1609186 (Refugee)

1609186 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 3333 (29 July 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1609186
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Sri Lanka
MEMBER:Brendan Darcy
DATE:29 July 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 29 July 2019 at 2:42pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Sri Lanka – political opinion – supporter of the UNP – assaulted by some opposition supporters – fears harm from the UPFA members – no credible evidence – credibility concerns about not applying for asylum – returned to Sri Lanka – remained there for considerable time without being harmed – did not have any genuine or urgent held fears of persecution – claims about political opinion lack reliability and credibility – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 36, 65, 91R, 91S, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES

Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547
McDonald v Director-General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354
MIMA v Respondents S152/2003 (2004) 222 CLR 1
MZ RAJ v MIMIA [2004] FCA 1261
Nagalingam v MILGEA & Anor (1992) 38 FCR 191
Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
S1573 of 2003 v MIMIA [2005] FMCA 47
Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection 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 Sri Lanka, applied for the visa on 28 July 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa on 31 May 2016.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 13 November 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Sinhala and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
RELEVANT LAW
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.
Refugee criterion
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).
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.
Sections 91R and 91S of the Act qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the Regulations to a particular person.
There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.
Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s.91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve ‘serious harm’ to the applicant (s.91R(1)(b)), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s.91R(1)(c)). Examples of ‘serious harm’ are set out in s.91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.
Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors.
Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition – race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase ‘for reasons of’ serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s.91R(1)(a) of the Act.
Fourth, an applicant’s fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a ‘well-founded’ fear. This adds an objective requirement to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution under the Convention if they have genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted for a Convention stipulated reason. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.
In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. The expression ‘the protection of that country’ in the second limb of Article 1A(2) is concerned with external or diplomatic protection extended to citizens abroad. Internal protection is nevertheless relevant to the first limb of the definition, in particular to whether a fear is well-founded and whether the conduct giving rise to the fear is persecution.
Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.
Complementary protection criterion
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’).
‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s.36(2A): s.5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s.5(1) of the Act.
There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s.36(2B) of the Act.
Section 499 Ministerial Direction
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 (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Background
The applicant was born on [date] in [Town 1] in [name] District, [Province 1] in Sri Lanka and claimed to be a Sri Lankan citizen.
On the Departmental file ([file deleted]) is a copy of the applicant’s identity card and a passport that was issued in Sri Lanka [in] 2012 by the authorities in Sri Lanka.[1] There is also attached a copy of the applicant’s birth certificate.[2]
[1] [Source deleted] Folios 67-69.
[2] [Source deleted] Folios 46-47.
Also on file was a copy of the applicant’s [Occupation 1] record book.[3] This indicated that the applicant had been [employed in Occupation 1] [between] 2011 and 2014.
[3] [Source deleted] Folios 65-66.
The applicant travelled to [Country 1] in 2011 where he lived and worked for eight months before returning to Sri Lanka on 27 July 2012.
The applicant arrived in Australia [in] May 2014 while holding a [temporary visa] which had been granted on 13 May 2014 and was valid to 4 June 2014.
The applicant had also been granted a [Temporary visa 2] which was valid to 2 June 2014.
The applicant became an unlawful non-citizen in Australia on 5 June 2014 when both [visas] expired.
On 7 July 2014, the applicant applied for a protection visa and was granted a bridging visa on the same day. Later this application was deemed to be invalid. On 28 July 2014, the applicant validly lodged a second Class XA Subclass 866 protection visa application and was granted an associated bridging visa on 3 September 2014.
Written claims for protection
Attached to the applicant’s 866 Form for a protection visa was a written statement outlining the reasons the applicant was owed Australia’s protection obligations. Below is a summary of those written claims:
·The applicant claimed that he was born and lived in [Town 1]; that he is married with no children.
·He claimed that he worked for his father’s small business, selling [goods], and that his father has ‘always been a member and supporter of the UNP (United National Party)’ and the applicant has also been a member and supporter of the UNP for the last 10 years.
·The applicant claimed to have provided loyal support and assistance to [Mr A] during the 2010 general elections, and was heavily involved in his election campaign.
·Their main opposition was the PA (People’s Alliance, also known as the United People’s Freedom Alliance, or UPFA), who were in power at the time.
·As a ‘very strong UNP’ supporter, the applicant claimed that he had often been threatened and verbally abused by supporters of the opposition, including PA members and supporters. Strangers once visited his house and threw rocks, breaking windows.
·The applicant claimed that he complained to police but they took no action because the police are influenced by the ruling political party.
·The UNP lost the April 2010 general elections. A few days later the applicant was assaulted by ‘some opposition supporters’ in the street. He was punched in the face and body and some of his teeth were broken. He again complained to police, and again they did nothing.
·Shortly afterwards, strangers visited his home and threatened his life. When his mother told them the applicant wasn’t home, they said they would return and then left.
·The applicant was fearful and moved to his wife’s parents’ house about [number] km away. Whilst there, the ‘group’ returned to his parents’ home on two or three occasions asking for him and repeating their threats, warning his mother to tell him to ‘stay out of [Town 1]’.
·He felt it was not safe for him to remain in Sri Lanka, so he undertook and completed a [course] [before] departing the country in (late) November 2011.
·He returned to Sri Lanka in July 2012 after his contract finished, but he avoided [Town 1] and continued to reside with his wife’s parents. His mother kept telling him it was still not safe for him in [Town 1], and that ‘those PA people’ were still looking for him.
·He did not assist [Mr A] in the 2013 [elections] due to his fear of being ‘persecuted by PA members’.
·In May 2014, he was given another contract to travel to [Country 2] [in Occupation 1]. He travelled to [Australia] on a [Temporary visa 2] and remained in Australia where he later claimed protection. He didn’t continue to [Country 2] due to his fear of returning to Sri Lanka.
·His application for Refugee status is on the basis of his political opinion as a supporter of the UNP. He fears harm from the UPFA members and supporters.
In support of his claims, he has provided some information he obtained from various reports on ‘incidents of election related violence’ in Sri Lanka.[4]
[4] [Source deleted] Folio 52-56.
A supportive letter dated [June] 2014 claiming to be from [Mr A], an elected member of [Province 1] Council, claimed that the applicant has taken part in various UNP protests against the then government that the applicant feared persecution since October 2011 and that he is unable to protect his life in Sri Lanka where human rights conditions deteriorate day by day.[5]
[5] [Source deleted] Folio 48.
The 866 Form further states that the applicant claimed to be Buddhist by religion and to be Sinhalese by ethnicity. He can speak, read and write in the Sinhala language. It also states that the applicant claimed to have completed secondary level education; that he was married in 2004; that he lived in [Town 1] between 2004 and 2011; and that he was in [Country 1] between November 2011 and July 2012.
While the applicant’s father is deceased, his mother, [and various relatives] continue to reside in Sri Lanka in the applicant’s home district of [town] in Sri Lanka’s Northern Province.
On 26 May 2016, the applicant attended an interview with an official from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the Department) to elaborate on those written claims.
According to the decision record, the applicant made the following additions to his written claims:
·   The applicant uses his mobile phone to contact his wife and mother daily on their landlines.
·   His mother is still living at the same address and his wife lives with her mother and sister.
·   The politician he supports, [Mr A], is [details deleted]. Despite this, he still fears harm from [Mr A’s] political opponents, including [details deleted].
·   Whilst the UNP won the election in August 2015, meaning a change of government, their biggest political opponent — the UPFA, also won several seats, therefore, many of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s supporters are still present in the Sri Lankan government of today.
·People in villages (e.g. Illippadeniya, Mungandaluwa) will seek revenge from supporters of the UNP (such as the applicant) because they will not (or cannot) target high-profile MPs.
·The worst harm the applicant suffered was during the 2010 elections. There were several incidents involving groups of both PA/UPFA, and UNP supporters, who got into verbal arguments which turned physical. In one incident, the applicant was beaten and two of his teeth were damaged when his whole face was pressed into the road. As a result, his face was permanently scarred. He also [suffered an injury], which required stitches. Similar incidents occurred two or three times in 2010, always during election time.
·His mother lives at a [location]. There is a community centre and a public (government-funded) [near] his mother’s house where many political meetings and rallies are often held. His mother experiences problems during these meetings, for example, shouting. On one occasion, rocks were thrown at the house.
·The applicant did not seek asylum when he was in [Country 1] because he was there for work and he thought his situation in Sri Lanka would change with time.
·His mother and wife want him to stay in Australia so they can continue to live peacefully in Sri Lanka. There has only been one incident involving the applicant’s mother in Sri Lanka since the applicant came to Australia. She was scolded by a nearby shop owner when she referred to him by the wrong name.
·The applicant does not want to relocate within Sri Lanka, as he likes the place where he was born, and has only ever lived in that place in Sri Lanka. Additionally, Sri Lanka is a very small country and people can be found wherever they are.
·He does not have the original document from the UNP (see folio 48) as it was sent to him by a friend in Sri Lanka as an email attachment (scanned document).
·He did not list his wife’s parents’ address in his address history on his various application forms because he only lived there temporarily.
·He never once returned to [Town 1] in the period from July 2012 to May 2014.
·He has no faith or confidence in the current government in Sri Lanka. He believes this government is temporary and could end at any time, creating an ‘even worse’ situation.
·The former President, Mahinda Rajapaksa is also in the current government. His supporters have not changed and corruption still exists. For example, Mohammed Wasim Thajudeen (former rugby player) was assassinated during Rajapaksa’s time, and that case is still being investigated. Also, Sirisena, the current President’s own brother was ‘killed by thugs’. It is still unclear who killed him.
·If things like this happen regularly to ‘great people’, then worse things can happen to him.
A delegate on behalf of the Minister refused to grant the applicant a protection visa on 31 May 2016. In summary, the delegate found the applicant to be a low level supporter of the UNP and there was no credible evidence, documentary or otherwise, that he face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm.
On 21 June 2016, the applicant validly lodged an application to have the delegate’s refusal decision reviewed by the Tribunal. The decision record was attached to the review application
On 13 November 2018, the applicant appeared before the Tribunal at a scheduled hearing. Present at the hearing was the applicant’s authorised recipient and representative.

At the end of the hearing, the Tribunal undertook to write to the applicant regarding recent political developments. At the time of the hearing, Sri Lanka was undergoing a constitutional crisis.
On 5 June 2019, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant inviting the applicant to comment on country information about the 2018 constitutional crisis in Sri Lanka as well as the recent 2019 Easter Sunday bombings, and to do so by 19 June 2019. However, neither the applicant nor anyone on his behalf provided any further submissions, including country information, photographic or other documentary evidence, to the Tribunal at any time since the scheduled hearing at all.
Non-disclosure notices
There are no non-disclosure notices attached to the applicant’s Departmental files.
ASSESSMENT OF CLAIMS AND FINDINGS
Country of reference
The applicant has claimed to be a citizen of Sri Lanka.
The Tribunal accepts the applicant travelled to Australia by boat without a travel document but provided copies of his birth certificate and national identity card issued by Sri Lankan authorities to the Department which are on the Departmental file.
On the basis of this evidence and with no evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal finds the applicant is a national of Sri Lanka for the purposes of the Convention and that Sri Lanka is the applicant’s country of origin under s.36(2)(a). On the basis of the applicant’s claim to be a national of Sri Lanka and documentation submitted in support of his application, the Tribunal finds that Sri Lanka is the applicant’s receiving country for the purposes of s.36(2)(aa).
Third country protection
There is no evidence before me to suggest that the claimant has the right to enter and reside in any safe third country for the purposes of s.36(3) of the Act.
Credibility concerns and findings
It is rarely appropriate to speak in terms of onus of proof in relation to administrative decision making: see Nagalingam v MILGEA & Anor (1992) 38 FCR 191 and McDonald v Director-General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354 at 357; 6 ALD 6 at 10. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, Geneva, 1992, at paragraphs 196–197 and 203–204 recognises the particular problems of proof faced by an applicant for refugee status and states that applicants who are otherwise credible and plausible should, unless there are good reasons otherwise, be given the benefit of the doubt. Given the particular problems of proof faced by applicants a liberal attitude on the part of the decision maker is called for in assessing refugee status and complementary protection obligations.
However, decision makers are not required to accept uncritically any or all allegations made by an applicant. Moreover, decision makers are not required to have rebutting evidence available before they can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been made out. In addition, the Tribunal is not obliged to accept claims that are inconsistent with the independent evidence regarding the situation in the applicant’s country of nationality. See Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451, per Beaumont J; Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347 at 348 per Heerey J; and Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547.
In this decision, the Tribunal makes a limited number of credibility findings about the applicant’s personal circumstances. However, with regard to the applicant’s dispositive claims about facing a real chance of serious harm for his political opinions, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant has been a credible or reliable witness. The reasons for reaching these findings are outlined below.
Limited accepted personal circumstances
It is accepted that the applicant was born and raised in [Town 1] in [Province 1].
As claimed in the hearing, it is accept the applicant’s father passed away in 2003 while his mother continues to reside in [Town 1] and that he does not have any siblings as he is an only-child. It is also accepted that the applicant is by ethnicity Sinhalese and that he can speak, read and write in Sinhala. It is further accepted that he belongs to the Buddhist religion.
It is accepted the applicant was married in 2004 to a woman who was originally from Western Province and with whom he had not had any children, biological or otherwise.
During the scheduled hearing, the applicant outlined to the Tribunal that he when he completed secondary college he achieved his O-levels but did not matriculate or reach his A-levels. He further claimed that he had not completed any qualification or trade certificate and that he had been helping his father in his [business] until his death in 2003. He claimed that he then [worked] [in what] he inherited from his father [in] [Town 1]). He claimed the work was seasonal and he earned enough from this.
Adverse credibility concerns: travel history
It has been claimed by the applicant that he applied for a protection visa in 2014 when he was in Australia because of his fears of political persecution in Sri Lanka. It is noted that the applicant claimed to have been physically maltreated in 2010 after elections in April of the same year. (However the 2014 letter from the UNP candidate who attested to his political activities claimed that he had been persecuted since 2011.) In the May 2016 interview with the Department, the applicant claimed he [suffered an injury] from one of the physical attacks that were politically motivated. During the hearing he said that in 2010, PA supporters of the endorsed PA candidate came to his house at night and threatened to kill him. While the Tribunal accepts the applicant has been largely consistent in making these claims, the non-application in his applying for asylum in [Country 1] and his return to Sri Lanka after these claimed incidents of harm have invited to the Tribunal to consider that the applicant’s dispositive claims lack credibility.
The Tribunal enquired into his experiences in [Country 1] [in Occupation 1]. He said that he travelled to [Country 1] by plane and he was [working in Occupation 1] in [Country 1]. He said that he visited [a city in Country 1] and had described his on-board facilities as having a kitchen, a telephone but no internet. At the end of the applicant’s seven or eight month period in [Country 1], he departed this country by plane. The Tribunal further enquired into the reasons the applicant did not apply for asylum while he was [working in Occupation 1] in [Country 1] between late-2011 and mid-2012. The applicant claimed that he thought Sri Lanka would change. He said he did not discuss his fears to anyone while in [Country 1] despite holding fears of persecution at the time. He further claimed he had a lack of freedom of movement while in [Country 1], as the [applicant’s superior] was a known associate of then President Rajapaksa. The Tribunal said that this was all the more reason he should have applied for asylum while in [Country 1] during this seven to eight month period. The applicant claimed that his problems would be compounded for him and his family back in Sri Lanka if he had done so. As discussed in the hearing, the claim that the applicant’s freedom of movement was stymied by the [applicant’s superior] being an associate of President Rajapaksa is implausible. Overall, the Tribunal found these explanations for not applying for a asylum in [Country 1] were weak, implausible and unconvincing and they indicated that the applicant did not have any genuine or urgent or deep personally-held fears of persecution, given he had many opportunities to do so.
The Tribunal also found that the applicant returned to Sri Lanka and remained in his country of nationality and reference for a length of time, despite claiming to have fears of being persecuted from 2010. The Tribunal enquired into the reasons he returned to Sri Lanka if held these fears. He said he returned due to a [medical condition]. The Tribunal enquired into the reasons he claimed that he remained in Sri Lanka for a further two years. The applicant responded that he did not return to [Town 1] during this period and that he had relocated first to [Town 2] in the same province at his mother’s house, for only two of his political rivals located him there. He further claimed to have relocated to Western Province. His mother came to visit him from his home province but he did not visit her. During this time, he had not experienced any further incidents of politically motivated violence and he did not participate any further in election campaigns. While the Tribunal has considered that the applicant indicated that his claims in this review application were genuinely held fears of persecution or significant harm, in the context of the Tribunal’s credibility concerns about not applying for asylum while in [Country 1], the fact that the applicant returned to Sri Lanka at all and remained there for considerable time without being harmed strongly indicated to the Tribunal that the applicant did not have any genuine or urgent held fears of persecution as claimed.
The Tribunal enquired into the reason the applicant had become an unlawful non-citizen in Australia when his temporary visas expired in early June 2014. The applicant claimed that he only had the idea of applying for a protection visa after arriving in [Australia]. However, the Tribunal pointed out that in paragraph 22 of his written claims, the applicant had indicated he wanted to travel to Australia to seek protection. The applicant claimed that statement was wrong in this regard. While it is plausible that the applicant’s claims were accurately transcribed, again in the context of the applicant’s other credibility concerns, this discrepancy between the applicant’s written and oral reasons for protection has further invited credibility concerns about this and other claims relating to incidents of past harm arising from his claimed political opinions and activities.
Credibility concerns: political opinion
During the hearing, the applicant claimed that he had supported [Mr A] who had been elected [prior] to his departure, and that he had done so for as much as 15 years. He further claimed to have held many meetings at his residence, including during the 2010 parliamentary elections. The applicant claimed that his father supported the UNP up and until death in 2003. He claimed his father had rented out space in government buildings as a [business owner] but had lost tenders for those lets back in 1970s, and that those tenders or lets were allocated to PA members. The applicant claimed that he and his friends joined the UNP due to the terrible economy in 2010 but that he had been a supporter but not heavily involved until 2009 or 2010. The applicant would receive threats on a regular basis to withdraw his support because he was an important person in his village [near] [Town 1]. When the Tribunal asked to elaborate on his importance, he reiterated his campaign co-ordination in his home village.
Specifically he said that he would co-ordinate meetings, visited others to canvass their support for UNP candidates, set up stages and audio facilities for UNP candidates and distribute and paste posters in a public manner. He did not claim to be an office bearer of the party and there is no documentary evidence to support his membership of the UNP. At the hearing the applicant stated that he was able to identify his attackers as PA supporters as they were on the polling stations he was, and that he identified illegal or irregular voting with fake ballots and that he had informed the polling official at the station representing the electoral commission. The applicant further explained that the electoral commission disallowed the ballots and he then feared the PA supporters would take revenge on him. (It is noted that this level of relevant detail was not mentioned in the written claims).
The Tribunal enquired whether there were any photographs of him doing these past political activities, to which the applicant responded that he did not have any but he will try to get them.
The applicant also claimed that his political opinions in favour of UNP have evolved since arriving in Australia. He claimed he has since become disillusioned with the UNP because of President Sirena’s support for Rajapaksa, the deterioration in political violence and that he feared Rajapaksa and the Freedom Party would come back to power. This was despite his acknowledgement that the UNP candidate is now an elected member of parliament.
The Tribunal further sought to understand the applicant’s knowledge of the UNP platform and to name key policies. The applicant provided long pauses and said it was difficult to explain. The applicant said he only wanted to make a success for a specific candidate because he was a proponent of ‘fairness’. The applicant elaborated that [Mr A] would address issues and spend time with the poorer segment of society. The applicant provided an example of an aged loyal voter who was poor whose his wife had died suddenly. The voter did not have any resources for a cremation and had been hindered by other elected officials, and that the grieving widower pawned some of his jewellery for a funeral. He said this occurred in 2010 or 2011. While the Tribunal accepts there is some plausibility to this specific incident, it does find the pettiness and maliciousness of any rival party to stymie an old widower burying his wife to be somewhat implausible.
Overall the applicant’s exposition of his political opinion in favour of the UNP was hesitant, weak and unsubstantiated by any documentary and photographic evidence. Had he been a genuine supporter of the UNP with a strong local profile and over a long period time, it is reasonable to expect the applicant who can read, write and speak Sinhalese to have more knowledge of the UNP. While it is possible the applicant was involved sharing his father’s political views and/or supporting a particular candidate with little regard his UNP candidature, in the context of the Tribunal’s earlier credibility concerns, the applicant’s overall written and oral evidence further invites the Tribunal to consider the applicant’s claims about political opinion lack reliability and credibility.
The Tribunal has also considered the specifically late claim made at the Departmental interview in which the applicant had been harmed in 2010, which led to him losing part of his face while fleeing rival political supporters. The Tribunal enquired into the reasons this was not mentioned in the applicant’s written claims, to which the applicant responded that ‘I said what I was asked’. In this regard, the Tribunal also acknowledges that there is no incident of harm in the supportive letter which is claimed to be provided by the UNP candidate whom he campaigned for in 2010. Given the significance of the physical harm claimed, it would have been reasonable to mention this in his written claims and in the submitted 2014 supportive letter.
Non-responsiveness to country information provided to the applicant
The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant raised with it in the scheduled hearing that the political situation in Sri Lanka was uncertain and volatile. The applicant said the political situation had deteriorated in Sri Lanka; that he feared the return of Rajapaksa to holding high office; and likened the political parties in Sri Lanka to ‘mad dogs’. The applicant reiterated that it would be dangerous for him to return, especially to [Town 1]. As discussed in the hearing, the Tribunal undertook to raise with the applicant the political developments arising from Sri Lanka’s constitution crisis that occurred in the second half of 2018.
In June 2019, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant seeking comment about this crisis which led to the President sacking Prime Minister Wickremesinghe in favour of Mahinda Rajapaksa, the parliamentary leader of the Sri Lankan Freedom Party (and his Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) faction), which is one of the parties making up the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA). Rajapaksa was the president of Sri Lanka that presided over the end of the civil war in 2009.
However the applicant did not respond to this invitation. The Tribunal has nonetheless proceeded to assess the available country information as follows.
The Tribunal acknowledges that this is a foreseeable event within the next 12 months. Indeed Mahinda Rajapaksa was briefly, albeit unconstitutionally, appointed by President Sirisena as Prime Minister on 26 October 2018. Amid reports that Rajapaksa lacked majority support in parliament, on 28 October 2018 Sirisena suspended parliament and, on 9 November 2018, abruptly dissolved parliament and declared a snap election on 5 January 2019. On 13 November 2018, Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court temporarily suspended the dissolution of parliament ahead of a final decision. Following the suspension of the dissolution order, Sri Lanka’s parliament reconvened, where two no-confidence motions against Rajapaksa were passed despite the efforts of his supporters to disrupt proceedings. However, the results of these motions were not recognised by either Rajapaksa or Sirisena, both of whom claimed that they took place in violation of parliamentary procedure. In an interim judgement on Monday 3 December 2018, Sri Lanka’s Court of Appeal temporarily barred Rajapaksa from acting as Prime Minister while it heard a petition challenging his refusal to step down. Following an extension of the interim injunction, Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court subsequently ruled that the President’s decision to dissolve parliament was unconstitutional and illegal on 13 December 2018. Having lost the constitutional argument, the President reinstated Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister when he and his Cabinet Ministers took their oaths before the President on 20 December 2018.[6] Since this time (more than six months), the Tribunal has not noticed any reports about a notable deterioration of political violence between the major parties, despite the arousal of tensions that the constitutional crisis triggered.
[6] New Cabinet Ministers sworn-in before President, Official government website, 20 December 2019, <>
At some point in the next months, Sri Lanka will undergo both a presidential and a parliamentary election. While the Tribunal is unable to make a firm prediction about the outcome of these elections, it accepts there is a real chance and a real risk of Mahinda Rajapaksa and the coalition of parties led by the Freedom Party achieving control of parliament.
According to the situational update prepared by the Department of Home Affairs about Sri Lanka’s political crisis (CR239EC81237), while analysts have expressed pessimism about the impact of a Rajapaksa government on progress towards transitional justice and conflict resolution following Sri Lanka’s three-decade long civil war, there is only limited evidence to date to support this. Similarly, there are few reports at present of political violence stemming from the political crisis, or of related violence towards minorities, with the possible exception of Sri Lankan Muslims facing some reprisals for their perceived association with Islam. The report further states that there have been few reports to date of threats or political violence stemming from Sri Lanka’s political crisis, or of related violence towards minorities. On 19 November 2018 – in the midst of this political and constitutional crisis – police used tear gas and water cannons on monks from the Sinhalese nationalist Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) organisation protesting in front of the Presidential Secretariat in Colombo. The monks were protesting to demand the release of BBS leader Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara, who is currently serving a six-year prison sentence for contempt of court. President Sirisena expressed his regret over the incident.[7] At the time of issuing this decision, no general election has been called and the President, who supported Rajapaksa as Prime Minister, has been careful to continue post-conflict reconciliations, albeit at a pace considered too slow for some international observers. The President has notably resisted providing support for Sinhalese and/or Buddhist extremists. In the context of the civil war ending now more than 10 years ago, the available country information appears to be either insufficient or highly speculative to support the claim that a sudden or even gradual deterioration in political violence . It accordingly assesses that, if the Tribunal were to accept the applicant’s political opinion claims to be credible, the information before it is an inadequate basis for it to accept that the political situation will significantly deteriorate due to a change in government in favour of Mahinda Rajapaksa and the coalition he leads.
[7] ‘President Sirisena Expresses Regret Over Tear Gas And Water Cannon Attack On Bodu Bala Sena Monks; Says He Was Unaware of Protest’, Asian Mirror, 19 November 2018, CXBB8A1DA39190.

However, in the context of its other credibility concerns, the applicant’s non-responsiveness to this country information further invites credibility concerns that the applicant did not hold any genuine or deep or urgent fears of persecution for the claimed political reasons or any other Convention reason or that he has a real risk of significant harm, if the applicant were to be returned to Sri Lanka, either now or into the foreseeable future.
Cumulative adverse credibility findings
Overall the applicant’s claims about incidents of past harm and political opinion and activities were weak, unconvincing and did not convincingly substantiate his UNP activities or membership or support. The applicant has provided some detail to his claims of harm in 2010 and some plausible reasons for his support for the UNP. However, in the context of the applicant’s travel history whereby he did not apply for [Country 1’s] equivalent a protection visa despite having the opportunity and whereby he returned to Sri Lanka for a substantial period of time before travelling to Australia, the applicant has particularly invited the Tribunal to make overall adverse credibility findings. As outlined above, the Tribunal’s credibility concerns about the applicant’s dispositive claims are numerous, deep and disconcerting. When cumulatively considered, the Tribunal is not able to provide the applicant with the benefit of its significant doubts that the applicant’s dispositive claims for protection had not been contrived or fabricated solely for migration purposes and not because he had any subjective or objective fears of persecution for any Convention or non-Convention reasons, if the applicant were to return to Sri Lanka in the foreseeable future. Based on the same adverse credibility finding, cumulatively considered, neither are there any substantial reasons for the Tribunal to believe that the applicant, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to his country of reference, will suffer a real risk of significant harm of any kind.
Based on the Tribunal’s cumulative adverse credibility findings, while the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s father had supported the UNP, in no way does this reflect the applicant’s own genuine or actual opinion in favour of the UNP. It does not accept that the applicant had ever been a member, an organiser, a canvasser or even a supporter (low-level or otherwise, either in his own community or anywhere else). While the applicant demonstrated some limited knowledge of political developments in Sri Lanka, it does not accept the applicant has ever had any great interest in Sri Lankan politics in 2010 as claimed. It does not accept the applicant had ever campaigned, organised, canvassed, endorsed, distributed materials, set up equipment on behalf of any UNP candidate, or participated in any political rallies, not least for the UNP whose platform and policies the applicant was unable to identify. Nor is it accepted that the applicant assisted the UNP at a polling station at which he successfully challenged fake ballots being counted by making a complaint to a polling official in 2010, which triggered the applicant’s claimed political rivals to later single him out for intimidation, punishment or revenge.
As the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s past memberships, support or affiliations of the UNP in general or a UNP candidate to have been genuine or credible, it follows that it does not accept the applicant is now disillusioned with the UNP, as claimed in the hearing, or any UNP representative or candidate as he never held any genuine affiliations or associations with the UNP.
With regard to the 2014 support letter signed by [Mr A], an elected member of [Province 1] Council, the Tribunal does not find it to be reliable as corroborative evidence of his past political activities. This is because of the context of the Tribunal’s other concerns and because the letter claimed a fear of persecution from October 2011 while the applicant had been claiming fears of persecution since 2010. It has assessed that [Mr A] provided the letter to the applicant or family member in good faith. However it does accept the content did not genuinely reflect the applicant’s actual past political activities or sympathies or actual political opinions and that the letter had been obtained only to augment the applicant’s otherwise unreliable claims for protection.
For the same reasons, it does not accept the applicant’s written and oral claims that the applicant was assaulted by a rival political supporter who punched him in the face and body or had broken his teeth or caused him to run away and [which], in turn, left scarring, at any time between 2009 and his departure to [Country 1], as claimed. It does not accept the applicant made any complaint to the Sri Lankan authorities, including the police, or that the authorities refused to take any action. Neither does it accept that political rivals or opponents of the applicant approached the applicant’s house on any occasion threatening the applicant to leave his home area or that the applicant had felt insecure or unsafe for the reasons claimed. This is because it is the Tribunal’s assessment that the claims of past incidents of politically motivated harm had been fabricated by the applicant.
The Tribunal does not accept the applicant was unable to or intimidated out of applying for asylum while in [Country 1] as the applicant had ample opportunities to do so. Nor does it accept the fanciful late claim that the applicant’s [workplace had been led] by a Rajapaksa associate or supporter who also prevented him from applying for asylum.
The Tribunal does not accept the applicant had been forced or compelled or threatened into not returning to his home area of [Town 1] in [Province 1] or that he was discovered and threatened at his mother’s house in [Town 2] or relocated any other part of Sri Lanka prior to his departure to [Country 1]. It is further not accepted that the applicant had been forced or compelled into relocating to other parts of Sri Lanka when he returned from [Country 1] over a two year period. Neither does it accept that he held any fears of being located or discovered by his claimed political rivals nor that he had been intimidated out of participating in other electoral activities for UNP candidates as had been claimed.
Moreover, on the basis that the applicant’s claims about his past political activities and opinions being found not to be credible, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant has any genuine or deep or urgent held fears arising from Sri Lanka’s recent constitutional crisis or a deterioration of political violence or the foreseeable change of government through constitutional and electoral means, including in favour of Mahinda Rajapaksa. In this regard the applicant has neither a real chance of serious harm for a Convention reason or a real risk of significant harm, if he were to return to [Town 1] specifically or Sri Lanka more generally.
The Tribunal further finds, based on these cumulative adverse findings, that he did not have any genuine or deep or urgent subjectively held fears of being intimidated, harassed, physically maltreated, tortured or any other serious harmed amounting to persecution based on his political opinion, imputed or otherwise or for any related Convention or non-Convention reasons, either at the time of departure from Sri Lanka, when the applicant applied for a protection visa, or at the time of his scheduled hearing with the Tribunal.
Neither does the Tribunal accept the applicant had any subjective or objective fears of persecution based on Convention reasons, including his political or any other related Convention or non-Convention reasons if he were to return to his home area of [Town 1] of [Province 1] or anywhere within Sri Lanka, either now or into the reasonably foreseeable future.
Accordingly, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant will be a person of interest or even resembles any persons of interest who have been harmed or killed for their political views in the past for these reasons anywhere in Sri Lanka to the authorities or anyone else, either on arrival or in the general community, if the applicant were to return to the Sri Lanka, for any Refugees Convention reasons, based on his specific written and oral claims for protection, now or into the reasonably foreseeable future.
Based on the Tribunal’s same overall adverse credibility findings, cumulatively considered, 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 Sri Lanka there is a real risk of significant harm, including that the applicant will suffer harm by way of being arbitrarily deprived of his life; the death penalty will be carried out on him; he will be subject to torture; he will be subject to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or he will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment, based on this fabricated dispositive written, oral and documentary claims.
Residual claims and cumulative findings
The Tribunal provided the applicant an opportunity to respond to some information about his country of nationality and reference in regard to the Easter Sunday bombings for any reasons, including his ethnicity (Sinhalese) and religion (Buddhist). However the applicant did not respond.
At no stage did the applicant advance any claims that he has a real chance of serious harm based on his ethnicity or based on his membership as a failed asylum seeker.
Noting that the applicant departed Sri Lanka with a passport, the Tribunal accepts the applicant will return to Sri Lanka as a failed asylum seeker of Sinhalese ethnicity, voluntarily or otherwise. As the applicant has not departed illegally or in breach of Sri Lanka’s Immigration and Emigration Act, the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant will not have a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm as an asylum seeker for being suspected for people smuggling or supporting Tamil separatism or for any other reason, including the applicant’s political opinion, if the applicant were to return to Sri Lanka, in the foreseeable future.
With regard to the general security environment in Sri Lanka, the Tribunal noted in its June 2019 letter that the Easter 2019 terror outrages targeting Catholic worshippers and hotel clientele have created a level of fear about further terrorist attacks and triggered a higher degree of internal security in Sri Lanka by the authorities.
It is an established principle that the relevant state is not required to guarantee the safety of its citizens from harm caused by non-state persons.[8] In MIMA v Respondents S152/2003 Gleeson CJ, Hayne and Heydon JJ observed that ‘no country can guarantee that its citizens will at all times and in all circumstances, be safe from violence’.[9] Justice Kirby similarly stated that the Convention does not require or imply the elimination by the state of all risks of harm; rather it ‘posits a reasonable level of protection, not a perfect one’.[10]
[8] MIMA v Respondents S152/2003 (2004) 222 CLR 1 at [26]. See also MIMA v Thiyagarajah (1998) 80 FCR 543 at 566–7; MIMA v Prathapan (1998) 86 FCR 95 at 104–5 per Lindgren J, Burchett and Whitlam JJ agreeing. This aspect of Thiyagarajah was not disturbed by the High Court decision in NAGV & NAGW v MIMIA (2005) 222 CLR 161.
[9] (2004) 222 CLR 1 at [26].
[10] MIMA v Respondents S152/2003 (2004) 222 CLR 1 at [117].
What is required for the purposes of Article 1A(2) has been described in several ways. The joint judgment in S152/2003 refers to the obligation of the state to take ‘reasonable measures’ to protect the lives and safety of its citizens.[11] The appropriate level of protection is to be determined by ‘international standards’, such as those considered by the European Court of Human Rights in Osman v United Kingdom.[12] The High Court in S152/2003 found it unnecessary to consider what the relevant standards might require or how they would be ascertained, and courts have commented on the difficulties in identifying and defining their practical content.[13] The obligation must be interpreted in a way which does not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities.[14]
[11] Ibid, at [26].
[12] Ibid, at [27], citing Osman v United Kingdom (1998) 29 EHRR 245.
[13] See MZ RAJ v MIMIA [2004] FCA 1261 (Heerey J, 29 September 2004) at [26]–[33]; S1573 of 2003 v MIMIA [2005] FMCA 47 (Smith FM, 4 February 2005) at [30]–[34].
[14] Osman v United Kingdom (1998) 29 EHRR 245 at [116].
It may be noted that, regardless of the content of the relevant ‘international standards’, where the issue of state protection is considered in relation to whether a fear of persecution is well-founded, what is relevant is whether the protection that is available is sufficient to remove a real chance of persecution. However, on the majority view in S152/2003, even where state protection is not sufficient to remove a real chance of serious harm from non-state actors, Convention protection might not be engaged if the level of protection provided meets international standards.[15]
[15] MIMA v Respondents S152/2003 (2004) 222 CLR 1 at [28]. As noted above, McHugh J at [83] disagreed; however the difference between his Honour’s approach and the majority view will be significant to the outcome only where there remains a well-founded fear of serious harm notwithstanding that the country in question provides the level of protection required by international standards.
Authorities in Sri Lanka have stated that the attacks were carried out by two little-known Muslim organisations, the National Thowheeth Jama’ath (NTJ) and Jammiyathul Millathu Ibrahim, with help from international militants.[16] Sri Lankan security forces have killed or arrested most of those linked to the Easter suicide bombings,[17] including 15 suspects in a shoot-out on the following Friday.[18] More than 10,000 troops have been deployed across the island in an effort to uproot NTJ’s countrywide network, with Islamic religious groups reported to be lending their support to authorities.[19] While NTJ’s leader has been killed, and scores of further arrests have weakened the group,[20] US officials have warned that the terrorist threat is ongoing, with members of NTJ still active.[21]
[16] ‘What We Know and Don’t Know About the Sri Lanka Attacks’, The New York Times, 22 April 2019, 20190423102213; ‘Sri Lanka bombings: All the latest updates’, Aljazeera, 30 April 2019, 20190501142357.
[17] ‘Sri Lanka bombings: All the latest updates’, Aljazeera, 30 April 2019, 20190501142357.
[18] ‘Sri Lanka bombings: All the latest updates’, Aljazeera, 30 April 2019, 20190501142357; ‘US warns of more attacks in Sri Lanka by active members of terror group still at large’, The Economic Times, 30 April 2019, 20190501140918; ‘Sri Lanka lifts social media ban imposed after Easter attacks’, Al Jazeera, 30 April 2019, 20190501145953.
[19] ‘Five things to know a week after the Sri Lanka bombings’, Nikkei Asian Review, 28 April 2019, 20190429105125.
[20] ‘The suicide bombs in Sri Lanka might have been prevented’, The Economist, 27 April 2019, 20190426144009.
[21] ‘Sri Lanka: 15 killed as police raid militant house’, Deutsche Welle, 27 April 2019, 20190429173222.
Although Sri Lankan government officials have acknowledged that foreign intelligence agencies provided domestic security officials with a detailed warning of possible threats to churches by the NTJ at least 10 days prior to the attacks,[22] President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe claim not to have been informed of the warnings prior to the attacks.[23] The fallout from the attacks may also have further political and legal ramifications. Prime Minister Wickremesinghe has pledged to enact new counter terrorism laws, calling for the speedy presentation of the proposed Counter-Terrorism Act (CTA) to Parliament, itself designed to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA).[24]
[22] ‘What We Know and Don’t Know About the Sri Lanka Attacks’, The New York Times, 22 April 2019, 20190423102213; ‘“These Attacks Could Target Catholic Churches”: The Warning That Sri Lankan Officials Failed to Heed’, The New York Times, 22 April 2019, 20190501103309; ‘The suicide bombs in Sri Lanka might have been prevented’, The Economist, 27 April 2019, 20190426144009.
[23] ‘The suicide bombs in Sri Lanka might have been prevented’, The Economist, 27 April 2019, 20190426144009.
[24] ‘New counter terrorism laws to be enacted’, News.lk, 29 April 2019, 20190429171626; ‘Premier wants Counter-Terrorism Act fast-tracked’, Daily FT, 29 April 2019, 20190430132741.
In any event, the Tribunal is satisfied that the current level of insecurity from Islamic terrorism does not mean that the applicant would not receive a level of protection commensurate with international standards. The level of insecurity appears to be due to external forces and the Tribunal is satisfied that the Sri Lankan authorities have taken reasonable measures that accord with international standards.
Noting that it is accepted that he is a Sinhalese Buddhist, as claimed, and neither a Catholic nor Muslim Sri Lankan and that he does not have a profile, either historically or contemporaneously, arising from these attacks, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant has a real chance of being targeted for investigation in relation to these attacks by the authorities, including Sri Lanka’s security and intelligence agencies, either on arrival or in the community. Furthermore the Tribunal finds that the applicant only has a remote and far-fetched chance for a Convention reason or a remote and far-fetched risk of being killed or maimed or otherwise seriously or significantly harmed by any future attack to be perpetuated by radicalised violent Islamists within Sri Lanka.
The Tribunal similarly assesses there not to be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm in his country of reference as it is satisfied the applicant could obtain protection from further Islamic attacks, by the authorities, such that there would not be a real risk as required by s.36(2B). For these reasons, the Tribunal does not have any substantial reasons for believing that the applicant, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to anywhere within Sri Lanka, will suffer a real risk of significant harm of any kind arising from further terrorism outrages of the kind endured in the Easter 2019 incidents.
There are no more residual reasons to consider in this review application.
Based on all the accepted personal circumstances, the applicant’s claims and country information outlined above, both individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal assesses that the applicant will be able to return to his home area and province without facing a real chance of serious harm that would satisfy s.91R(1)(b) based on his race, religion, political opinion, imputed or otherwise, any memberships of particular social groups discussed above, including as a failed asylum seeker or any other related Convention or non-Convention reasons discussed above or a combination of them, now or in the foreseeable future.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a real chance of serious harm for any Convention or non-Convention reasons. Accordingly, the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution that satisfies s.36(2)(a).
Based on the same considerations, both individually and cumulatively, and its above findings pertaining to s.36(2)(aa), the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant will face a real risk of significant harm amounting to torture, arbitrary deprivation of life, being subjected to cruel or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, arising from the applicant’s ethnicity, religion, marital status, relative youth, political opinion, accepted psychological injuries, as a failed asylum seeker, either on return or in the community, for any of the reasons or any combination of those reasons as discussed above, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to his country of reference.

The Tribunal does not accept on the evidence before it, that there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Sri Lanka that there is a real risk he will suffer significant harm. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that the applicant meets the alternative provisions in s.36(2)(aa).
Conclusion

100. 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).
101. 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).
102. 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 criteria in s.36(2).
DECISION
103. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Brendan Darcy
Member

[2019] AATA 3333

29 July 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Natural Justice

Jurisdiction

Standing

Statutory Construction