1612216 (Refugee)

1612216 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 2673 (8 November 2017)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1612216
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Malaysia
MEMBER:Lilly Mojsin
DATE:8 November 2017
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

STATEMENT MADE ON 08 NOVEMBER 2017 AT 2:03PM
CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Malaysia – Race – Malaysian Chinese – Political opinion – Participant of BERSIH 4.0 rally – Credibility concerns
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5H,5J, 5K-LA, 36,65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration [in] July 2016 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa [PVA] under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Malaysia, applied for the visa [in] June 2016.
The applicant appealed that decision to this Tribunal on attaching a copy of the Department decision to her application.
The applicant attended a Tribunal hearing held on 4 October 2017. The applicant was assisted by the services of an interpreter. The applicant acknowledged at the commencement of the hearing that she understood the interpreter and did not, during the hearing, claim that she did not understand the interpreter.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
See Annexure A.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The applicant's claims are contained in [Department file], and evidence given to the Tribunal at a hearing.
In her PVA the applicant said that she attended a BERSIH 4.0 rally on 30 August 2015. The applicant claims to have been detained for [number of days]. She claims to have been threatened with a [weapon] by gangsters not to attend any more rallies. The applicant lodged a report to the police station who said that they will investigate.
At the Tribunal hearing the applicant confirmed she wrote her own claims and the information contained in her PVA was true and correct. She said that she is [age]. She comes from Ipoh Perak, Malaysia. She is an ethnic Chinese. She finished [school] in Malaysia and she worked in a [workplace] until she came to Australia. She is single.
The applicant said that she arrived in Australia [in] March 2016. When asked why she left Malaysia she said that she is afraid as she participated in activity. In Malaysia it is BERSIH. She came on a [temporary] visa. She left Malaysia because of BERSIH. She was afraid as she participated in an activity and she was beaten.
She said that it was against the government in 2015. On 30 August 2015, in Kuala Lumpur, BERSIH 4.0. It is relating to the government and the people organised activities opposed to the government. She demonstrated with other people. When asked again to explain what the demonstration was about she said that she just went with her friend. She does not know what it was about. It was against the government. She followed her friend.
When asked what happened to her because she went to the demonstration she said that she was insulted by other people who said you are Chinese why are you here. They threatened her. She was slapped during the demonstration. She reported it to the police who said they would investigate.
Nothing else happened to her when she was in Malaysia. She came to Australia in 2016.
Asked why she cannot return, she said that she is afraid that those people can find her, those Malaysians who were at the demonstration.
It was put to the applicant that the demonstration was in August 2015 and nothing happened to her when she lived in Malaysia. She said that they came to her once and she is worried they will come back and find her now. They did come to her in her office.
When put that she had stated earlier that she worked in a [workplace], but now said that she worked in [a different workplace], she agreed she worked in [the first stated workplace].
When put that she did not inform the Tribunal that she was held for [number of days] by the police, as stated in her PVA, she said she does not want to think about these things. It was also put to the applicant that she had stated in her PVA she received a phone call from a guy who said he would punish her but did not tell inform the Tribunal, asked what had happened, she said she did not want to think about these things
The applicant said that in Australia she sometimes works in a [certain industry] and her mother sends her money.
Asked what she fears about returning to Malaysia, she did not respond. She then stated that she did not know.
It was put to the applicant that there is an appropriate criminal law and the provision of a reasonably effective and impartial police and justice system and if anyone attempted to harm her she would have the protection of the Malay authorities. She said they have racial discrimination.
When put that the Malaysian constitution provides for equal protection under the law and prohibits discrimination against citizens based on race, gender, religion, descent, or place of birth, ethnic Chinese are about 25% of the population, there is an effective police and legal system, minorities are free to practise their culture and religion without restrictions and that the government does not impose restrictions in the field of education. She said that her friend was discriminated against. Put she was not discriminated against when she went to school and had a job. She responded “I did not say anything”.
When asked if there was anything else she said no.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
On the basis of her Malaysian passport, I accept that the applicant is a national of Malaysia and not a national or citizen of any other country. I accept that she does not have a right to enter and reside in any country other than Malaysia. Therefore I find that the applicant is not excluded from Australia's protection by subsection 36(3) of the Act. I also find that Malaysia is the applicants’ “receiving country” for the purposes of s.36(2)(aa).
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, I have 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 [DFAT] expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to this decision.
I accept that the applicant is an ethnic Chinese from Malaysia. I do not accept that the applicant is a witness of truth. I am satisfied she has created her claims in order to obtain the visa sought.
Firstly, the applicant told the Tribunal, at the commencement of the hearing that she worked in a [workplace] until she came to Australia. Later in the hearing she stated that the persons who were seeking to harm her came to her [different workplace]. When this inconsistency was put to the applicant she did not provide a response.
Secondly, the applicant claims in her PVA that she had been detained for [number of days]. When put that she had not made this claim to the Tribunal when asked to explain what had happened to her in Malaysia she said she does not want to think about these things. I do not accept that the applicant has explained the inconsistency.
Thirdly, it was put to the applicant that she had stated in her PVA she received a phone call from a guy who said he would punish her but did not tell inform the Tribunal about this incident. She responded that she said she did not want to think about these things. I do not accept that the applicant has explained the inconsistency.
I am satisfied the applicant is not a witness of truth. I am of the view that the applicant has created her claims in order to obtain the visa sought.
Additionally her evidence in regard to what the BERISH 4 demonstration was about was vague and unconvincing. Other than being able to state that it was against the government in 2015, it is related to the government and the people organised activities opposed to the government she was unable to explain that demonstrators sought the resignation of Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak.
Independent evidence[1] about Berish 4.0 demonstration indicates that
‘tens of thousands of Malaysians protested over the weekend in the capital Kuala Lumpur and elsewhere, calling for Prime Minister Najib Razak to step down over a financial scandal. The protesters are angered by a $700m (£455m) payment made to his bank account from unnamed foreign donors. It was discovered last month during a probe into alleged mismanagement at the debt-laden state fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB). Mr Najib has denied any wrongdoing. The rally began on Saturday and continued into Sunday. The pro-democracy group Bersih has also called for protests in the cities of Kota Kinabalu and Kuching on the Malaysian side of Borneo.
[1]
I do not accept as plausible that a person who attended the rally on 30 August 2015 would not have been aware or known that the demonstrators sought the resignation of Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak. I am of the view that the applicant’s explanation that she does not know what it was about and she just followed her friend was made in order to overcome her lack of knowledge about the events that occurred at that demonstration.
As I am satisfied the applicant is not a witness of truth, I do not accept that the applicant attended a demonstration on 30 August 2015, that she was detained for [number of days], that she was threatened with a [weapon] by gangsters not to attend any more rallies, that she was beaten and slapped, or that she was insulted by other people or that she lodged a report to the police station, who said they would investigate.
I have considered the applicant's claims and evidence individually and cumulatively. I am satisfied that the applicant did not flee Malaysia fearing harm for reasons of her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion but came to [Australia].
I am required to consider the situation if there is a real chance the applicant would suffer serious harm in the future, if she were to return to Malaysia, for reasons of her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The applicant said that she is afraid that those people can find her, those Malaysians who were at the demonstration, they came to her once and she is worried they will come back and find her now. She also said that she did not know why she fears returning to Malaysia. As I have found that the applicant was not at the demonstration, I do not accept that anyone seeks to harm her in Malaysia.
The Royal Malaysian Police (RMP) report to the federal Minister for Home Affairs and is responsible for law enforcement nationwide[2]. DFAT[3] reports that the Malaysian police are generally considered to be a professional and effective police force.
[2]
[3] DFAT Country Information Report , Malaysia , 19 July 2016
The United States Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for Malaysia indicates that Malaysia has a working criminal law and legal system and the provision of a reasonably effective and impartial police and justice system exists. English common law is the basis for the secular legal system. The constitution states that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law. Defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Trials are public, although judges may order restrictions on press coverage. According to the Bar Council, defendants generally have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence if they have the means to engage private counsel. Otherwise the defendants must rely on legal aid and the amount of time to prepare for the trial is at the discretion of the judge. The government and officials may be sued in court for alleged violations of human rights. The structure of the civil judiciary mirrors that of the criminal courts.⁶ There is no country information that indicates that the State would be complicit in the sense that it encourages, condones or tolerates harm to it its citizens. The country information referred to in relation to the Malaysian authorities indicates that the Malaysian authorities would not withhold protection to ethnic Chinese.
According to DFAT Malaysia 2016, in regard to the Royal Malaysia Police [RMP] credible local and international sources consider the RMP to be a professional and effective police force. However, the quality of the RMP’s responses varies depending on levels of training, capacity or engagement in corruption. The Government publicly acknowledged the existence of police corruption and implemented reforms, including establishing compliance units within the RMP. Police officers were subject to trial by criminal and civil courts and disciplinary action was taken against officers found guilty, including suspension, dismissal or demotion.
I accept that corruption and bribery exist in the police force. I am satisfied that the Malaysian state has put in place reasonable measures to protect the lives and safety of its citizens, including an appropriate criminal law, and the provision of a reasonably effective and impartial police force and judicial system. The applicant claims that there is racial discrimination by the police. I prefer the independent evidence that states that is a functioning police force and an independent judicial system where members of the judiciary are accountable for their decisions on appeal[4]. I am satisfied that there are avenues of complaint available for Malay citizens, if required.
[4] DFAT Country Information Report , Malaysia , 19 July 2016
The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade [DFAT][5] have advised in their country report on Malaysia that the Malaysian Chinese constitute one of the largest overseas Chinese communities in the world and are the second largest ethnic group in Malaysia. There are no laws or constitutional provisions that directly discriminate against ethnic Chinese in Malaysia. Malaysian Chinese make up a high percentage of the professional and educated class and dominate business and commerce sectors.
[5] DFAT Country Report: Malaysia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 19/07/2016
The applicant was not discriminated against by police or any other government agency in the past and on the country information, cited above, I am satisfied there is no real chance or real risk that she will suffer discrimination or any harm from police in the future.
Whilst the applicant claims that her friend was discriminated against, the applicant was not discrimination against when she lived in Malaysia, she went to school and had a job. I prefer the independent evidence. DFAT assesses that ethnic Chinese generally do not experience discrimination or violence on a day-to-day basis. However, they may face low levels of discrimination when attempting to gain entry into the state tertiary system or the civil service. The applicant does not claim that she seeks entry into the tertiary system or the civil service. The Malaysian constitution provides for equal protection under the law and prohibits discrimination against citizens based on race, gender, religion, descent, or place of birth. While there is discrimination in favour of ethnic Malays and the indigenous groups of the eastern states of Sabah and Sarawak, the country information does not indicate that the effect of this amounts to serious harm against Malays of Chinese ethnicity. I therefore find that the applicant has not been denied equal rights in the past and there is no real chance she will suffer any serious harm from being denied equal rights in the future.
I have no independent evidence before me to suggest that Chinese Malays suffer discrimination in the workforce or in business. Information from the Canadian Research Directorate in relation to Malaysians of Chinese descent indicates that Chinese Malays represent approximately 25% of the population. Malays of Chinese origin dominate the business sector. The applicant was employed until she came to Australia. I find that the applicant has not and will not suffer discrimination in earning a living in Malaysia.
The Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) is a political association which is part of the governing National Front (Barisan Nasional, BN), a coalition of 15 parties. Malaysia has known relative peace amongst its ethnic communities since riots against the Chinese minority occurred in 1969. Sources indicate that minorities are free to practise their culture and religion without restrictions and that the government does not impose restrictions in the field of education.
As I do not accept that the applicant was harmed in Malaysia for her political opinion I do not accept that she will have a political opinion or engage in any political activities in the future so will not suffer any harm from police or otherwise for those reasons.
On the evidence before me and the cumulative considerations and findings above, I find that the applicant does not have a real chance that, if returned to Malaysia, she would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a). I find that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for these reasons.
I have considered whether the applicant’s circumstances as set out above and amount to, or give rise to, substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Malaysia, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm.
I am satisfied the applicant did not suffer any harm in Malaysia prior to coming to Australia. I do not accept on the evidence before me, therefore, that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Malaysia, there is a real risk that she will be arbitrarily deprived of her life, that the death penalty will be carried out on her, that she will be subjected to torture, that she will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or that she will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment. Accordingly, I find that the applicant does not satisfy the requirements of s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
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).
Conclusion
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 (Class XA) visa.
Lilly Mojsin
Member

ANNEXURE A
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, 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 themselves of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a).
Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and relevant country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration being 19 July 2016 Malaysia.
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)   the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)   there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)   the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note: For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note: For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)   conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)   conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)   without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in them practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)   that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)   the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)   the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)   a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)   significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)   significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)   significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)   denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)    denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)   disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)   disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)   a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)   the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)   any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)   the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)   protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)   the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)   the person can access the protection; and
(b)   the protection is durable; and
(c)   in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
..
36Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)   the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)   the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)   it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)   the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)   the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2017] AATA 2673

8 November 2017

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice