1608209 (Refugee)

[2020] AATA 2359

1608209 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 2359 (3 January 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1608209

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Israel

MEMBER:Mara Moustafine

DATE:3 January 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 03 January 2020 at 4:55pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Israel – race – refugee subsequently granted citizenship – religion – atheist in predominantly religious country – harassment by neighbours, authorities and right-wing and/or religious activists – credibility – evolving claims and inconsistent evidence – delay in departure after visa granted – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36(2), 65, 438(1)(a)     

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 dependants.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

   Background

2. The applicant is a citizen of Israel, born in [Country 1] on [Date].

3. He first visited Australia  five months in 2003 on a long stay Tourist visa. He next applied for a Visitor visa [in] November 2013, which was granted [in] December 2013. He arrived in Australia [in] March 2014 on a Visitor visa valid until [June] 2014. [In] May 2014 he was granted another Visitor visa.

4. On 26 May 2014 the applicant applied for a Protection visa. A delegate of the Minister refused to grant the visa on 6 May 2016.

5. On 6 June 2016 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the delegate’s decision. He provided a copy of the decision for the purposes of the review and is taken to be on notice of its findings and reasons.

   Evidence before the Department

   Protection Visa Application

6. According to his Protection visa application form and a covering letter dated 26 May 2014 the applicant is an Israeli citizen of [Country 2/Country 1] ethnicity, born in [Province], [Country 1] on [Date]. His [Country 1] family were accepted by Israel as refugees in 1977 in the aftermath of the [Country 1] War and were subsequently granted Israeli citizenship. The applicant lived in [Town] with his parents and siblings, completing 12 years of education and qualified as [an Occupation] in 1991. He completed 18 months military service in [Year] and became a disabled veteran due to an accident during his service. Before coming to Australia in 2014, he lived at [Address 1], Tel Aviv for ten years. He stated that his mother and brother were living in Israel, his sister in [Country 3] and he was unaware of the whereabouts of his father.   

7. In his application for protection, the applicant claimed that he left Israel because he was persecuted for his race and looking foreign; as an atheist in a religious country; and because he felt unsafe there, even in Tel Aviv, “the most liberal part of the country”. The applicant claimed that he experienced harm from his neighbours in Tel Aviv, who deliberately dug holes outside his house so that he would fall and hurt himself; and blocked his door with building materials (cement, gravel, sand). He claimed that they wanted him to leave his house, hurt him and tried to kill him because he looked foreign. This incident caused damage to his [Body parts] and made him fear for his physical safety. The applicant also claimed that he has suffered discrimination and harassment in Israel for many years, including being stopped for no reason by the police when driving because he looked different and the front porch of his family’s house in [Town] being burned by right wing racist activists, which the police did nothing about. 

8. The applicant fears that if he returns to Israel he will suffer discrimination and harassment because of his race and as an atheist, as well as physical harm from Israeli people, including his neighbours and Israeli authorities, including the police.  He does not believe the Israeli authorities will protect him because the police and government security agents persecute people who are not Jewish and look foreign and the police have done nothing in the past when he sought their assistance.

   Protection Visa Interview

9. The applicant attended an interview with the delegate on 18 March 2015, a recording of which the Tribunal has listened to and a summary of which is contained in the delegate’s decision record. Where relevant the applicant’s oral evidence to the delegate is discussed below.

10. Supporting materials provided to the Department included a copy of the applicant’s [Country 1] birth certificate; Israeli passport, identity card, driving license, disabled veteran card and a Life Certificate issued by the Rehabilitation Department of the Israel Ministry of Defense. Photographs of scaffolding and building debris were also provided as evidence that his neighbours were trying to kill him; as well as copies of media articles relating to racial politics in Israel; and documents in Hebrew and English, including some relating to his medical treatment for [Medical condition] in Israel.

    The Delegate’s Decision

11. The delegate refused to grant the applicant a Protection visa on 6 May 2016 as she was not satisfied that he was owed protection by Australia under the refugee criterion or under the complementary protection criterion.

    Application for Review

    Pre-hearing submissions

12. Ahead of his hearing, the applicant provided to the Tribunal a statutory declaration and supporting documents. Key relevant claims in the statutory declaration were as follows:

    a.While living in Israel he faced ongoing discrimination and persecution because of his race and ethnicity (perceived [Country 1] nationality), which was compounded by the fact he was foreign and did not practice any religion/was an atheist in a deeply religious country.

    b.During 2012 to 2014 his neighbour dug holes outside his house without due notice of construction works and intentionally placed building materials, such as cement, sand and gravel, to block the door to his house. He believes this was done in the hope that he would fall into one of the holes and injure himself and to imprison him in his home without due regard to his civil liberties.

    c.The same neighbour tried to injure and/or kill him by directing a group of boys to harass him. This left him in fear of leaving his home, including for medical treatment he required for his [Medical conditions]. Since that time, he has been in fear for his safety and life in Israel. He believes the neighbour did this with the sole intention of driving him out of the neighbourhood or to otherwise harm him because he appeared foreign.

    d.Despite his complaints to the Tel Aviv Municipality Council regarding the holes being unmarked, unsafe and contrary to local building practices, the council's inspectors visited the site and took no action on the building breaches but turned a blind eye because the neighbour was a Jew and he was not.

    e.In 2014, after he lodged an objection to a third building permit, he overheard council workers in a conversation near one of his windows saying words to the effect: "we've tried to exhaust him and it didn't work. We'll keep trying to exhaust him. Hopefully we will deter his medical condition and he will die." This prompted the applicant to leave Israel for Australia, where it was safe for him to continue his medical treatment without fear of harm from his neighbours and the authorities.

    f.He has experienced harassment and discrimination in Israel, including being excluded from entering a shopping mall, stopped by police while driving and asked to provide proof that he owned his vehicle. He believes this was because of his foreign appearance. 

    g.Although the US State Department only identifies ongoing institutional and societal discrimination against non-orthodox Jews of Arab/Palestinians or African background and not those of Asian ethnicity. Further, the majority of incidents of harm reported in the media have been directed at persons of African, Arab or Eritrean background. However he believes that, as an atheist, non-Jew, of foreign appearance, he is targeted in the same way and remains at risk of harm.

    h.A media report about foreign workers of Asian and non-Israeli appearance being the subject of theft at the hands of Israeli Police officers reinforces his claim that Israeli police refused to take any action against his neighbour because the applicant was foreign.

    i.The malice of the Israeli authorities towards disabled Israeli citizens such as the applicant is demonstrated by the requirement that they must sign a Life Certificate form to verify that they are still alive in order to continue receiving their disability pension.

    j.The government hindered his attempts to permanently migrate from Israel in the past.

    k.Should he return to Israel, he will face the same or worse discrimination, harassment and persecution as before. As in the past, the police will be unwilling to assist him or provide him with the adequate protection due to his race and ethnicity.

    l.The introduction of the Nation State Bill, which calls for Israel to "maintain a Jewish majority even at the price of violation of rights" is an acknowledgement that Jewish Israeli citizens are treated above others.

13. The supporting documents provided included scans of photographs appearing to show building scaffolding and construction debris; translations of several documents, including a handwritten fax transmission dated [January] 2014 addressed to the Tel Aviv Municipality Licensing and Construction Department headed “Objection to a request for a building permit at [Address 2], Tel Aviv”; statements from three Israeli friends related to the construction at his apartment building in 2012; a Life Certificate issued by the Israeli Ministry of Defense; media articles in Hebrew and English relating to Israeli politics, including racial violence; and medical documents relating to his dental treatment and acupuncture in Sydney.

    The Hearing

14. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 24 April 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Hebrew and English languages.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

15. 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, the applicant 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.

16. 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 under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).

17. Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:

    owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

18. 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 a protection 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 the applicant 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’).

19. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines and any country information assessment 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.

    Analysis, Reasons and Findings

20. On the basis of his Israeli passport and other identity documents provided to the Department, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a citizen of Israel and that Israel is the receiving country for the purposes of s.36(2)(aa).

21. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant came to Australia looking for a visa that would allow him to stay here because it was peaceful and the weather was good for his medical conditions and that his preferred treatments are readily accessible here.

22. The issue in this case is whether the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the refugee criterion or complementary protection criterion.

23. For reasons outlined below the Tribunal did not find the applicant to be a credible and truthful witness and has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has had regard to various inconsistencies in his evidence throughout the process, the implausible nature of some key aspects of his claims and other reasons detailed below.

24. The applicant’s central claim is that he suffered serious harm in Israel from his neighbour, who harassed, persecuted and attempted to kill him through constant construction work at his apartment building in Tel Aviv and the Israeli police and authorities, to whom he reported his concerns failed to protect him because he was a foreigner ([Country 1]) and not Jewish.

25. The applicant’s claims of harm to which he was subjected evolved over the course of his Protection visa process. In his original application he only referred to the neighbour deliberately digging holes outside his house so that he would fall and hurt himself and blocking his door with building materials. At his Department interview, he added that scaffolding was erected to imprison him. Finally, in his evidence to the Tribunal, he introduced two new elements: that the neighbour sent a group of boys to harass him, making him afraid to leave his home and resulting in his hospitalisation due to the deterioration of his medical condition; and that he overheard council workers saying that they had tried to exhaust him and hopefully would “deter his medical condition and he would die.”  

26. When questioned why he had not previously mentioned the latter evidence, the applicant claimed variously that no one had asked him, that his lawyer had asked if he remembered something that gave an indication of his fearing for his life. He said he had not mentioned this evidence to the Department because it was “hearsay – I can’t prove it”. Asked if he had any medical evidence regarding his hospitalisation, the applicant said he could not find it. Nor could he remember when it took place, first saying at the end of 2012, then 2013 and again in the beginning of 2014. Likewise, the applicant was unable to support his claim that his neighbour sent a group of boys to harass him. In light of the above, it is the Tribunal’s view that the applicant embellished his evidence in an effort to strengthen his claims for protection.

27. The applicant has provided no objective evidence to substantiate his claim that his neighbour wished to kill him, dug holes and erected scaffolding around his building “in the hope that he would fall into one of the holes and injure himself and to imprison him in his home”. The Tribunal has had regard to the photographs of debris and scaffolding provided by the applicant. It has also considered the supporting witness statements from three friends, which variously state that the construction works took a long time to complete, caused a disturbance to the applicant by noise, pollution and obstruction of his entrance; that he didn’t get any consideration from the neighbour responsible for the works; nor from the Tel Aviv City council to whom he complained. As discussed with the applicant, the structures in the photographs, which could have been taken anywhere, appear to be ordinary scaffolding used in construction and the issues described are not uncommon frustrations experienced by neighbours during building construction or renovations, rather than a deliberate targeting of the applicant, for which he has provided no evidence.

28. Significantly, the inconsistent evidence the applicant provided as to where the alleged construction work that was the source of his problems took place calls into question the veracity of his claims. In his application form the applicant gave his address in Tel Aviv as [Address 1] and at hearing told the Tribunal that the problem was caused by the extension work undertaken by his upstairs neighbour. The statement of his friend [Mr A] also referred to construction work undertaken in the building where the applicant had his apartment  - [Address 1], Tel Aviv. In the objection letter which the applicant faxed to the Tel Aviv Municipality Council, however, he referred to a building permit for construction works at [Address 2]. This address is also noted in the applicant’s statutory declaration, in which he further stated that “this was the third time that the neighbour was seeking to undertake construction works in the period 2012 to 2014”.

29. The applicant’s assertions throughout his Protection visa assessment process, that the reason he was allegedly harassed and persecuted and the police and Council authorities took no action on his neighbour’s building breaches, was because was a foreigner and not Jewish are not substantiated by evidence.  While he submitted a supporting statement from his friend [Mr B] about his treatment by the neighbour and police, it refers only to “feelings” that because the applicant “was not part of them, no one cared about his suffering” and “that they had done everything to throw him out of his house”. [Mr B] is equivocal as to why they did so: “maybe because he is not Jewish” and “maybe because he is a stranger to them”. He also notes that when the applicant rang the police in 2012, they “came and delayed the construction process”, although they did not come “to rescue him”. 

30. The applicant’s claim that he was in fear of serious harm in Israel is further undermined by the inconsistent evidence he gave as to why he left Israel and the timeframe of his departure. At hearing, the applicant initially told the Tribunal that he came to Australia in March 2014 to continue his medical treatment (herbs and acupuncture) and was looking for a visa that would allow him to stay here because it was peaceful and the weather was good for his medical conditions. He said he did not come with the intention of applying for a Protection visa, which he did not know about, but decided to apply when he was told about it because of the protection visa “check list” (criteria). In his Department interview, the applicant also said he left Israel because of his health conditions, which were exacerbated by winter weather, and “partly to test conditions in case he needed to flee Israel, due to the security situation there”.  However, when asked whether he feared something was going to happen to him at the time he left Israel, the applicant told the Tribunal that he left fearing for his life and “in immediate danger” because his neighbour, “the lynch mob” and “City Hall” were trying to kill him – by accident and to exhaust him so his medical condition would deteriorate and he would die or “if not, they would find another way”.

1. Asked why, if he was in fear for life, he did not leave Israel as soon as his visa was granted in December 2013 but only arrived in Australia some three months later, the applicant responded that he needed to prepare for the trip, finish his medical treatment, prepare his medicines and herbs and spent a month in [Country 4] on the way to “calm his nerves”. As suggested to the applicant, in the Tribunal’s view, someone fearing for their life would take the first opportunity to depart the country where they feared harm. In this context, his delayed departure casts doubt as to the seriousness of the harm he feared in Israel. The Tribunal’s reservations are not assuaged by the applicant’s comment in response that “they” tried to kill him by “constant harassment” and exhaustion, which was “difficult to prove”. 

2. In the course of his Protection visa assessment process, the applicant also claimed that he suffered discrimination and harassment in Israel because of his foreign appearance, including being stopped by police while driving his car and asked to provide proof that he owned his vehicle, being excluded from public venues, including a shopping mall and a restaurant, experiencing racism while on military service and having the front porch of his house in [Town] burned by right wing racist activists. The Tribunal notes that no evidence was provided that these alleged incidents occurred or were linked to the applicant’s foreign appearance, as claimed. As discussed with the applicant, the Tribunal accepts that, like individuals in many countries around the world, the applicant may have experienced discriminatory behaviour in Israel. However, even if the Tribunal were to accept that these incidents occurred for the reasons claimed, which it does not, it is not satisfied that the random acts described would constitute serious or significant harm.

3. The Tribunal found the applicant’s claims as to what he feared might happen to him if he returned to Israel now, vague and lacking in detail specific to his individual case. In his written claims, he stated only that he would face the same or worse discrimination, harassment and persecution as before due to his race, ethnicity and as an atheist; as well as physical harm from Israeli people, including his neighbours, and the authorities, who would not protect him. At his hearing he added that, as was clear from the media information he had submitted, racially motivated violence in Israel was getting worse and the “right wing Israeli government”, which he claimed promoted hatred and fear against foreigners in order to appeal to electors, would not protect him because he was a foreigner, a non-Jew and looked foreign.

4. The Tribunal has had regard to the media reports regarding racial violence and discrimination in Israel which the applicant submitted, as well as country information, some of which was referenced in the Department’s decision. As discussed with the applicant, as well as Israel’s indigenous Arab population, there are large numbers of foreign workers and migrants in Israel from different backgrounds, including Asians, and of different religions. According to the latest US State Department Human Rights report[1], Israeli law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race and protects the freedom to be or not be religious, with 59% of Israelis not affiliating with any religious stream. The report identifies Israeli citizens of Arab and Ethiopian Jewish ethnicity as continuing to face institutional and societal discrimination and African migrants occasionally been targets of violence. However, there is no country information available to the Tribunal that suggest racial targeting of Asians in Israel or that the authorities do not respond to concerns if raised. While the applicant has asserted that he faces the same type of discrimination, he has not provided any concrete evidence of this. The Tribunal accepts that Israel’s controversial new Nation State law asserts Jewish supremacy in Israel but notes that the target of this legislation is Israel’s indigenous Arab population, not other racial minorities, like the applicant. Moreover, according to media reports, the Supreme Court is yet to rule on its constitutionality[2].

   [1] United States Department of State, Israel and the Golan Heights 2018 Human Rights Report, Jerusalem Post, 19 November 2019, >

   Further, as discussed with the applicant at hearing, his claim that the authorities take no action against Israelis who perpetrate racially motivated violence are undermined by several media articles among those he submitted reporting that the Israeli youths who attacked some Africans in 2012 were arrested and charged and the Attorney General attached to each case a “racist motive” based on evidence gathered by police. The applicant also submitted an article about two Asians foreign workers being robbed by Israeli police officers to “reinforce” his claim that the police refused to take any action against his neighbour because the applicant was foreign. The Tribunal considers the logic of this comparison tenuous. Moreover, as discussed with the applicant, the article clearly states that the police involved were charged with bribery, theft, abusing their position and breach of trust.   

5. The Tribunal also notes that, by the applicant’s own evidence, as well as several statements from his friends, on most of the occasions when he called the police or council inspectors about the alleged actions of his neighbour, they responded and came to investigate his complaints and, in at least one instance, delayed the construction process.  While the applicant has claimed that the police failed to get him out of his apartment or take him into “protective custody” as a disabled veteran, as discussed at hearing, the Tribunal is not satisfied that this is their obligation.  

6. As discussed with the applicant, the Tribunal does not accept that the Israeli authorities discriminated against him, especially given his evidence at hearing that the Ministry of Defense paid him a full disabled veteran’s pension and gave him a mortgage to enable him to purchase an apartment in Tel Aviv, which he still owns and rents to his friend. Neither does it accept that it is unreasonable for the applicant to have to sign a Life Certificate form to verify that he is still alive in order to continue receiving his disability pension or that it demonstrates malice towards him as a disabled person, as he has claimed.

7. Nor does the Tribunal accept the applicant’s claim that the government hindered his attempts to permanently migrate from Israel in the past. When asked about this at hearing, the applicant gave confusing evidence about his father, whom he described as a womanizer, being set up with a woman by his friends to thwart his intentions of going to the [Country 5]; his brother being used for propaganda purposes by the media to promote military service by showing a [Country 1] serving in the Israeli Army; and an attempt by Orthodox Jews (“someone with black clothing”) and some Americans trying to pressure the applicant to represent Israel at the UN and to gain sympathy from Barack Obama when he was delaying aid to Israel.

8. Finally the Tribunal is not satisfied that if the applicant has to return to Israel his medical conditions will deteriorate to a level that might constitute serious or significant harm due to different weather conditions and the atmosphere, as claimed at hearing. As discussed with the applicant, the medical documentation he provided related to dental procedures, Chinese medicine and acupuncture treatment. By his own evidence, he would be able to access the same treatment in Tel Aviv, even if only “in certain places”, as compared to Sydney, where he can “get it anywhere”.

   Summary Findings

9. In light of the multiple concerns discussed above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has given a truthful account of his experiences in Israel and the reason he fears harm there. The Tribunal is not satisfied that because he was a foreigner ([Country 1]) and not Jewish, the applicant’s neighbour harassed, persecuted and attempted to kill him through constant construction work at his apartment building in Tel Aviv, including by deliberately digging holes outside his house, blocking his door with building materials and erecting scaffolding to imprison him and sending youths to harass him; or that the neighbour or council workers were trying kill him through exhaustion and deterioration of his medical condition for these reasons. Nor does the Tribunal accept that Israeli police and authorities, to whom he allegedly reported these incidents, failed to adequately protect him for these reasons. Further, the Tribunal does not accept that the Israeli government hindered the applicant’s attempts to permanently migrate from Israel in the past, nor that the requirement that disabled Israeli citizens must sign a Life Certificate form to verify that they are still alive in order to continue receiving their disability pension demonstrates the malice of the authorities towards disabled people such as the applicant.

10. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept that, if he returns to Israel now or in the foreseeable future, there is a real risk or real chance that the applicant will face serious or significant harm, the same or worse discrimination, harassment and persecution as in the past due to his race and ethnicity or as an atheist, or physical harm from Israeli people, including his neighbours and Israeli authorities, including the police. Nor is the Tribunal satisfied that the Israeli authorities will be unwilling to assist him or provide him with the adequate protection for these reasons. In the Tribunal’s view that the applicant fabricated these claims for the purpose of obtaining a protection visa in order to remain in Australia.

11. Having considered all of the applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that, on return to Israel, the applicant will suffer serious harm amounting to persecution for reasons of his race or absence of religion or for any other Convention reason. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason should he return to Israel now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

12. The Tribunal has also considered the applicant’s claims under complementary protection. As it has rejected the entirety of the applicant’s material claims on the basis that they were fabricated for the purpose of obtaining a protection visa, the Tribunal does not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Israel, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.

    Non-disclosure Certificates

13. There were two non-disclosure certificates on the Departmental file issued under s.438(1)(a) of the Migration Act. As they covered internal working documents and deliberations of the Department, the Tribunal did not consider the certificates valid. Nor were the documents covered by the certificate relevant to the Tribunal’s consideration of the applicant’s case.

    CONCLUSIONS

14. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).

15. 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).

16. 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

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

    Mara Moustafine
    Member