1614593 (Refugee)

1614593 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 5823 (19 June 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1614593
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   China
MEMBER:Denise Connolly
DATE:19 June 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Statement made on 19 June 2019 at 3:12pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – Religion – member of family underground church – unable to provide further details of religious beliefs – not able to get letter of support – applicant manufactured claim – applicant not a committed Christian – not satisfied there is reliable evidence – authenticity and credibility issues – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 26 August 2016 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of China, applied for the visa on 11 September 2015. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that she was not satisfied the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.
There are two purported s.438 certificates on the Department’s file. The first dated 14 September 2016 purports to certify that disclosure of folios 71 to 88 would be contrary to the public interest because the folios contain ‘information relating to an internal working document.’ The folios relate to the applicant’s [temporary] visa application and documents provided with it. There is correspondence between the Department and DFAT indicating the documents provided in his tourist visa application had been altered. The delegate however found that she was satisfied the applicant had provided identity documentation on which she could rely. She formed the view there was no information raising concerns about his identity. Having considered the purported s.438 certificate, the information in those folios and the reasons given by the delegate, the Tribunal is not satisfied the reasons given properly identify a basis for public interest immunity. Accordingly it finds the certificate is not valid.
The second purported s.438 certificate also dated 14 September 2016 purports to certify that folios 68, 71 to 88, and 102 to 104 should not be disclosed because it would be contrary to the public interest as the folios contain ‘information relating to an internal working document and business affairs’. The information in folio 68 is the Onshore Protection 866 Processing Checklist. The Tribunal is of the view there is nothing recorded on this form that would give rise to a concern that disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. Folios 71 to 88 are discussed above. Folios 102 to 104 are the 2 purported s.438 certificates and a document entitled Disclosure Decision Checklist which records that folios 71 to 88 are s.438(1)(a) related documents/information. Having considered the second purported s.438 certificate and the reasons given for why disclosure would be contrary to the public interest ‘because the aforementioned folios contain information relating to an internal working document and business affairs’, the Tribunal is not satisfied the reasons given properly identify a basis for public interest immunity. Accordingly the Tribunal finds the certificate is not valid.
EVIDENCE AND CLAIMS
Evidence to the Department
When making the visa application the applicant provided the following information. He was born on [date] in Fuqing, Fujian Province, China. He is a citizen of China. He does not have the right to reside in any other country. He speaks Mandarin and is of Han ethnicity. His religion is Christianity. He married [in] December 1999 in China. He and his wife have 2 children, a [child] born on [date] and a [child] born on [date]. His wife, children and parents reside in Fujian, China. He provided a copy of his Chinese passport issued [in] 2010 obtained while in [Country 1]. He previously held another passport which he claims was taken and kept by the Chinese consulate. He was granted a [temporary] visa on 22 June 2015 and arrived in Australia [in] June 2015. He claims that prior to travelling to Australia he was unemployed.
The applicant claims that from April 2008 until 19 May 2015 he resided in [Country 1] for employment reasons. From August 2010 to May 2015 he was [employed] in a [workplace] in [Country 1]. From April 2008 to April 2012 he was [employed in another occupation]. Prior to travelling to [Country 1] for employment, he worked from January 2000 to April 2008 [in another occupation] in Nanshan Cun, [Town 1]. He completed senior middle school from [year] to [year] in [Town 1].
The addresses provided by the applicant for [Country 1] are the same as his places of employment. On his return to China in May 2015 he resided in Nanshan Cun, [Town 1], Fuqing City, Fujian Province.
The applicant claims that he left China because he wanted freedom of religion. He came to Australia to seek protection so that he could practice his Christian belief without persecution and fear of arrest. In China, the authorities do not allow people to practice their religious belief (especially Christianity) because it originated in the West. The authorities tell people to go to the Three Self Patriotic church controlled by the Government. This policy of restriction was relaxed when Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao were in power. However, since the current leader Xi Jinping came to power, the policy of restricting religion has severely been tightened. Many churches have been demolished and many people have been arrested by the Chinese authorities. If he returns to China he fears he will be arrested by the authorities due to his religious beliefs. He claims restriction of Christian belief is the national policy of China, which was established on the basis of atheism.
The applicant states that he lived and worked in [Country 1] for about 7 years from April 2008 until May 2015. However he does not have a right of residence in [Country 1]. When his work finished in [Country 1], he was sent back to China. He then came to Australia in June 2015.
The applicant claims that a gathering he attended [in] December 2005 was raided and they were warned about gathering by the public security. Also, in September 2007 during worship, he heard about the experience of university students who were raided by the authorities during their meeting. He believes he was lucky they did not jail him in December 2005. He believes, if it happened today, he would be detained. The applicant claims he cannot relocate in China because there is no freedom of religion anywhere.
The applicant claims that when he was in [Country 1], he read and heard news about churches in China being demolished and that many Christians were arrested and detained. When he was in China in May 2015, people were fearful that they would be arrested by the authorities due to their Christian belief and unauthorized gatherings. He fears if he goes back to China, he will be harmed and mistreated.
In a statutory declaration attested on 9 September 2015 the applicant claims he was born to and grew up in a family ‘fully soaked in the love of Christ’. His grandparents and mother were all dedicated Jesus followers. His father was not a believer, but he had no objection to their attendance at the family church. Later his father joined them in the family church in which they worshipped God together. As he grew older, he began to know more about religion. He found some books easier to read than others. He preferred to read the New Testament because of the parables and miracles.
The applicant claims he was happy when his mother and grandparents held gatherings at home because his mother kept him next to her. He sang the hymns and really enjoyed those moments as the rhythm of the songs was so harmonic and peaceful. His mother also took him with her when she attended gatherings in other people's homes.
The applicant claims that during Church service and fellowship, he helped elders to read the Bible and sing hymns. He helped them by translating if there was a guest speaker who spoke in Mandarin. Although he might not have done as well as God wanted him to do, it was a good opportunity for him to serve God by serving other people. He knew it was God's plan so he learned more and glorified Him along the journey of his life as a Christian.
The applicant claims he typed and printed sections of the Bible for use in preaching. He also photocopied songs. He liked to include pictures alongside the scripture to make it more interesting for the older people and children. It was the first time he had such a close encounter with God, through serving people. This feeling never left him. He loved to read the story of Noah in the Old Testament. He quoted Genesis 7:1-5.
The applicant claims after he finished high school, he continued to attend and serve in their family church. On [a specific day] in 2005, they held a gathering in his grandparents’ house in the country, to [celebrate]. There were over 60 people enjoying the gathering on the pasture outside the house. Suddenly, a group of people from the Public Security and the Bureau of Religion turned up and said they received information that they were holding an illegal gathering. They told them to cooperate. They asked [Pastor A] questions. They told them to disperse and warned them not to gather again without permission. They told them the meeting was against the law because their family church was not registered. They told them to go to a Three Self registered church if they wanted to worship God. After they left, [Pastor A] explained the difference between the Three Self registered church and the unregistered Family Church. He explained that the sanctioned church was controlled and regulated by the government. He explained that in the Three Self registered church, the head of the church is the CCP and the government. However, for them, Jesus was their head and the soul of the church. [Pastor A] added that he had preached in the registered church and he felt like he was working for the government to execute their orders and he had to be a party member. His top priority was to protect the interest of the CCP. He said the registered church was window dressing to deceive the international community that Chinese citizens enjoy freedom of religion. [Pastor A] rescinded his party membership and resigned from his position in the registered church. The applicant went to the registered church a few times to see for himself. However in the registered church, he found his experience exactly as [Pastor A] described.
The applicant claims on an evening in September 2007, they were worshipping at his grandmother's home. There were two students [from a university] present. They told him that they were raided by the public security officers during a Sunday gathering held at their home. The police checked their identity cards and threatened to notify the university if they continued to hold unauthorized meetings. They would then not be allowed to graduate. The students told him that since then, whenever they have a meeting, they deploy someone to be on the lookout. Since hearing this they changed their gathering place more often.
The applicant claims in early 2008, a relative of a church member told the applicant that Australia was a country with true democracy and freedom of religion where people enjoy basic human rights and are free to practice whatever religion they believe in, and people are also free to spread the gospel to non-believers. When he heard this, he longed to leave China to go to Australia. Although China was his home country he felt threatened and scared of being arrested by the authorities because of his Christian belief. He wished to live in a place where he would have no fear to practice his Christian faith. He wished to spread God's word and the gospel to people who had not been saved. The applicant claims he was not able to find a way to make this plan a reality so he continued to pray and ask for God’s guidance and leadership. He worked in China until April 2008 when he went to work in [Country 1]. He later learned that this was the beginning of God’s plan for him. During the years he worked in [Country 1] he thought of applying for protection so he prayed. However, God told him that [Country 1] was not the country where he should seek protection because of its political policies and close ties with China. In May 2015, the applicant’s employment contract finished and he had to go back to China. Soon after he returned, a Christian friend asked him if he wanted to apply for a visa to Australia. He asked this friend to help. His application was approved and he left China quickly to come to Australia. The wish that he had in 2008 had come true. After arriving in Australia, he immediately joined his present church. Here, he enjoys the freedom of attending whichever church he wants. Here, he enjoys living with no fear or threat. Initially, because his wife and children were still in China, he hesitated to apply for protection in Australia. However he feared going back to China, practicing in an unauthorized church, being arrested and sent to prison, as he has been warned before. So he continued to pray. He spoke to the minister of his church and he believes he got an answer from God. He made up his mind to make this application.
Evidence to the Tribunal
The applicant provided to the Tribunal a copy of the delegate’s decision. It records that the applicant was interviewed by the delegate on 24 August 2016. The Tribunal has listened to a recording of the interview and is satisfied that the information recorded in the delegate’s decision record, while not a transcript, reflects the oral evidence given at that interview. The following information is from the delegate’s decision record.
The applicant confirmed he worked in [Country 1] from April 2008 until May 2015. The employment was arranged by an agent. He worked 6 days a week from 8 AM to midnight. He went to ‘[name]’s church’ Chinese prayer session at [a location] during his free time. He did not provide other evidence of his attendance. When asked why he did not seek assistance from [Country 1] authorities, he indicated that he was told by God that [Country 1] has policies that do not suit him.
The applicant told the delegate that he sends [amount] per month to his wife who is unemployed. His parents are [employed in occupation 1]. His parents and grandparents are Christians. They attend worship sessions every Wednesday and Sunday at a fellow worshipper’s home. They share the gospel with others worshippers in the village. When asked how they did this openly, the applicant indicated that Christianity was only banned by the authorities in 2012. There were very little restrictions before the new administration took over in China. The delegate asked the applicant if he is willing to attend a registered church. He stated that he would not because there is no divine feeling there.
The applicant told the delegate that he became a true Christian [in] October 1998. He indicated that was when he was baptised. He then indicated he was baptised on [a specific day] in 1998.
The delegate asked the applicant about his attendance at church in Australia. He indicated he goes to [Church 1] every Sunday. However he was unable to provide the location of the church. When asked why not he indicated he kept the address on his mobile phone and it was damaged. He was questioned about his religious beliefs. He indicated ‘a devout follower will get eternal life otherwise he won’t’. When asked what his religion meant to him he repeated ‘a devout follower will get eternal life otherwise he won’t’. When asked for further evidence about his religion he said ‘followers must love everyone around them and the Lord’. The delegate noted he was unable to provide any further details of his religious beliefs. He was asked to provide letters of support from elders in his church or other members of his congregation. He indicated that his attendance at the church was not long enough to provide a support letter. The delegate did not accept that the church would deny him a support letter in regard to his attendance at the church.
The delegate formed the view that the applicant had not demonstrated a level of knowledge reasonably expected from the person who had been a Christian all his life. She was not satisfied that he had demonstrated his claimed religious faith. She did not accept he was an adherent of the Christian faith or that he was a member of a family church in China. She formed the view he attended the church in Australia solely for the purpose of enhancing his claims to fear persecution in China.
The delegate also noted that the applicant had not provided a plausible reason why he would be singled out or targeted by the Chinese authorities. She noted that he had claimed that his family, devoted Christians, were able to subsist, practice and spread the gospel in China for many years without interference from the Chinese authorities. When this was put to him he indicated that the Chinese administration changed since 2012. The delegate noted he had lived at the same address all his life until he departed his country. She was not satisfied he was ever arrested, harassed or monitored. She did not accept that his activities came to the attention of the authorities in 2005.
The delegate put to the applicant country information indicating that house churches of 30 or 40 people are generally tolerated. When asked whether he could relocate in China where the authorities were more lenient with family churches, the applicant stated that this was not possible since the new administration took over.
While the delegate found the applicant’s claims to be a committed Christian were vague she put to him the country information indicating that he could practice his religion freely either in house church or in the state sanctioned church. He claimed that China tells other countries what they want to hear and house churches are not safe even in coastal areas. He has heard stories of churches being torn down and crosses being destroyed.
Having considered the applicant’s oral evidence the delegate formed the view his evidence raised concerns about the authenticity and credibility of his claims. She did not accept his claims. She formed the view he had fabricated his claims. She found that his lawful departure from China, to [Country 1] and then to Australia, supports a finding that he was not of adverse interest to the authorities as he departed through a major port using his true identity. She concluded that the applicant is not a committed Christian. She was not satisfied he is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations.
When making the application for review the applicant’s migration agent provided a written submission in which he states that the applicant applied for protection because he fears he will be deprived of the freedom to practice his religious Christian faith. He advised he was baptised in his church in China [in] 1998. He claims he will be persecuted if he continues to practice Christianity in China.
Prior to the hearing the representative provided written submissions stating that the applicant was serving in [Church 1] on the third Sunday of each month. He provided an article [regarding] the attitude of [Country 1] towards refugees. He submitted the applicant fears persecution in China based on the recent experience of his church friends in China, and reports on Christians. He submitted that the authorities are imposing strict policies on democracy and religious practice, limiting the freedom to practice religion. He submitted that priests do not disclose their identity when entering China. While the applicant lived in [Country 1] for many years, it is not a signatory to the UN Convention and it does not have a humanitarian refugee program. He submitted the applicant is not articulate but he wants to tell his story. His religious activities will be viewed by the authorities as illegal.

The applicant provided a translated roster indicating that he participated in church activities on particular days and Certificates of Church Membership and Believer’s Baptism, both dated [January] 2017.
The Tribunal has read [name deleted]’ article “[title deleted]”, dated [July] 2018, provided by the representative. It states that [Country 1] has a somewhat dubious record when it comes to refugee protection. They have not signed the Refugee Convention [details deleted]. [details deleted].
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 4 June 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also took evidence from his friend [Mr B]. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages. The applicant’s representative also attended the hearing.
The applicant confirmed that his parents, wife and children reside at his family home in Fuqing where he lived before leaving China. His father and wife are [employed in occupation 1]. His children, aged [age], attend school.
The applicant stated that his wife is a Christian and she goes to family church gatherings on Wednesdays and Sundays. When asked if his father is a Christian, the applicant hesitated but ultimately stated that his father goes every Wednesday and Sunday. When asked why he was hesitant the applicant indicated that his father converted a few years later. The Tribunal asked what the applicant was referring to. He indicated his father converted a few years after 2005. He claimed that his children have been attending underground gatherings since they could understand. He claimed they are baptised but he could not remember when. He claimed that his wife was baptised before they married. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he was baptised and he claimed that he was, but he could not remember when. The Tribunal indicated that it may be concerned that the applicant could not remember when he was baptised. He then indicated he was baptised [in] December 1998. The Tribunal noted that the applicant and his representative had provided 3 different dates for his baptism; [October] 1998, [December] 1998 and [1998]. It asked the applicant if he had any explanation for the inconsistency. He indicated he had nothing to say.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about his living arrangements in Australia. He indicated that he has been living in [Suburb 1] since he arrived in 2015. His church friend found the accommodation. He had contact with his church friend before he came to Australia. The Tribunal asked the applicant for the friend’s name. He could not remember.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about his employment in Australia. He indicated he works [in an occupation] for about 40 hours a week. He does not pay any tax. His employer just gives him cash in hand. He does not know about tax. He sends about [amount] to China per month.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about his religious practice in [Country 1]. He claimed that he went to church gatherings on Sundays. The Tribunal asked the applicant about the location of the church. He indicated it was near his [workplace]. The Tribunal asked about the name of the church. He indicated he could not remember. The Tribunal asked for the name of the pastor of the church. He could not remember. The Tribunal asked if he had attended the same church for the 7 years that he was in [Country 1] and he confirmed this was the case. The Tribunal asked why he could not remember the name of the church and pastor if he attended the church weekly for 7 years. He indicated it was because his English is not good. The Tribunal asked about the language used at the church. He indicated it was Cantonese which he speaks a little. It asked for the Cantonese name of the church and pastor. He could not remember.
The Tribunal explained to the applicant that his inability to remember details of his church in [Country 1] might cast doubt on his claim that he attended every Sunday for 7 years. It asked the applicant if he wrote his own claims made in the visa application which are very detailed. He confirmed that he did. The Tribunal asked why he was able to provide much more detail in his written claims that he could in his oral evidence. He then indicated he only wrote part of it and his representative had written some of the claims.
The Tribunal asked the applicant what he did in the church in [Country 1]. He indicated he gave out flyers to passers-by. The Tribunal asked what else he did while attending the church in [Country 1]. He indicated he helped with the reception of new members. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his Christian worship in [Country 1]. He indicated he just assisted with the reception of new members.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he read the Bible as was claimed in the written statement. He indicated that he did. The Tribunal noted that in the written statement he had quoted Genesis. It asked the applicant to talk about Genesis. He indicated that God asked Noah to build an ark and there were birds in the sky; 7 male birds and 7 female birds. The Tribunal asked the applicant about the name of the first book in the New Testament. He indicated it was Genesis. The Tribunal asked the applicant to confirm the name of the first book in the New Testament as he had indicated in his written statement that this was the Testament he preferred. He indicated it was Genesis. Later in his evidence he indicated the first book was Matteo. The Tribunal asked the applicant about the difference between the Old and New Testaments. He indicated that the Old Testament was about Moses and the Ten Commandments. The New Testament was telling people about God. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had indicated in his written statement that he preferred the New Testament. It asked why. The applicant indicated that in chapter 2, John, there was a wedding reception where the water was changed to wine. The Tribunal asked the applicant how well he knows the Bible. He indicated he knows it very well. He stated there were 27 books in the New Testament and 39 in the Old Testament. However when asked about the last book in the Old Testament he could not remember.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about his Christian practice when he was at school in China. He indicated that he did not practice at school, just at home. The Tribunal asked him to describe that practice. He indicated that he practised after school and in the holidays. The Tribunal noted that in his written claims he indicated that during middle school he helped older people by reading the Bible and translating for them when the guest speaker preached in Mandarin. He confirmed that this was the case. He claimed that he translated for the old people into their dialect. The Tribunal asked what else he did in his Christian practice. He claimed that he led them to sing. He claimed he was a leader. The Tribunal asked if he had any other evidence to give about his Christian practice. He indicated that sometimes, as a teenager, he visited sick people. The Tribunal asked where he practiced. He indicated it was at his grandmother’s home in the school holidays. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he attended other gatherings during the school term. He claimed that sometimes after school he went to family gatherings at his grandparents’ home. It was not far away; [number] minutes by bike.
The Tribunal asked about the applicant’s Christian practice in China immediately before he came to Australia. He indicated that in China, between [Country 1] and Australia, he went to family gatherings on Wednesdays, to read the Bible, and on Sundays to listen to [Pastor A] preach.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about the sacraments or rites that he has celebrated. He indicated he has celebrated the birth of Jesus. They also sing hymns. When asked if he had any other evidence to give on this he indicated he had nothing else to say.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he was aware of the differences between the underground church and the state church. The applicant indicated that the underground church has no age limit for children but the government church does not allow children to attend. The Tribunal asked if he was aware of any differences in terms of worship. He indicated that the government church imposes sanctions and the practice has to be approved. This is not required in the family gatherings. The Tribunal asked the applicant what is worshipped in the state church. He indicated that they are strict and do not allow the ridding of ghosts if someone is sick. He claimed that he had attended the state church, the Three Self Patriotic church, in his village. The Tribunal asked if he knew the name of the church. He could not remember.
The Tribunal asked the applicant to describe his Christian practice in Australia. He indicated he goes to church on Friday, a group reading study, and on Sunday. The Tribunal asked if there is anything else he wanted to say about his Christian practice. He said that he helps with the safety inspection once a month. The Tribunal asked about his church’s denomination. He indicated it was Christian, literally translated as [Suburb 2 society]. The Tribunal noted that the applicant lived in [Suburb 1]. It asked why he went to church in [Suburb 2]. He indicated as soon as he got there he felt at home. The Tribunal noted that [Suburb 1] and [Suburb 2] are not in close proximity. It asked why he chose to go to a church so far from his home. He indicated that a church friend drove him. The Tribunal asked who told him about the church in [Suburb 2]. He indicated that at first, it was in [Suburb 1] but last year (in 2018) it moved to [Suburb 2] because the church in [Suburb 1] was not big enough to accommodate all its followers. The Tribunal checked [Church 1] website and explained to the applicant that it was established in 1991. The applicant indicated that their church bought that church, renovated it and moved to it. The Tribunal asked the name of the church in [Suburb 1]. He could not remember.
The Tribunal noted that the delegate was concerned that the applicant was unable to get a letter of support from his church. The applicant indicated that a support letter had to be approved by the Church committee unanimously. The Tribunal asked why he did not ask the church committee for a letter of support. The applicant indicated that the committee met after the interview with the delegate.
The Tribunal asked the applicant to explain why Christianity is important to him. He indicated he can get eternal life if he believes in Christianity.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why he does not want to go back to China. He indicated that he is worried he will be persecuted because he will not go to the registered church. The Tribunal noted on his evidence his family members have been able to go to the family church. He indicated that last year his parents were caught and held in custody for 5 days.
The Tribunal asked the applicant how he would practice if you returned to China. He indicated he would go to family gatherings. The Tribunal asked if anything else had happened to the applicant to make him fearful of returning to China. He indicated that on [a specific day] in 2005 the police attended his grandparents’ home where they were gathering and he was cross-examined. The Tribunal asked who else was present during that gathering. He indicated the brothers and sisters from the village. He indicated it happened before he married. The Tribunal asked if anything else happened to the applicant. He indicated in September 2007 he was cross-examined by the public security. He then indicated that he was not cross-examined; he met to university students from Beijing who were cross-examined. The Tribunal asked about those students. He indicated they went to [University 1]. The Tribunal noted that in his written application he had indicated they went to [another university]. The applicant thought it was [University 1].
The Tribunal asked the applicant why he came to Australia. He indicated it was because of freedom of religion in Australia. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he would leave his parents, wife and children while they continued to practice Christianity if he was fearful of the authorities. He indicated he was worried about his family. The Tribunal asked if he had come here to work. He denied coming to Australia to work.
The Tribunal noted the country information (the DFAT Country Information Report, People’s Republic of China, 21 December 2017) indicates there are millions of unregistered, practising Protestants in China, estimated at between 30 million and 60 million and in the main they are able to practice their religion so long as they worship in small groups, and do not have foreign affiliations or develop influential networks. It noted that it is the leaders of unregistered churches who are under greater scrutiny. The Tribunal explained that it may not be satisfied the applicant would come to the adverse attention of the authorities. The applicant indicated that if others attracted the adverse attention that would be okay but if it happened to him it would be different.
The Tribunal noted the applicant has claimed that there are stories of certain churches being torn down and crucifixes being removed. It asked how he would be harmed by that. He indicated that he has been given a warning - if he continues to practice he will be arrested. The Tribunal asked when this occurred. He indicated it was [in] December 2005. The Tribunal questioned why the authorities would still be interested in him, nearly 14 years later. He indicated they still have his record because his parents were arrested last year.
The Tribunal asked how he was able to leave China lawfully if he was of adverse interest to the authorities, noting the DFAT report indicates that there is monitoring at borders. He indicated that the customs officers wanted him to leave the country and go away as far as possible. The Tribunal questioned why they would want this. He indicated it was because the police and the religion bureau will not have to do unnecessary jobs if he is out of the country. The Tribunal questioned why the police and religion bureau would be interested in him. He indicated that it was because he was a member of an underground church.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he had any other evidence he wished to be taken into account. He indicated he had no other evidence to give.
The Tribunal then took oral evidence from the applicant’s witness, [Mr B]. He told the Tribunal he met the applicant in 2016 [at a location]. He indicated he also goes to [Suburb 2] Church. He was taken there by the applicant. He has been in Australia since 2003 as his father holds permanent residence. He believes the applicant is a devoted Christian. The Tribunal asked if he had any other evidence to give. He indicated he had no other evidence.
The representative did not have any submissions to make.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).
Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and relevant country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Nationality
The applicant claims to be a citizen of China and has provided to the Department a copy of his Chinese passport. The Tribunal notes the delegate considered the material referred to in the purported s.438 certificate but was satisfied that the applicant’s evidence regarding his identity is reliable and genuine. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a citizen of China. The Tribunal finds that China is his receiving country for the purpose of assessing his claims for protection. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant has the right to enter and reside in any other country for the purposes of the Act.
Does the applicant have a well-founded fear of persecution?
The applicant claims to fear harm in China because of his Christian religion and membership of, and attendance at, underground church. He claims he left China as he wanted religious freedom and he feared persecution in China because of his religious practice. He claims to have been raised as an underground Christian and that his mother and grandparents held family church gatherings in their homes. He claims his family has continued to practise as underground Christians since he came to Australia in 2015. He claims that he helped elders to read the Bible and sing hymns and by translating from Mandarin to their dialect. He claims he was a leader in the family church. He claims he printed sections of the Bible to be used in preaching and photocopied songs. He claims to read the Bible and to know it very well. He claims that if he returns to China he will be arrested and persecuted because he will not go to the registered church; he will go to family gatherings. He claims he was baptised.

The applicant also claims that [in] December 2005 his family gathering at his grandparents’ home was raided by the public security. They were told to disperse and not to gather without permission and warned about holding illegal gatherings. They were told to go to the Three Self Patriotic church (TSPM). [Pastor A] however told him that the TSPM was controlled and regulated by the government to promote the interests of the CCP. The applicant claims he went to the registered church but found it to be as [Pastor A] had described.
The applicant also claims that in September 2007 while attending worship at his grandmother’s home he met 2 university students who told him that the police had raided their Sunday gathering and they were warned that the University would be notified if they continue to hold unauthorised religious meetings and they would not be allowed to graduate. The applicant claims that since then he felt threatened and scared that he would be arrested by the authorities because of his Christian religion. He claims that he then decided he needed to find a place where he could practice his Christian faith and spread God’s word without fear.
The applicant claims he practised as a Christian from April 2008 to May 2015, while living and working in [Country 1]. He did not claim protection as God told him that [Country 1] was not the right place to do so because of its political policies and close ties to China. The applicant claims that when he returned to China a friend assisted him to apply for a visa to Australia. The applicant claims that he has been practising as a Christian in Australia since he arrived by attending [Church 1] every Friday and Sunday.
The applicant claims that while his family were able to practice as underground Christians in the past since the current leader, Xi Jinping, came to power the policy of restricting religion has been severely tightened, churches have been demolished and crucifixes removed. He claims that his parents were caught attending a family gathering and held in custody for 5 days.
The applicant claims to have practised as a Christian in Australia since he arrived in June 2015.
The Tribunal has taken into account all of the applicant’s written and oral evidence including the Certificates of Church Membership and Believer’s Baptism dated [January] 2017, the roster indicating the applicant has been serving in [Church 1], and the oral evidence of his witness, [Mr B]. While it accepts that the applicant has been attending the [Church 1] in Australia, for the reasons discussed below the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant is a genuine adherent of the Christian faith.
First, the Tribunal has serious concerns about whether the applicant attended a Christian church in [Country 1]. While he claims to have attended the same church for 7 years, he could not tell the Tribunal the name of the church or its pastor. He indicated he was not aware of these details because his English was not good. However when given an opportunity to provide the evidence in Cantonese, of which he claims he speaks a little, he was still not able to provide those details. The Tribunal also notes he was vague in his oral evidence at the hearing about the location of the church. The Tribunal finds the evidence regarding his worship in that church was highly unpersuasive. When asked to describe his practice he indicated that he gave out flyers to passers-by and helped with the reception of new members. When prompted to give more details about his Christian worship in [Country 1], he repeated that he just assisted with the reception of new members. The Tribunal is of the view the applicant’s description of his Christian practice in [Country 1] is not indicative of a genuine Christian. It is not satisfied the applicant practised as a Christian in [Country 1]. It has formed the view that he has fabricated this claim. In relation to his evidence and reasoning for not seeking protection in [Country 1], the Tribunal is of the view he did not consider this as he was not practising Christianity in [Country 1] and he did not fear returning to China because of religion.
The Tribunal is of the view the applicant’s description of his Christian practice in China and Australia is vague, limited, and lacking in the detail it considers is reasonable to expect of a person who has been practising as a Christian since childhood. While it takes into account [Mr B’s] evidence that he believes the applicant is a devoted Christian, it notes that the applicant was vague about the date of his own baptism and gave 3 different dates, [October] 1998, [December] 1998 and [1998]. He could not give an explanation for the inconsistency. The Tribunal notes in his written application he claims to have gathered at his mother and grandparents’ home and in other people’s homes. However in his oral evidence to the Tribunal he only mentioned gatherings at his grandparents’ home. Despite claiming to have attended a church in [Suburb 1] since his arrival in Australia in 2015 up until 2018 he could not remember the name of the church. The Tribunal notes he was not able to get a letter of support from that church by the time he saw the delegate in August 2016, over a year after he arrived in Australia. It takes into account his explanation for why he was unable to get the letter but it finds this unpersuasive. It notes from the delegate’s decision record, provided to the Tribunal by the applicant, when he was asked by the delegate about his religious beliefs and what his religion meant to him he merely repeated, “a devout follower will get eternal life otherwise he won’t”. The delegate noted that he was unable to provide any further details of his religious beliefs. Taking into account that the applicant claims to have been an active Christian since childhood, the Tribunal is not satisfied this response is reflective of a genuine adherent of the Christian faith.
The Tribunal raised with the applicant its concern that his oral evidence was not as detailed as his written claims. It takes into account the representative’s claim that the applicant is not articulate and the applicant’s evidence at the hearing that his representative wrote some of his claims. However he did not deny any of the claims made. When asked how well he knew the Bible, he told the Tribunal that he knows the Bible very well. The Tribunal raised with him that his written claims emphasise his reading of the Bible, his preference for the New Testament because of its parables and miracles, his experience in translating religious material for older people to help them read the Bible and his various quotes from the Bible in his written statement. He did not deny any of these claims. In these circumstances the Tribunal formed the view that it was reasonable to ask him questions about the Bible. It notes however that his responses were cursory and very basic. For example when asked about Genesis he gave a very brief description of the story of Noah’s Ark. When asked to name the first book of the New Testament, initially he indicated it was Genesis. It took him some time to remember the first book of the New Testament is Matthew. While he could tell the Tribunal that there were 27 books in the New Testament and 39 in the Old Testament he did not know the name of the last book in the Old Testament. This in itself does not mean the applicant is not a genuine Christian. However in his circumstances, where he has claimed to have been reading the Bible for many years, and to know it well, the Tribunal considers it reasonable to expect that the applicant would have a better knowledge of the Bible than reflected by his oral evidence. On this basis, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has been a regular reader of the Bible. It is not satisfied that he typed and printed sections of the Bible to be used in preaching or that he assisted older people by reading the Bible to them. While he might attend a group reading study at [Church 1], the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is genuinely interested in the Bible. It has concerns that he has been attending [Church 1] merely for the purpose of his protection visa application.
The Tribunal also notes that the applicant’s evidence regarding the incident in 2007 was inconsistent and vague. Initially in his oral evidence he indicated that he was cross-examined in 2007. It appeared to the Tribunal that he then realised that his evidence was incorrect and he amended it to say that it was the university students who were cross-examined. The Tribunal notes that he struggled to remember the name of the University the students attended. It formed the view that the applicant had manufactured this claim. It is not satisfied the applicant attended a family gathering in 2007 where he met university students who told him that their gathering had been raided by the police. It is not satisfied he then became fearful and thought he needed to leave China to practice his religion without fear of persecution or arrest. It has formed the view the applicant manufactured these claims.
Having considered all of the applicant’s evidence and claims, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant was an underground Christian in China since childhood. It does not accept he printed sections of the Bible for preaching, or helped elders to understand the Bible or guest speakers or that he photocopied songs or sang hymns. It does not accept that he was a church leader. It does not accept that he and his family were warned in 2005 to not hold illegal gatherings or that they were told to go to the state sanctioned church. Having regard to the country information set out in DFAT’s report[1] and more recent media coverage, the Tribunal accepts that the current Chinese government has called for the ‘sinicising’ of religion to ensure that religious rights do not impinge on the CCP’s authority and to impose large fines for organising an illegal religious events. There is also evidence indicating that churches have been demolished and crucifixes have been removed[2]. However the Tribunal is not satisfied that these events have affected or harmed the applicant in any way, or that the government’s stand on Christianity in the future will impact the applicant in any way.
[1] DFAT Country Information Report Peoples Republic of China, 21 December 2017, pages 15 to 19
[2] ‘Three-Self Gospel Church Was Demolished in Fujian’, Bitter Winter, 16 June 2018 ; ‘More Zhejiang churches to be torn down in demolition campaign’, South China Morning Post, 20 June 2014
The applicant has claimed he came to Australia in June 2015 because wanted to practice his religion freely without fear of arrest or persecution. The Tribunal is not satisfied that this was the applicant’s reason for coming to Australia. While he claims he was assisted by a church friend to find accommodation in Australia, he could not remember that friend’s name. The Tribunal is of the view the applicant has fabricated his evidence regarding his Christian background and activity in China and [Country 1] to rationalise his decision to remain in Australia and apply for a protection once his [temporary] visa expired. It is of the view the applicant first attended a Christian church in Australia and his reason for doing so was solely for the purpose of making protection claims. It does not accept he wishes to spread God’s word or the gospel. It is not satisfied the applicant is a genuine adherent of the Christian faith. Nor is it satisfied he will attend underground Christian gatherings or the state sanctioned church if he returns to China.
The applicant has claimed that his family, including his children, have continued to practice as underground Christians since he arrived in Australia. It notes however that he could not remember when his children were baptised. He has now claimed that he parents were caught and detained for 5 days in 2018. Considered overall the Tribunal is not satisfied that this occurred. It is of the view the applicant has fabricated this evidence to bolster his claim that he now fears returning to China. The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant’s family members have practised, or are currently practising, as underground Christians. Overall the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant fears returning to China for reason of his religion, or for any other reason.
The Tribunal notes the applicant has been able to depart China lawfully, when he travelled to [Country 1] in 2008 and when he travelled to Australia in 2015. When it raised with him that he was able to leave China lawfully indicating he is not of adverse interest to the authorities, he indicated that the customs officers wanted him to leave the country so that the police and religion bureau would not have to do unnecessary jobs. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Chinese authorities would have allowed the applicant to depart China lawfully if he was of adverse interest to the authorities. It is not satisfied the applicant is of adverse interest to the authorities because of membership of an underground church or for any other reason. The Tribunal is satisfied that if the applicant returns to China he will not do so with an adverse profile. It has formed the view that the applicant has manufactured this claim.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant believes he will be persecuted if he returns to China. It is not satisfied that he or any member of his family has or will participate in any religious activity or any other conduct that will result in his arrest or harm. It has formed the view the applicant came to Australia to work and achieve his preferred migration outcome; permanent residence in Australia. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for reason of his religion or for any other reason set out in the Act, or that there is a real chance that he would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of China. Therefore, he does not meet the definition of refugee. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a) of the Act.
Does the applicant meet the complementary protection criteria?
As the Tribunal has found that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act, it has considered whether he may nevertheless meet the criterion for the grant of a protection visa under the complementary protection criterion.
As indicated above, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant is a genuine adherent of the Christian faith. The Tribunal is not satisfied there is any reliable evidence to suggest the applicant will be of adverse interest to the authorities or that he will suffer any harm if he returns to China. In view of the above findings and on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant or members of his family have suffered harm in China or that there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm if he returns to China.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) 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.
Denise Connolly
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.
…

[2019] AATA 5823

19 June 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction