1610877 (Refugee)

1610877 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 5901 (21 May 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1610877
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Solomon Islands
MEMBER:Fiona Meagher
DATE:21 May 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 21 May 2019 at 1:02pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Solomon Islands – victim of domestic physical and sexual abuse – arranged marriage under customary law – bride price –– credibility issues – inconsistent evidence – previous travel to Australia without seeking protection – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
Abebe v The Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR 510
Chand v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1997] FCA 1198
Guo v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 40 ALD 445
Kopalapillai v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 86 FCR 547
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu (1996) 185 CLR 259
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220
Sivalingam v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1998] FCA 1167
Sundararaj v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 76
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 14 June 2016 to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Solomon Islands, applied for the visa on

11 August 2015. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that on 14 June 2016, the delegate did not consider the applicant to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act. The applicant provided a copy of the delegate’s decision with the application for review.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 27 September 2017 and 30 November 2017 to give evidence and present arguments. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Solomon Islands Pidgin and English languages. The applicant was represented by her migration agent who attended the hearing.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a Protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).
Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Credibility
The Tribunal’s task of fact-finding may involve an assessment of an applicant’s credibility. In this context, the Tribunal is aware of the importance of adopting a reasonable approach in the finding of credibility. In Guo v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 40 ALD 445, the Full Federal Court made comments on determining credibility. Numerous decisions have endorsed the principle that the benefit of the doubt should be given to asylum seekers who are generally credible but unable to substantiate all of their claims. The Tribunal notes in particular the cautionary note sounded by Foster J at 482:
…care must be taken that an over-stringent approach does not result in an unjust exclusion from consideration of the totality of some evidence where a portion of it could reasonably have been accepted.
The Tribunal also accepts that ‘if the applicant's account appears credible, he should, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, be given the benefit of the doubt’ (The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, Geneva, 1992 at para 196). However, the Handbook also states (at para 204):
The benefit of the doubt should, however, only be given when all available evidence has been obtained and checked and when the examiner is satisfied as to the applicant's general credibility. The applicant's statements must be coherent and plausible, and must not run counter to generally known facts.
The Tribunal has also had regard to the decision of Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu (1996) 185 CLR 259, and the comments of the High Court on the correct approach to determining findings on credibility. Kirby J said at 293:
First, it is not erroneous for a decision-maker, presented with a large amount of material, to reach conclusions as to which of the facts (if any) had been established and which had not. An over-nice approach to the standard of proof to be applied here is not desirable. It betrays a misunderstanding of the way administrative decisions are usually made. It is more apt to a court conducting a trial than to the proper performance of the functions of an administrator, even if the delegate of the Minister and even if conducting a secondary determination. It is not an error of law for a decision-maker to test the material provided by the criterion of what is considered to be objectively shown, as long as, in the end, he or she performs the function of speculation about the “real chance” of persecution required by Chan.
However, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any or all allegations made by an applicant. Nor is it required to have rebutting evidence available to it before it can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been made out, or obliged to accept claims that are inconsistent with the independent evidence regarding the situation in the applicant’s country of nationality. In Chand v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1997] FCA 1198, the Full Court of the Federal Court observed that “where there is conflicting evidence from different sources, questions of credit of witnesses may have to be resolved. The RRT is also entitled to attribute greater weight to one piece of evidence as against another, and to act on its opinion that one version of the facts is more probable than another.” Nevertheless, as Burchett J counselled, in Sundararaj v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 76 at [5], it is necessary to:
… understand that any rational examination of the credit of a story is not to be undertaken by picking it to pieces to uncover little discrepancies. Every lawyer with any practical experience knows that almost any account is likely to involve such discrepancies. The special difficulties of people who have fled their country to a strange country where they seek asylum, often having little understanding of the language, cultural and legal problems they face, should be recognised, and recognised by much more than lip service.
The Full Court of the Federal Court in Sivalingam v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1998] FCA 1167 noted that “refugee cases may involve special considerations arising out of problems of communication and mistrust, and problems flowing from the experience of trauma and stress prior to arrival in Australia.” On this point, the Tribunal also takes into account the comments of Professor Hathaway in ‘The Law of Refugee Status’ (1991, Butterworths) at 84-86. Nevertheless, there is no rule that a decision-maker may not reject an applicant’s testimony on credibility grounds unless there are no possible explanations for any delay in the making of claims or for any evidentiary inconsistencies: Kopalapillai v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 86 FCR 547 at 558-9. Nor is there a rule that a decision-maker must hold a “positive state of disbelief” before making an adverse credibility assessment in a refugee case. However, if the Tribunal has “no real doubt” that the claimed events did not occur, it will not be necessary for it to consider the possibility that its findings might be wrong (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220 at 241 per Sackville J (with whom North J agreed)). In addition, if the Tribunal makes an adverse finding in relation to a material claim made by an applicant but is unable to make that finding with confidence, it must proceed to assess the claim on the basis that the claim might possibly be true (see MIMA v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220). The Tribunal is also mindful of the observations of Gummow and Hayne JJ in Abebe v The Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR 510 at [191] as follows:
… the fact that an Applicant for refugee status may yield to temptation to embroider an account of his or her history is hardly surprising. It is necessary always to bear in mind that an Applicant for refugee status is, on one view of events, engaged in an often desperate battle for freedom, if not life itself.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and relevant country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm in the Solomon Islands. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Documents before the Tribunal
The applicant provided the Tribunal with the following documents:
·Photocopy of her birth certificate.
·Submission from the applicant’s migration agent dated 13 September 2017.
·Statutory declaration of the applicant dated 13 September 2017.
·Statutory declaration of [Mr A], dated [November] 2016.
·Reference letter by [Mr B] dated [June] 2015.
·Reference letter by the Solomon Islands Police Force dated [July] 2015.
·Reference letter by the Solomon Islands Police Force dated [January] 2017.
·Reference letter by Solomon Islands Ministry of Health and Medical Services dated [July] 2015.
·Reference letter from Chief [C] dated [July] 2015.
Applicant’s migration history
The applicant’s migration history, which was discussed with her at length during the hearing included that she visited Australia twice on Visitor visas, first arriving [in] November 2012 and departing [in] January 2013, and secondly arriving [in] November 2013 and departing Australia [in] February 2014. The applicant again came to Australia [in] May 2015 on a Visitor visa, and made an initial application for a Protection visa, which was invalidated, on 24 June 2015 and made a second application for protection on

11 August 2015. Of note is that the applicant came to Australia on a Visitor visa which was granted [in] July 2014. She claims that the incident of family violence that caused her to decide to come to Australia and seek protection occurred [in] January 2015, some three and half months prior to her coming to Australia notwithstanding she held a Visitor visa throughout that period.
Country of reference
The applicant claims, and the Tribunal is satisfied on the basis of the personal details provided that she is a Solomon Islands national. Solomon Islands is therefore the receiving country for the purpose of assessing the applicant’s claim for protection.
The Tribunal is satisfied on the basis of the evidence before it that the applicant does not have a right to enter and reside in any other country, therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not excluded from Australia’s protection obligations under s.36(3).
The applicant’s claims
The applicant’s written claims contained in her application for a Protection visa are as follows:
44.Why did you leave that country?
I left my country Solomon Islands because of the family violence I have been experienced with my husband, father of my [number] children, which affects me physicially, spiritually, mentally and emotionally over the period of our relationship which still continued over the period of our relationship which still continued after he left me for another woman. I was severely tortured, held captive and treated inhumanly by him which lead me to have manic depressions, afraid for my [number] children and my life as I was having suicide thoughts and attempt to commit it by taking off my own life. I don’t want to go back because I will be beaten to death.
45.Have you experienced harm in that country?
I have experienced severe harm physically by my husband in my country Solomon Islands due to his drug and alcoholism addiction which lead to the broken of our family relationship with our [number] children. I was severely mistreated inhumanly and bullied by my husband [in] January 2015 which my husband treated to killed me after I confronted him about he was in love with another woman, which end up of my [number] children been taken away from me by another family neighbours. Often he drinks and abuses me tortured locked me up for two days imprisonment in the room without food no water, torn off my clothes from my body punched me into my face badly. This has affects me physically, mentally, emotionally that leads me thinking of committing suicide just to escaped the torn family of mine. So I don’t want to go back. I fear death because I am the victim of family violence in my own country by my husband.
46.What do you fear may happen to you if you go back to that country?
As a victim of family violence I have been experienced the cruelty and inhuman treatment by my husband. I fear death because my life is in danger again if I go back as I find here my life is not in peace and stable and I have come to know that. Australian laws are strong by protecting our rights as women. And also strongly stand against the violence against the women which affects so badly in our entire Solomon Islands community as I am one of the its victims of family violence. I strongly fear of my life been taken off through my experience of marriage relationship with my husband which may lead to my death. I report that matter to the police often but nothing been implemented upon my husband because they think its just family matter and I fear I might kill by my husband or its me might kill myself because of my inner inhuman treatment will lead me to commit suicide because of the cruel and degrading treatment by my husband. So I don’t want to go back I fear death.
47.Who do you think may harm/mistreat you if you go back?
I know that my husband will harm, mistreat and beat me to death if I go back because he has done this to me so many times before. My body physically won’t be able to take it which could lead to my death so I don’t want to go back. I fear death as I am the victim of family violence by my husband’s degrading treatment towards me.
48.Why do you think this will happen if you go back?
As my husband is from Malaita Province which he always beliefs that as its Malaitans culture men hold the power over the women and has neglect the rights of the women. As for that I am the victim of family violence which my right is not recognised by my husband that has leads to my torture and inhuman treatments by him because of his alcoholic and drug addiction also his anger towards me. I have reported the matter to the police but nothing was done to protect me from my husband because of its class as a family matter. Not for them the police to deal with because of Malatian culture beliefs. I don’t want to go back. I fear of my life will lead to death.
49.Do you think the authorities of that country can and will protect you if you go back?
As a victim of family violence I belief because I had trying my very best of reporting my husband to the police because of the abuses and the inhuman treatment that he has done to me often because of his culture beliefs of neglecting my rights as a woman. Nothing being done by police at all because he had also relatives support him of his cultural beliefs in the police department which they help him by neglecting they own right as a woman.
As I have been experienced [in] January 2015 which he tortured, beaten and locked me up for two days imprisonment without food and water torn off my clothes. As I report it to the police authority and nothing has been done against my husband. Fear of may leads me to commit suicide again if I go back I don’t want to go back I fear death. As I am the victim of family violence and as the Solomon Islands laws are not stable by recognising my rights as a woman that has cause one of the biggest crime that was committed by me against us women and nothing is done about it in my country Solomon Islands. As a victim of that I don’t want to go back I fear death which my husband will do for me by his abuses and inhuman treatment which nothing has been done against him by the authorities of the police in my country.
Departmental interview
The applicant was interviewed with respect to her Protection visa application on

31 May 2016. The interview is summarised in the delegate’s decision, a copy of which was provided to the Tribunal with the application for review. Accordingly, some of the statements made by the applicant in that interview were put to her during the course of the hearing.
Statutory declaration of the applicant made on 13 September 2017

As referred to above, the applicant placed before the Tribunal a statutory declaration made on 12 September 2017. The statutory declarations stated as follows:
1.I was married to [Mr D] in 1998 when I was [age] years old.
2.This marriage was arranged between my father and [Mr D]’s family. I had not met [Mr D] prior to the day he came to my village and gave my father [amount] shell money. This was the bride price.
3.I have [number] children with [Mr D]; [Names].
4.Throughout our marriage [Mr D] was violent towards me. He would beat me or slap me and force me to have sex with him especially if he was drunk or on drugs.
5.Men in the Solomon Islands believe that if they have exchanged a bride price for a woman that she becomes their property and they can treat her as they wish.
6.It is widely accepted in the Solomon Islands by both men and women that a man may beat his wife in order to teach her lessons.
7.I wanted to leave him but I stayed because I did not want to leave my children. The Solomon Islands is such a small place he would have come after me and found me anyway.
8.Reporting the beatings to the police would not have resulted in any action against [Mr D]. The police treated such violence as a family matter to be sorted out within the family.
9.During my marriage I worked selling betel nuts and vegetables at the local markets. I saved as much of this money as I could.
10.I made 2 trips to Australia in this time; from November 2012 for 3 months and from November 2013 for 3 months. On both occasions I returned back to the Solomons because of my children. They were young and I did not want to leave them.
11.[In] January 2015 I had asked [Mr D] for some money for the children. I told him I knew he had taken another wife. He was drunk and had been taking drugs. He beat me very badly then locked me in a room without any food or water.
12.Other members of my family knew he had done this but because [Mr D] had given the bride price to my father they did not think they had the right to intervene or let me out of the room.
13.After two days a neighbour helped me to get out when everyone was out at work. I was taken to the [Hospital] [two days later] and was given IV fluids for rehydration and drugs for pain.
14.When I was discharged from the hospital [two days later again] I reported the beating to the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force. [Mr D] was never charged with this assault.
15.I did not return to my husband after this incident but moved from house to house at night so he could not find me. I no longer worked at the market.
16.The neighbours told my sisters that [Mr D] was asking people where I was and he had checked at the airport to see if I was trying to leave again.
17.By May 2015 I decided to return to Australia. I knew he would not be able to follow me there and I would be safe. I have never returned.
18.I am asking the Australian government to grant me protection so I never need face that extreme violence again.
Submissions made by the applicant’s migration agent
As also referred to above, the Tribunal had before it a submission made by the applicant’s migration agent dated 13 September 2017. Those submissions included the following:
I submit [the applicant] satisfies the criteria for the grant of a Protection visa as set out paragraphs 36(2)(a) and (aa) of the Migration Act 1958.
[The applicant] fled the Solomon Islands [in] May 2015 after a marriage of constant physical and sexual abuse by her husband [Mr D].
In her attached Statutory Declaration [the applicant] gives details of her marriage to [Mr D].
The marriage was arranged in 1998 between [the applicant] 's father and the family of [Mr D]. She had not met her future husband in person until the day the bride price of [amount] shell money was paid to her father. Once this was handed over she was considered to be the wife of Mr [D] and went to live with him in his village.
She now has [number] children.
The payment of the bride price is significant. In Solomons culture the transfer of a bride price to the woman's father allows men to believe that, as they have paid for their wife, they have ownership and can treat their wives as they wish.
Over the years of her marriage [the applicant] was subjected to increasingly violent attacks from her husband. She had travelled to Australia twice to escape the violence meted out to her by her husband. On both occasions she returned as she did not want to leave her children.
[In] January 2015 [the applicant] asked her husband for some money for the children and confronted him over the fact that he had taken another wife.
Mr [D] had been drinking and using drugs at this time and lashed out at her. He beat her severely and locked her in a room without food or water for 2 days.
[The applicant] was released from this room by a neighbour when other occupants of the house were absent and taken to the [Hospital] in [Town 1] for treatment.
[The applicant] also reported the assault to the Royal Solomon Islands Police. A copy of a letter signed by [Ms E] detailing the police report is attached.
[The applicant] went into hiding after this final assault and left the Solomon Islands [in] May 2015. She has not returned since that date.
As acknowledged in the Departmental decision record violence against women, including rape and domestic abuse, remain a serious problem in the Solomon Islands. A significant proportion of both men and women in the Solomons believe violence against women by their partner can be justified.
In 2016 the US Department of State stated that, in the Solomon Islands, violence and discrimination against women remained the most significant human rights problem in the country.[1] The same report in reference to bride price payments stated that they contributed to the perception of male ownership of women.[2]
[1] "Solomon Islands - 2016 Country Report on Human rights Practices", US Department of State, March 03, 2017
[2] As before.
An attempt by the Solomon Islands government to address general violence towards women and, in particular, domestic violence in the home has resulted in The Family Protection Act 2014. This came into force on 08 April 2016. If convicted of violence against his wife a man faces a high fine and several years of imprisonment.
However, as World Vision has said, the culture of male dominance is deeply entrenched and has been accepted by men and women alike in the Solomon lslands.[3]
[3] "Hope for a Safer Solomon Islands" World Vision, February 2016
It is my submission that social change is necessarily slow and embedded social and gender norms are difficult to counteract simply by introducing legislation. This is only a first step towards preventing family violence towards women. Time and government commitment is required for any change in attitudes and beliefs of the general population.
[The applicant] fears returning to the Solomon Islands and the harm her husband will inevitably inflict on her. The Solomon Islands has a population of approximately 600,000. With such a small population there will be no-where safe for her to hide for any length of time.
Eventually he will learn of her return and, as he has paid a bride price for her, he will continue to believe he has rights over her. Her family will not protect her as they cannot afford to repay the bride price and do not want to create friction between communities.
In support of her statements that she has been subjected to domestic violence [the applicant] is submitting the following documents:
•          A Statutory Declaration signed by [the applicant] attesting to the violence she was subjected to within her marriage;
•          A Statutory Declaration signed by [Mr A] attesting to the level of violence he had witnessed from [Mr D] toward [the applicant];
•          A letter signed by [Ms E], Woman Police Constable of the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force;
[The applicant]'s aunt, [Ms F], had approached the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force on her behalf in order to obtain the latter document.
Conclusion
[The applicant] is deserving of the grant of a Protection visa. She satisfies the criteria at paragraphs 36(2)(a) and (aa) of the Act. She is a non-citizen who fears that returning to her home country will see her suffer significant harm. The Solomon Islands government will not be able to protect her adequately at this fledgling stage of their moves to stem domestic and family violence in the community. Nowhere in the Solomon Islands would be safe for her. Her husband will eventually hear of her return and will attempt to assert what he considers to be his rights over her.
Evidence at hearings
Evidence of the applicant
This matter was heard over 2 days, namely 27 September 2017 and 30 November 2017. The first hearing was adjourned as the interpreter was not suitable. Accordingly, the substance of the hearing occurred on 30 November 2017.
The Tribunal asked the applicant to explain her understanding of why her Protection visa application was refused. She said that she had forgotten, and then said “the case was not clear” to her. As to the question as to how or why she decided to make an application for review – the applicant responded that she was helped by her friend from the church called [Ms G]. The applicant said that [Ms G] wrote out what she told her to write.
The applicant said that she feared returning to the Solomon Islands because she is frightened of her husband killing her. She told the Tribunal that he has tried to do it before when he was drunk. She said that when she asked him for money or help with the children he said “do it yourself – I will not give you any money.” The applicant told the Tribunal that her husband speaks down to her. She said she is not allowed to “make him feel down.” She has to praise him and “lift him up” as he is the boss in his culture – Malaita.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about specific events as examples. The applicant said that [in] January 2015 she asked her husband for money for school fees and food, and he said he did not have any. The applicant said that she thought he had a girlfriend at the time. The applicant said that her husband got very angry and got drunk and smoked marijuana. She said that he then called her into the room, ripped her clothes off and punched her in the face. Later in the hearing the applicant said that she suspected her husband had a girlfriend as he was sometimes absent for three to four days or a week at a time. She said that she did not wish to have sex with her husband which made him angry and he would not allow her to have food or water. When asked why she was unable to obtain food or water from someone else in the household, the applicant said that she and her husband did not share their house with anyone else.
The applicant told the Tribunal that she asked her husband about his girlfriend which made him angry and caused him to lock her in the bedroom for two days. She said she was not allowed to leave the bedroom and even had to urinate in there. The applicant said that she escaped when a neighbour heard her crying and let her out. The applicant also said that her children did not come to let her out as they were too afraid of their father. She said that the children were [age] years old respectively at the time, and that they struggled to look after themselves for two days. The applicant said her children now live with her cousins.
The applicant told the Tribunal that sometimes when she and her husband were asleep he would wake up and ask for food, and if she gave him rice and potatoes without any other food he would get angry and take a knife and try to use it on her. She said that her little [child] would cry out “don’t kill my mother”. The applicant said that if she did not do what her husband said he would hit her with stones and she would run away. The applicant said that when she made a request of her husband and he did not want to hear it, he accused her of trying to act like a boss.
The Tribunal asked the applicant how the neighbours had let her out of the bedroom when the door was locked and her husband was there. The applicant said that the neighbours came over when her husband went to get cigarettes and she prayed to God and found that her husband had left the door unlocked. The applicant said that she was in a great deal of pain and weak from hunger. She said that the neighbours took her to the local hospital to which she was admitted for two days. The applicant said that after she was discharged from hospital she went to friends’ houses, but not to her own house, as she was too frightened that her husband would find her there.
The applicant said that her cousin took care of her children during this period. The applicant also said that her cousins knew her children needed care because she told her neighbour to tell her cousins if they came to take her children and look after them. The applicant said that if her cousins had not come for her children, her children would have known to go to their house.
The Tribunal asked the applicant how she obtained the medical and police reports she provided to the Tribunal. She said that they were collected from the hospital by her aunt after she came to Australia. The Tribunal clarified with the applicant the identity of the aunt to whom she referred. She explained that it was her aunt [Ms H].
The applicant said that there was no State protection in the Solomon Islands. She said that she reported her husband to the police, but the police officer was related to, and a friend of her husband, and he simply told her to go home and “sort it out within your family”. The applicant said that she has told her sisters how her husband treats her and they have said to go somewhere far away.
The applicant was asked whether there were other incidents of violence and she replied that one night when she was asleep her husband kicked her. She said her son got a fright and yelled out “don’t kill her; don’t kill her” as her husband brought his knife down. The applicant said such things happened plenty of times. She also said that she has not disclosed all of these matters because her husband paid a bride price and he was the boss. The applicant explained to the Tribunal that after a man bought his wife he has rights to her and her family no longer has rights. The applicant went on to say that her family knew about how her husband treated her but they no longer had rights over her – the only thing her family said to her was to run far away.
The applicant told the Tribunal that she went to friends’ houses and a cousins’ house after she left hospital. She said that she did not go to her sisters’ houses because her husband would find her there. She was adamant that she did not return to her own house because of fear of her husband.
The applicant said that she was told that Australia was a suitable place to go by a Solomon Islands police officer who heard about Australia from the Ramsey Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands. She further said that when her aunt (who lives in Adelaide) heard about how her husband was treating her she told the applicant she would “find someone to invite her to Australia”. The Tribunal put to the applicant that, according to the delegate’s decision, a copy of which was provided with the application for review, she had already been to Australia twice prior to coming to seek a Protection visa. The applicant explained that she came to Australia twice but both times returned to the Solomon Islands out of concern for her children. She said that she felt sorry for them, thought about them all the time, and that they were too small for her to be away from them. The Tribunal also discussed with the applicant why she took three months after the incident described to decide to come to Australia, and she said it was because of her concern for her children. The applicant said that she does not know precisely where her husband lives, but it is around [Town 1]. She said that even if she left and took her children to another province her husband would find her. She said, when she decided to leave, that she sat her children down and told them that she had to leave “because of what’s happened to the family”.
The applicant told the Tribunal that she obtained the money to come to Australia from working at the markets, and that her aunt helped her with money as well. The applicant said that she could earn around SPD 6000 per week, that is SPD 1000 per day. The applicant said that as well, her aunt helped her with money towards coming to Australia.
The applicant went on to tell the Tribunal that after she left, her husband lived in their old house with his girlfriend. Then she said that his girlfriend has now returned to her own family as her husband beat her as well. Therefore, the applicant said, her husband is now waiting for her to return.
The Tribunal explored further with the applicant the circumstances prior to her coming to Australia (to seek a Protection visa). She said that some time elapsed because she moved around friends’ houses. She said that she made money by caring for her friend’s children, and that she had no other work because she was afraid to go out in public. The applicant said that her aunt arranged for her to come to Australia because she wanted her to be safe. She said that her cousin [Mr A] and [Ms H] helped her with the paperwork.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether there was anything else she wished to tell it. She said that she had attempted suicide and that her husband had [number] children with another woman. She also said that when she sleeps at night she has tremors and shakes and has trouble remembering things. She confirmed that she had no medical evidence with respect to those conditions.
The Tribunal explained to the applicant that it had a number of concerns about her evidence including:
·The inconsistent nature of her evidence including as follows:
oThe Tribunal notes that the applicant refers to suicide attempts in her written application for protection. No such reference is contained within the summary of the Departmental interview contained within the delegate’s decision. Nor is the attempted suicide referred to in the applicant’s statutory declaration. It was only mentioned at the very end of the hearing.
o
The applicant stated in her written application for a Protection visa that her “[number] children been taken away from me by another family neighbours”[sic]. the applicant made similar claims in her Departmental interview. At hearing the applicant told the Tribunal that she told her neighbours that if her cousins turned up they were to tell them to take her children. She also said that if her cousins did not turn up she knew that her children would make their way to their house. In this regard the Tribunal notes a letter from [Mr B] dated

[June] 2015. Mr [B] claims to be the applicant’s brother. In his letter he states that “our family had taken her children out from her care to keep them safe…”
oThere were several versions given of where the applicant lived. At the Departmental interview, according to the delegate’s decision “the applicant claimed that her family lived in the same residence since the applicant was a child, and after she married in 1998 her husband moved into her family home”. Throughout the Departmental interview, the applicant made reference to other members of her family of origin, including her parents and some of her sisters living at the family home. At hearing the applicant told the Tribunal that she and her husband lived alone. She said that no one else lived in the house with them.
oSimilarly, there were a number of versions of where the applicant went after discharge from hospital in January 2015. At the Departmental interview, the applicant said that she went to her own home and then to neighbours’ houses. At hearing she said that she went to cousins’ and friends’ houses, but not to her own house as her husband would know where to find her.
oThe Tribunal notes that at the Departmental interview the applicant provided three versions as to how she reported the incident with her husband [in] January 2015 to the police, including that her husband’s cousin worked at the police station at the time she made the report, that when she reported her husband to the police her husband’s cousin was not working, and that her family rather than she herself reported her husband to the police. At hearing the applicant said that when she reported the matter to the police, the police officer in question was a cousin and friend of her husband’s. In this regard the Tribunal also notes that it had before it two letters claiming to be from the Royal Solomon Islands Police Service dated [July] 2015 (provided to the delegate at the time of the Departmental interview) and [January] 2017, respectively. Those letters support country information regarding family violence in the Solomon Islands, but implausibly suggest that the police are unable to do anything about the violence and recommend her living somewhere else such as Australia. The letters are not consistent with the applicant’s evidence that she was advised by the police to return home and sort matters out with her husband within her family.
oThere were also inconsistencies regarding the obtaining of the police and hospital reports. The applicant told the delegate at the Departmental interview two versions – one being that the reports were obtained by her family, and the second being that they are obtained by her friend [Ms I]. At hearing the applicant told the Tribunal that they were obtained by her aunt ([Ms H]).
oIn response to the Tribunal’s concerns regarding the inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence, at least insofar as they relate to inconsistencies between the information provided by the applicant at the Departmental interview and other sources of information, the applicant’s agent submitted that the interpreter at the Departmental interview spoke New Guinea pidgin rather than Solomon Islands pidgin. The applicant’s agent also submitted that at the Departmental interview the applicant was shaking and wanted to simply get through it. With respect to the issue regarding the evidence of suicide attempts, the applicant said that she forgot to mention it – she does not remember small details, or perhaps she has some post-traumatic stress disorder.
·The amount of money the applicant claimed she could earn working at the markets. The Tribunal notes that the applicant claims to have earned SBD 1000 per day, but as noted in the delegate’s decision such an amount was at the time approximately equivalent to 14% of the gross national income per capita. The applicant responded that she had in fact been able to earn that sum of money as she used to sell three, four or five bags of betel nuts per day. For completeness, the Tribunal observes that in the Departmental interview the applicant said she sold five to six bags of betel nuts per day.
·The Tribunal also observes that the applicant had not, prior to the hearing, mentioned her [child] crying out “please do not kill her; please do not kill her”. The applicant’s response was that she did refer to that matter in the Departmental interview.
·The Tribunal also observed that it had concerns regarding the time taken by the applicant to come to Australia after the incident in January 2015, given that she already held a Visitor visa. The Tribunal notes that the applicant said that it was because she was trying to comfort her children, but it also notes that her evidence in this regard, at the Departmental interview, was vague, did not refer to her children at all, and consisted of statements relating to her need to obtain a “tourist” visa and complete the “whole process”.
Country information

The delegate made reference to the following country information:
The US Department of State's (USDOS) 2015 Solomon Islands Human Rights Report states that domestic violence was a serious problem:
Violence against women, including rape and domestic abuse, remained a serious problem but was underreported. Among the reasons cited for the failure to report abuse were pressure from Male relatives, fear of reprisals, feelings of shame, and cultural taboos on discussion of such matters.[4]
[4] "Solomon Islands - Country Report on' Human Rights Practices 2015", US Department of State, 13 April 2016, 0GD95BE926339
The report noted that:
Although statistics were unavailable, incidents of domestic violence appeared to be common, and police confirmed that they received domestic violence complaints every week. In September the local press published an article reporting that the police had received over 400 reports of domestic violence in 2014 and that 500 reports were received between January-August 2015. Police believed the increase was likely due to increased awareness because of community policing outreach and education efforts.[5]
[5] "Solomon Islands - Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2015", US Department of State, 13 April 2016, 0GD95BE926339
Police made efforts to charge offenders for domestic violence and assault against women. In cases of reported domestic abuse, victims often dropped charges before a court appearance, or cases were settled out of court...The magistrates' courts dealt with physical abuse of women as with any other assault, but prosecutions were rare due to low judicial and police capacity and to cultural bias against women.[6]
The World Health Organisation discussed gender based violence (GBV) and the 'bride price' in the Solomon Islands:
The causes of GBV are multiple, but it primarily stems from gender inequality and its manifestations. In Solomon Islands, GBV has been largely normalized: 73% of men and 73% of women believe violence against women is justifiable, especially for infidelity and "disobedience," as when women do "not live up to the gender roles that society imposes."... Men cited acceptability of violence and gender inequality as two main reasons for GBV, and almost all of them reported hitting their female partners as a "form of discipline," suggesting that women could improve the situation by "[learning] to obey [them]." Another manifestation and driver of gender inequality in Solomon Islands is the traditional practice of bride price. Although specific customs vary between communities, paying a bride price is considered similar to a property title, giving men ownership over women. Gender norms of masculinity tend to encourage men to "control" their wives, often through violence, while women felt that bride prices prevented them from leaving men.[7]
Initiatives have been introduced to raise awareness and decrease levels of domestic violence. New legislation criminalised acts of domestic violence; Radio Australia noted that the parliament passed the Family Violence Bill in September 2014. The report stated, 'Like elsewhere in the Pacific, the statistics of violence against women in the Solomons are alarmingly high...Under the new laws, perpetrators will face jail terms of 3 years, as well as fines of $SI 30,000, or $AUS 4000.'[8]
In addition, stakeholders formalised a network that responded and provided care to those who suffered from GBV. Solomon Times reported in March 2013 that:
The five parties that will compose the Referral SAFENET include the Ministry of Health and Medical Services (MHMS) including Health Facilities, Integrated Mental Health Services (IMHS) and the Social Welfare Division; the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force (RSIPF); the Public Solicitor's Office; the Family Support Centre and the Christian Care Centre. The MOU outlines procedures and clarifies the role of the parties involved in responding to gender based violence incidents. Through implementation of the MOU the network aims to assist survivors by improving access to appropriate support services. The network will also work to support activities for the prevention of gender based violence.[9]
The report continued:
Each of the five parties involved play a different and essential role in the network. MHMS provide crucial time-bound clinical care for survivors... Social Welfare fulfill a coordination and protection role, the Police are responsible for protection and investigation, the Public Solicitor's Office provide legal assistance, Family Support Center offer counseling and Christian Care Center provide shelter and further care... The Referral SAFENET has established a GBV Helpline that uses the toll free number 132 and is operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The helpline is available for survivors of gender based violence to call and receive support over the phone…[10]
The USDOS report stated, 'In 2015 the government endorsed a new National Gender Equality and Women in Development Policy and a National Eliminating Violence Against Women Policy.'[11]
Findings
[6] "Solomon Islands - Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2015", US Department of State, 13 April 2016, 0GD95BE926339
[7] World Health Organisation, 19 October 2011, Gender-based violence in Solomon Islands: Translating research into action on the social determinants of health;
[8] 'Historic Family Violence Bill Warmly Received in Solomon Islands' 2014, Radio Australia, 8 September < `Sakeholders to Sign Violence SAFENET MOU' 2013, Solomon Times, 13 March
[10] `Sakeholders to Sign Violence SAFENET MOU' 2013, Solomon Times, 13 March < "Solomon Islands - Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2015", US Department of State, 13 April 2016, 0GD95BE926339
The Tribunal has considered all of the material before it.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant is [an age] year old woman from the Solomon Islands.
The Tribunal finds that family violence and violence against women continues to be a serious issue in the Solomon Islands.
The Tribunal however has concerns regarding the applicant’s credibility regarding her claims before the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s memory of the events upon which she claims to rely will necessarily change and evolve, and that her evidence will include discrepancies. However, in this instance, the Tribunal considers there to be a vast number of discrepancies which cannot be fully explained by the exigencies of time or memory, notwithstanding submissions of the applicant’s agent that the interpreter provided at the Departmental interview was inadequate. The Tribunal considers that, given the importance of the Departmental interview, had the applicant considered the interpreting inadequate it was incumbent upon her to raise that issue. In any case, the Tribunal observes that the inconsistencies were not confined to those between the information provided that the Departmental interview and other evidence, but were contained within all of the evidence provided by the applicant, including her written claims in her application for a Protection visa, written documentary evidence before the Tribunal and her evidence at hearing.
The Tribunal in particular considers that the applicant would have consistently mentioned a suicide attempt throughout her evidence, had one been made, given its significance. The Tribunal does not consider that the applicant, had she made such an attempt, would have omitted to mention it, or indeed at any time forgotten it.
The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claims that she suffers tremors and shakes, or has difficulty remembering things, or suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. There is no contemporaneous medical evidence before the Tribunal suggesting that the applicant suffers those afflictions at the time of the hearing.
The Tribunal finds the applicant’s claim regarding the amount of money she earned per day to be implausible.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s evidence at hearing regarding her [child] crying out “please do not kill her; please do not kill” to be a fabrication. The Tribunal considers that the applicant would have mentioned such circumstances earlier given the significant impact they would have had upon her and her [child].
The Tribunal also has concerns regarding the documentary evidence placed before it by the applicant. The Tribunal observes that none of the medical or police reports are contemporaneous. None of them are original documents, or attach original documents or copies thereof. They are all photocopies. The Tribunal therefore places little weight upon them. As to the letters and statutory declaration provided by the applicant’s friends and family in support of the application, the Tribunal, in light of its concerns as outlined above places little weight upon them.
When these facts are considered together, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s claims in relation to fear of returning to the Solomon Islands to be lacking in credibility. Accordingly the Tribunal finds the applicant was not the victim of domestic violence in the Solomon Islands and will not be subject to domestic violence by her husband if she returns to the Solomon Islands in the reasonably foreseeable future.
It follows that the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has been harmed by her husband in the past; that the applicant has been threatened by her husband; or that she faces a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm as she returns Solomon Islands.
Considering the applicant’s individual circumstances and country information on a cumulative basis, the Tribunal finds a fear of persecution is not well-founded as required by s.5J of the Act and therefore she is not a refugee within the meaning of s.5H.
Considering the applicant’s individual circumstances and country information on a cumulative basis, the Tribunal finds that there are not substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to the Solomon Islands that there is a real risk she will suffer significant harm.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.
Fiona Meagher
Member

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

CI5D9559B12121

<htto://

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration
Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review
Procedural Fairness
Jurisdiction
Statutory Construction

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

1610877 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 5901

Cases Citing This Decision

Cases Cited

Statutory Material Cited

Kopalapillai v MIMA [1998] FCA 1126

Plaintiff M47/2018 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] HCA 17

[2019] AATA 5901

21 May 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction