1616354 (Refugee)

[2019] AATA 6402

1616354 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 6402 (16 September 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1616354

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  China

MEMBER:Irene O’Connell

DATE:16 September 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 16 September 2019 at 3:55pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – religion – Catholicism – member of the underground church – obstructed authorities from taking down a cross at a church – outstanding charges – religious beliefs and practices in China – vague and lacking in details – baptismal certificate issued by an official church – level of religious involvement in Australia – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 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

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 15 September 2016 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The applicant applied for a protection visa on 4 January after arriving in Australia [in] December 2015 on a visitor visa.

2. The applicant is seeking Australia’s protection on the basis of his religion. He claims to be a member of the underground Catholic church in China and that he was detained and  blacklisted. As a consequence his family have been discriminated against and he is unable to earn a livelihood. He claims that if he returns to China he would be unable to freely practice his religion.

3. For the reasons that follow the Tribunal has concluded that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and affirms the delegate’s decision.

   RELEVANT LAW

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Section 5H of the Act defines a refugee, in the case of a person who has a nationality and is outside the country of their nationality, as a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country.

7. Under s.5J(1) of the Act a person is taken to have 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.

8. Section 5J(2)–(5) of the Act further defines the meaning to be attributed to a well-founded fear of persecution in the following manner:

   (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.

9. 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’).

10. ‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s.36(2A) as follows. A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’ and ‘torture’ are further defined in s.5(1) of the Act.

11. Section 36(2B) of the Act sets out certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non-citizen personally.  

    CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

    Claims as set out before the Department  

12. The Tribunal has before it the Department file containing the applicant’s protection visa application, a recording of the applicant’s interview with the delegate, held on 15 September 2016, and the decision record of the delegate.

13. The applicant provided the following information in his application. He states that he was born on [date]. He is married and has two children. His family reside in Fuzhou, Fujian. He lists [number] years of education and states he has completed schooling up to [specified level]. He lists his occupation as [Occupation 1].  

14. The applicant set out the following in response to questions in the application as to why he left his country and what he thinks would happen if he returns. He claims that he left China because he is a Catholic and he was administratively detained after he attempted to prevent the authorities from removing a cross from a church.

15. He claims that the Chinese authorities will persecute him and his family because he would continue to practice his Catholic faith if he returns to China. He states his family would be deprived of a livelihood in China as he would be unable to conduct his business because of his religious beliefs and practices.

16. The applicant did not provide a statement with his application but he did provide the following documents in support of his claims.

    ·Photographs of the applicant attending church and a photograph of the removal of a cross from a building and a photograph of a person restrained by two officials.

    ·A translated copy of a Certificate of Baptism issued in the applicant’s name dated [in] December 2006 and issued from [a named] Catholic Church Fuzhou City.

    ·Translated copy of a National Publicity System of Enterprise Credit Information notice.

    ·Letter of support from [Mr A], President of [a Catholic] Community (dated [in] September 2016) stating that the applicant attends their church and attends catechism classes.

    Claims before the Tribunal

17. The applicant did not make written submission to the Tribunal. He did however give oral evidence to the Tribunal at a hearing conducted on 8 August 2019. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter. The applicant was unrepresented at the hearing.

18. In his oral evidence the applicant set out the following. His immediate family resides in China as do his father and his siblings. His mother passed away when he was [age] years of age.  He stated that all members of his family are Catholics.

19. In response to the question of why he is in need of Australia’s protection he stated that [in] September 2015 he was charged and detained for three days after he tried to obstruct the authorities from taking down a cross at a church. He stated that the authorities were seeking to demolish the church in order to build a shopping centre. After his arrest the authorities went to his house to search for Catholic materials.

20. The applicant was vague about charges laid against him stating that nothing further eventuated after his release from detention. The Tribunal noted that the applicant departed China in December of that same year and asked the applicant how he was able to do so, given that he had an outstanding charge. The applicant responded that the general manager of the tourist company who had had arranged his visit to Australia facilitated his departure.

21. The applicant stated that he believes that his name was placed on a blacklist after his departure from China and that as a result of this his [child] was prevented from securing a government job despite having achieved outstanding results at school and university.

22. In regard to his religious beliefs and practices the applicant stated that all members of his family are Catholic and that he was brought up as a Catholic. In terms of his religious practices in China he stated that he attended church on Sundays except when he was busy with work. He stated that for some time he was employed on [a work project] and this prevented him from attending church.

23. He stated that in Australia he attends church on Sunday but that as he is currently engaged in [a work project] at [location] he has been unable to attend church. He stated that because of work commitments he attends church on a monthly basis.

24. When asked about his religious beliefs, the applicant stated that his religion is his life and hope and that he relies on the Holy Spirit. 

25. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had provided a baptismal certificate giving as his date of baptism December 2006; that is when he was [age] years of age. The Tribunal asked how this was to be reconciled with his earlier statement that he was always a Catholic and he came from a Catholic family. The applicant stated that his mother had died when he was [age] years of age and had been sick for some time. His father was very busy with work and so had no time to arrange for his baptism. When asked why then he was baptised at [age] years of age the applicant stated that he was baptised to wash away all his previous sins.

26. The Tribunal indicated to the applicant that it was for the applicant to make out his case to the Tribunal and asked the applicant if he could elaborate in more detail on his religious beliefs. In response the applicant recited the Apostle’s Creed. He volunteered to recite the Our Father and stated that he hoped for everlasting life and to go to heaven after he dies.

27. In terms of the difference between the underground church and the official church the applicant stated that the government banned Catholicism in China. The Tribunal put to the applicant that the delegate had noted that the church at which the applicant claims to have been baptised is an official government church. The applicant responded that it was the nearest church to him and so he was baptised there.

28. The Tribunal noted the photographs the applicant had submitted to the department. The applicant indicated that the photographs were taken of him at the Catholic Church in [Suburb 1], Sydney.

    Country information

29. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to have regard to relevant country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (‘DFAT’) expressly for protection status determination purposes. The Tribunal has had regard to the DFAT Country Information Report, People’s Republic of China (dated 21 December 2017).

30. The Tribunal has also had regard to the following country research sourced from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada titled Exit controls and security measures at airports for Chinese citizens travelling overseas, including procedures at check points and the use of computerized identity verification; sharing of information with official at airports (2011-February 2014) and dated 6 March 2014.

    The Entry-Exit Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China regulates the movement of people across China’s borders. Article 5 acknowledges that the state maintains ‘a uniform exit-entry administration information platform to achieve information sharing among relevant administrative departments’. Article 11 states that ‘Chinese citizens exiting or entering China shall present their own passports or other travel credentials and other exit-credentials to the exit-entry border inspection authorities for verification and comply with the prescribed procedures and may exit or enter China only after being permitted to do so upon verification’. Article 12 prescribes under which circumstances a Chinese citizen is prohibited from exiting China:

    (1) The Chinese citizen does not hold any valid exit-entry credentials or refuses or evades border inspection;

    (2) The Chinese citizen has not finished serving a criminal sentence or is the accused or a suspect in a criminal case;

    (3) The Chinese citizen is prohibited from exiting China as decided by a people's court for involvement in a pending civil case;

    (4) The Chinese citizen has received a criminal penalty for disrupting national border administration or has been repatriated by any other county or region for illegal exit from China, illegal residence or illegal employment and the prescribed period of prohibition from exiting China has not expired;

    (5) The Chinese citizen is prohibited from exiting China as decided by the relevant competent department of the State Council because the national security or interest may be compromised; or

    (6) Other circumstances as set out by laws and administrative regulations under which the Chinese citizen is prohibited from exiting China.

31. The Tribunal also had recourse to A Background Paper of the Refugee Review Tribunal on Catholicism in China (dated December 2012).

    Chinese Catholicism – state-sanctioned and underground – is generally more conservative than in other parts of the world, having largely bypassed the reforms of the Second Vatican Council of 1963-4, which modernised Catholicism. The conservative nature of Chinese Catholicism derives from the counter-Reformation version of Catholicism that Jesuit missionaries brought to China in the late 16^th century, which emphasised the contrasts between it and Protestantism.[1] Notwithstanding this, there is little definitive information available on the beliefs and practices of the official Catholic Church, and even less definitive information on those of the underground Catholic Church in China. Furthermore, on doctrinal matters, there appears to be little difference between the two churches and it is difficult to distinguish members of the underground and open churches solely on the basis of their practices and rituals.[2]  Like Catholics around the world, both the official and the underground churches believe in the truth of the Bible, as interpreted by the church, accept the authority of priests to administer the sacraments, practice the seven Catholic sacraments of baptism, Eucharist (or communion), reconciliation (or confession), confirmation, holy orders, matrimony, and anointing of the sick, and believe in the concepts of sin, heaven, hell, salvation, miracles, god’s grace, and the importance and divinity of Jesus.[3] Similarly Mary is revered by Chinese Catholics, and a Marion Cult of devotion and prayer to Mary is strong in China.[4]

    In terms of the broader Catholic community in China, practising Chinese Catholics would normally be exposed to the Catholic practices of baptism and communion. Baptism is seen as important for Chinese Catholics, and they believe that only baptised Catholics can go to heaven. In areas where there is a shortage of priests, parents or grandparents are known to conduct a provisional baptism (daixi) for newborn infants by pouring water over the child’s head and uttering the ritual formula “I baptise thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost”.[5] When a priest becomes available, the child will be formally baptised. There are no standardised baptismal certificates issued within underground Catholic churches, nor are certificates issued as a matter of course. Such certificates might be an informal, hand-drawn document written in Chinese.[6] No information has been located on the issuing of baptismal certificates by the official Catholic Church of China.

    According to the Catholic news agency, Asia News IT, Chinese Catholics divide themselves into three categories according to the different levels of devotion: those who pray every day; those who go to mass every Sunday; and those who attend mass during the four principal feasts of the year: Easter, Pentecost, the Assumption and Christmas. ^[7]  Christmas sees the greatest participation, as Catholics from the official and underground churches prepare themselves during Advent with special prayer groups, confessions and novenas (nine days of private or public devotion in the Catholic Church to obtain special graces), and by preparing the Christmas hymns.[8]

    The three most popular devotions in mainland China are to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Our Lady, and St. Joseph.[9] Devotions can be understood as external practices of piety that are not part of the official liturgy of the Catholic Church but are part of the popular spiritual practices of Catholics. Of these three, devotions to Our Lady (Blessed Virgin/Mary) figure prominently in Chinese Catholic practice. Marian apparitions play an important part in the Chinese Catholic spiritual imagination and in many Catholic homes portraits of Mary as a brown-haired European woman dressed in blue can be found. Because Catholic doctrine teaches that Mary acts as a direct intermediary between the adherent and God, for many Chinese Catholics, Marian devotion provides a legitimate way to circumvent the politics surrounding the breach between the official and underground churches.[10] In addition to the above traditional devotions, which are part of the core identity of Chinese Catholics, most Chinese Catholics pray the Holy Rosary daily.[11] In particular, reciting the Rosary is central to Marian devotion; one colloquial name for Catholics in the countryside of north China is Old Rosary Sayers.[12]

    While underground Catholics often argue that sacraments performed by official Church priests are invalid, on doctrinal matters there is very little difference between the two churches and it is difficult to distinguish members of the underground and open churches solely on the basis of their practices and rituals.[13] For example, the format and prayer involved in a Catholic baptism in the underground and official churches are the same. However, the underground Catholic Church is prohibited from performing baptism openly.[14]

    Unorthodox practices, such as quasi-magical practices of healing and exorcism, that seem more related to Chinese folk religion, have also been reported in rural Catholic communities which, being cut off from official Vatican control, have maintained significant autonomy.[15] 

    [1] Madsen, R. 2003, ‘Catholic Revival During the Reform Era’, The China Quarterly, vol. 174, pp. 476-467

    [2] Liu, William T. & Leung, Beatrice 2002, ‘Organizational Revivalism: Explaining Metamorphosis of China’s Catholic Church’, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41:1, p.125 

    [3] Madsen, R. 1998, China’s Catholics: Tragedy and Hope in an Emerging Civil Society, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, pp. 86-90.

    [4] Madsen, R. 1998, China’s Catholics: Tragedy and Hope in an Emerging Civil Society, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, pp. 87-88.

    [5] Madsen, R. 1998, China’s Catholics: Tragedy and Hope in an Emerging Civil Society, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, pp. 54-56, 86-88.

    [6] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2004, CHN42650.E – China: Whether underground Catholic Churches issue baptismal certificates; if so, in what language, 8 June

    [7] Huaide, Chang 2007, ‘Underground and Official Catholics prepare themselves for Christ’s birth’, Asia News, 19 December

    [8] Huaide, Chang 2007, ‘Underground and Official Catholics prepare themselves for Christ’s birth’, Asia News, 19 December Madsen, R. 1998, China’s Catholics: Tragedy and Hope in an Emerging Civil Society, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, pp.1-2.

    [9] Clark, A.E., 2006, ‘Two Chinese Churches? Or One? An Interview with Fr. Daniel Cerezo, Comboni Missionaries of the Heart of Jesus’, Ignatius Insight website, June.

    [10]  Madsen, R. 1998, China’s Catholics: Tragedy and Hope in an Emerging Civil Society, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, p. 88.

    [11] Clark, A.E., 2006, ‘Two Chinese Churches? Or One? An Interview with Fr. Daniel Cerezo, Comboni Missionaries of the Heart of Jesus’, Ignatius Insight website, June  Madsen, R. 1998, China’s Catholics: Tragedy and Hope in an Emerging Civil Society, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, p. 90.

    [13] Madsen, Richard, University of California, San Diego, Department of Sociology, 26 January 2000. Telephone interview cited in Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2000, ‘Catholic Practice in China’, CHN33598.EX – China: Catholic Church and Catholicism in China; treatment of Catholics; relations between the underground and open Churches; differences between Catholic worship in China and elsewhere; differences in practice between the underground Church and the open Church; beliefs, practices, holidays and ceremonies; update to CHN33002.EX of 8 October 1999 regarding Christians in Fujian,27 January.

    [14] Madsen, R. 1998, China’s Catholics: Tragedy and Hope in an Emerging Civil Society, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, pp. 86-88.

    [15] Madsen, R. 1998, China’s Catholics: Tragedy and Hope in an Emerging Civil Society, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, p. 101.

FINDINGS AND REASONS

Country of reference

1. On the basis of the applicant’s passport provided to the Tribunal at the hearing, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a national of China. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that this country is the country of reference with respect to the refugee criteria and the receiving country in respect to the complementary protection criteria.

   Does the applicant have a well-founded fear of persecution and should he return to China?

2. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is, or was, a member of the Catholic underground church in China. The Tribunal makes this finding on the basis of the applicant’s oral evidence which the Tribunal found to be lacking in relevant detail and at times inconsistent. When asked at the hearing to elaborate on his religious beliefs and practices the applicant spoke in generalities only. Thus for example when discussing his religious practices he referred to going to church and qualified this by explaining that he went only when his work commitments allowed time for him to attend church. When asked about his religious beliefs, the applicant responded by reciting the Apostles Creed and the Our Father and stated that he hoped for heaven and that his religion was his life and hope.

3. In terms of the claimed baptismal certificate provided by the applicant in support of his claims the Tribunal notes that it is inconsistent with his claim to have been a Catholic all his life. When this inconsistency was raised with the applicant at the hearing he claimed that his mother was ill and that his father very busy. However given the importance of baptism to underground Catholics as indicated in the country information (set out above at paragraph 31), the Tribunal does not find this to be a plausible explanation.

4. Further as discussed with the applicant at the hearing the delegate in his decision record indicated that the baptismal certificate issued from [a named] Catholic Church seems to be an official church not an underground church. The applicant’s response to this, that it was the closest church to him, is inconsistent with someone claiming adherence to and participation in an underground Catholic church.

5. When considered collectively the points set out above lead the Tribunal to conclude that the applicant is not, nor ever was, a member of the Catholic underground church.

6. The Tribunal does accept that the applicant has attended a Catholic church in Sydney. The applicant provided to the Department photographs of him at [Church 1] at [Suburb 2] Sydney and has also provided a letter of support from [a Catholic] Community (dated September 2016) indicating that the applicant has attended that church since January 2016. He did not however provide to the Tribunal any updated or current documentation in respect to his religious practices in Australia.

7. The applicant’s evidence at the hearing was that he did not regularly attend church but only occasionally, on approximately a monthly basis. The applicant explained that he was busy with work and is involved in [a work project] in [location] and for this reason was unable to attend church. The Tribunal finds on the applicant’s evidence that he has had sporadic involvement with and attendance at a Catholic church in Australia. His recital of the Apostles Creed and Our Father is commensurate with someone attending a Catholic Mass.

8. In light of this level of involvement in Catholic religious activities in Australia the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s religious practices and beliefs are of a degree and kind that there does not exist a real chance that he would face persecution from Chinese authorities if he was to seek to pursue his religious activities in this same manner on return to China.

9. Nor does the Tribunal accept that this level of religious involvement would necessitate that the applicant would need to modify his religious practices or beliefs to avoid harm from the authorities on his return to China.

10. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was detained and charged by Chinese authorities because he was involved in an incident of disrupting the removal of a cross. The applicant in his evidence referred to the demolishing of a church for the building of a shopping centre but provided limited and vague detail as to how he attempted to disrupt this activity. He provided a photograph of a cross being moved by a crane. The Tribunal does not consider that this photograph of itself adds any weight to the applicant’s claim to have obstructed the removal of a cross from a church. Nor does the Tribunal place weight on the photograph of a man being restrained by what appears to be two police officers.

11. When the applicant was asked for details about charges against him and the outcome of them the applicant spoke in general and vague terms. As discussed with the applicant at the hearing the country information indicates that a person could not depart China if there are outstanding charges against them. The Tribunal put to the applicant that given that he did depart China without event it would be reasonable to consider that there were no charges laid against him. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s explanation that the general manager of the tourist company managed his exit from China. The country information set out above at paragraph 30 indicates that citizens must present their own passports.  

12. As the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was involved in an incident with the Chinese authorities nor charged or detained the Tribunal does not accept the consequential claims. That is the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is or was on a blacklist; that the applicant’s family have faced discrimination because of the applicant being placed on a blacklist or that the applicant would be unable to find work because he is blacklisted.

13. 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).

    Is there a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm on his return to China?

14. 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) that being whether on the evidence there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed to China.

15. For all the reasons given above, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant faces a real risk of significant harm as a consequence of being removed from Australia to China. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

    CONCLUSION

16. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).

    DECISION

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

    Irene O'Connell
    Deputy Division Head