. She completed her education to middle school level and did not work in China.
In a statement dated 9 October 2015 the applicant claims the following:
She is a devout underground Catholic. Her mother believes in the Lord and under her influence she also came to believe in the Lord. When she was a child her mother was arrested for attending underground church meetings. She said her mother told her that only the underground church truly believes in the Lord.
[In] March 2015 she attended an underground meeting at sister [A]’s home. They were informed on and she was caught by the police and sent to [location] in Fuqing, a persecution base for underground Catholics located [in] Fuqing City.
[In] March 2015 she protested her illegal incarceration with a hunger strike. The police ordered a doctor from the nearby hospital to force feed her. The police tried to trick her and convince her of their evil theories and threatened her. When this failed they forced her to stand for three days without sleep. After that they tried to get her to leave her fingerprints on a guarantee letter they had written. She refused to do so. They twisted her arms and held her fingers and forced her to do so. The next day she told them the guarantee letters were lies and she would not acknowledge them. The police were angry and pulled her hair and beat her. They forbade her to sleep for eight days. They opened her mouth with pliers and force fed her.
[In] April 2015 she could not stand the persecution and fainted. The police called her family to come and carry her away. Also the police fined her RMB [amount] yuan and warned her if she was caught again she would be imprisoned until she died.
Thankfully her health improved and for her faith she had to leave China. It was impossible to go abroad because she was being monitored by the local police. Her family found an agent and through the agents help she came to Australia. Her family have told her she must not come back. The police often harass her family and will arrest her if she goes back.
In a Protection visa interview with the Department the applicant claimed that she was baptised in 2004 [and] that she spent ten years living in Guangdong before that where she also attended underground church in a private house. She told the Delegate that she would listen to the priest and say amen. She said she departed China from Beijing and based on the Delegate’s decision she departed using her own genuine passport but entered Australia using a fake passport which contained a visa.
On 13 September 2018 the applicant attended a preliminary Tribunal hearing where evidence was taken by an authorised officer. During that interview she confirmed she lived at three residential addresses in China as per those listed in her application form. She confirmed she was married and has two children but separated from her husband in 2011. Further she said she has [siblings] in Australia. She said that before coming to Australia she worked as [an Occupation 1] in private homes for about two years. Also she did some factory work until she got married in 2004. Once the children got a bit older is when she commenced the [Occupation 1] work.
The applicant confirmed that she attended underground Catholic Church gatherings in China in private home commencing in about 2005. She said the gatherings varied in size but sometimes there were seven to eight people present and other times more than ten. She said just after she was married she got in contact with people going to church gatherings. She indicated that her mother-in-law liked these gatherings however it was other people who introduced her to the gatherings. She claimed she was not hurt by anyone in China on account of her being Catholic however the authorities told her that the house gatherings she attended were illegal. She added that she argued a lot with her husband around the time she started going to gatherings and that her attendance at the gatherings was a distraction from that situation.
The applicant stated that she attends a Catholic church in [Suburb 1] around once a month. She said she doesn’t know the name of the church but it is close to the station. She said the service is conducted in Mandarin and not always by the same priest. She does not know the name of the priest.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal again at a resumed hearing on 3 October 2018.
At the outset of the resumed hearing the Tribunal asked the applicant whether everything she had said during the preliminary Tribunal hearing was true and correct and she agreed it was.
The Tribunal noted that her written protection claims indicate that she was a devout Catholic in China and that she was introduced to Catholicism by her mother. The Tribunal pointed out that when giving evidence to the Delegate she said she was baptised in 2004 but that prior to this she lived in Guangdong for ten years where she was attending underground church services. The Tribunal noted that her evidence during the preliminary Tribunal hearing was that she only ever lived in Fuqing and first got in contact with people going to church gatherings after she was married in about 2005. The Tribunal also noted that she said her mother-in-law liked these gatherings but that it was other people who introduced her to the religious gatherings. The Tribunal put it to the applicant that her evidence about the manner in which she was introduced to the Catholic faith has changed considerably over the course of time. The Tribunal put it to the applicant that her inconsistent evidence in respect of a key aspect of her claims does not convince the Tribunal that her claims can be relied upon.
By way of response the applicant stated that it is personal and her grandmother didn’t agree with her attending such gatherings so she had to attend private gatherings in some places. When asked again to account for the inconsistencies in her evidence she then said that when she came to the Tribunal she was nervous and because the events happened a long time ago her memory is vague. She added that she attended church previously but in different places.
The Tribunal also pointed out that in her written claims for protection she described in some detail how she was detained at an underground church gathering in China and subjected to weeks of physical torture in a detention centre and only released after she physically collapsed and paid a fine. The Tribunal noted that when she was interviewed by the authorised Tribunal officer she was asked if anybody harmed her in China because of her religion and she said no, she was not hurt. The Tribunal put it to the applicant that her two accounts of what happened to her in China are completely different. The Tribunal put it to her that this also calls into question the veracity of another key aspect of her claims.
The applicant responded that because of the incident that occurred in China, whenever she is required to face something she feels nervous and scared. She said that perhaps she was too nervous to explain it correctly.
As to her departure from China the applicant confirmed that she departed the country from Beijing using a passport in her own name. She said she entered Australia using a fake passport which contained a visa to Australia. When asked if she encountered any difficulty departing the country she said she did not. When the Tribunal suggested this is indicative of a conclusion that she was not a person of adverse interest to the Chinese authorities she referred to some people being corrupt but was unable to further explain what she meant by this or how it related to her circumstances.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about her religious activity in Australia and she testified that she attends a Catholic church in [Suburb 1] which is situated near the train station. She said she does not know the name of the Church. She said she started attending that church after meeting some friends but cannot remember how long ago that was. She said she attends the church once or twice a month. She said she attends a service which is conducted in her language and is normally held at around 8am on a Sunday.
The applicant was asked whether she has a bible written in her language and she said she does. She said if she doesn’t attend church she reads the bible. When asked if she could name the different parts of the bible she said she does not know about that. Similarly, she said she doesn’t know what the sacraments are. When asked if she knows about the Ten Commandments she said she does but that she cannot remember what they are. Similarly, she said she knows about the Holy Trinity but said she cannot remember the details. When asked about the significance of Easter she said that there is a mass and that they read the bible and sing. The applicant was asked why the mass is celebrated at Easter and she said it is for them to be cleansed. She said they read the “mesa” to gain a better spirit. When asked what the “mesa” is she said she didn’t know how to describe it. As to who the highest person in the church on earth is she said it is the priest.
The Tribunal put it to the applicant that her responses do not demonstrate any knowledge of Catholicism and do not support that she is a genuine catholic. She replied that she is a Catholic but she has a problem with memory.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant country information, including relevant DFAT reports[1], which indicates that the authorities in Fujian province are the most liberal in terms of their tolerance of religious people. The Tribunal pointed out that the reports indicate that small, house gatherings are generally permitted and people are generally able to practice their faith in this way without fear of persecution. The Tribunal noted that there are reportedly millions of practicing Catholics in China and that those more likely to encounter problems with the authorities are church leaders and people who draw attention to themselves through their religious activities. The applicant responded that the situation is not that simple and many things occur in the dark.
[1] DFAT Thematic Report Fujian Province, People’s Republic of China, 16 December 2016; DFAT Country Information Report People’s Republic of China, 21 December 2017
The applicant confirmed that she has no other reason to fear returning to China.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
Country of reference and identity
The applicant has produced a People’s Republic of China passport which confirms her claimed identity and date of birth. She claims that she left China using a passport in the same name but entered Australia using a fake passport in another name. Based on the available evidence the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is [name] as claimed for the purposes of this review. The Tribunal has therefore assessed her claims against China.
The Tribunal has concerns about the credibility of the applicant’s claims and does not accept she was or is a Catholic or that she suffered serious harm in China for reason of her religion. The reasons for this conclusion are outlined below:
The applicant’s written claims state that she is a Catholic and that she came to be a believer under the influence of her mother. She told the delegate that she was practicing her faith for about ten years prior to 2004. However, as noted above, she informed the Tribunal that she was introduced to Catholic Church gatherings just after she was married in about 2005. Further, she said her mother-in-law liked those gatherings but that she was introduced to them by “other” people. When the Tribunal noted these inconsistencies at hearing the applicant put it down to nervousness and memory loss. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant might have felt nervous appearing before the Tribunal and that stress and the passage of time can account for some error in respect of the timing of certain events. However, the Tribunal does not consider that her responses account for her differing account of who introduced her to the faith, particularly if it was her mother as originally claimed. The Tribunal does not accept that this simple fact is likely to be affected by nervousness or loss of memory.
Secondly, the applicant’s written claims state that she was subjected to weeks of torture in a detention facility after being caught attending an underground church gathering. This claim is significantly at odds with her oral evidence to the Tribunal that she was not hurt in China because of her religion. Again the applicant put this down to nervousness but the Tribunal is not persuaded that this sufficiently accounts for such a glaring and significant inconsistency.
Thirdly, despite claiming to have been a devout Catholic for many years, both in China and in Australia, she was unable to demonstrate any knowledge of even basic elements of her faith. The Tribunal notes that she claimed to have knowledge of some of the issues discussed at hearing but was unable to remember the specifics. Had she been able to provide some details about key aspects of the faith such as the Sacraments and the Ten Commandments for example, the Tribunal might have been able to accept that memory loss accounts for some of the gaps in her knowledge. However, the applicant was unable to provide any detail at all about these and other key aspects of her claimed religion. The Tribunal considers this reflects poorly on her credibility.

Fourthly, the applicant claims to be attending church in [City 1] but she does not know the name of the church she attends and incorrectly said that the Chinese mass she attends takes place around 8am on a Sunday. The Tribunal notes that the Catholic Church which is nearest to [Suburb 1] train station is [Church 1]. As discussed with her at hearing, [Church 1]’s website indicates that the Chinese (Mandarin) Mass is held at 11.30am on Sunday. Other than her oral claims the applicant has produced no evidence of her attendance at [Church 1] and given she claims to be attending a Chinese church service at a time when it does not take place the Tribunal is not persuaded she is in fact attending Catholic or any other church services in Australia.
In view of the above the Tribunal does not accept the applicant is a Catholic or that she was detained, tortured, forced to write guarantee letters, fined and monitored by the police in China for reason of her religion. The Tribunal does not accept she is attending Catholic or any other church services in Australia. The Tribunal finds the applicant departed China using a passport in her own name without encountering any difficulties at the time. The Tribunal finds the applicant was not a person of adverse interest to the Chinese authorities when she departed the country for reason of her religion or for any other reason. In light of the above findings, the Tribunal also finds she will not be of adverse interest to the authorities on her return to China for reason of her religion or for any other reason.
The Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm on return to China for reason of her religion. Therefore the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution in China. The applicant does not satisfy the criterion at s.36 (2) (a) of the Act.
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36 (2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act. For the same reasons already articulated the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to China there is a real risk she will suffer significant harm. Therefore the Tribunal finds the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s. 36(2) (aa) of the Act.
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36 (2) of the Act on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36 (2) (a) or (aa) of the Act and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2) of the Act.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Tania Flood
Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:    For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:    For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in them practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)    denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
..
36Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)    the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)    the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)    the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2018] AATA 4999

16 October 2018

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice

Appeal