1618964 (Refugee)

[2018] AATA 2273

1618964 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 2273 (20 June 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1618964

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Cambodia

MEMBER:Christopher Smolicz

DATE:20 June 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 20 June 2018 at 11:39am

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Cambodia – Business debt – Harm – Fears physical harm from money lenders – Real chance of serious harm –  Social group – ‘Single/separated women in Cambodia’ – Domestic violence victim – Well-founded fear of persecution – Decision under review remitted for consideration

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 91R, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

CASES
Multicultural Affairs v Khawar (2002) 210 CLR 1

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 and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Cambodia, applied for the visa on 22 July 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa on 10 October 2016.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal by video hearing on 15 May 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Khmer and English languages.

   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, the applicant is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

   Refugee criterion

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 under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).

6. Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:

   owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

7. Sections 91R and 91S of the Act qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the Regulations to a particular person.

8. There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.

9. Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s.91R(1) of the Act, persecution must involve ‘serious harm’ to the applicant (s.91R(1)(b)) and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s.91R(1)(c)). Examples of ‘serious harm’ are set out in s.91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.

10. Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors.

11. Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition – race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase ‘for reasons of’ serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s.91R(1)(a) of the Act.

12. Fourth, an applicant’s fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a ‘well-founded’ fear. This adds an objective element to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution under the Convention if they have genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted for a Convention stipulated reason. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.

13. In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. The expression ‘the protection of that country’ in the second limb of Article 1A(2) is concerned with external or diplomatic protection extended to citizens abroad. Internal protection is nevertheless relevant to the first limb of the definition, in particular to whether a fear is well-founded and whether the conduct giving rise to the fear is persecution.

14. Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.

    Complementary protection criterion

15. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’).

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

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

    Section 499 Ministerial Direction

18. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines and any country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

19. The issue advanced by the applicant in this case is whether she meets the refugee criterion or comes within Australia’s complementary protection obligations because:

    ·     She is in debt and fears money lenders will harm her if she returns to Cambodia

    ·     She is a member of a particular social group being ‘single/separated women in Cambodia’.

20. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

    Summary of substantive claims

21. The Tribunal sets out the claims advanced by the applicant to engage Australia’s protection obligations. The Tribunal takes these claims from the applicant’s evidence at the hearing, her protection interview and her statutory declaration dated 14 November 2016.

22. The applicant presented at the hearing in a manner the Tribunal perceived to be truthful and credible, and her evidence was consistent with the country information applicable to her particular circumstances, which are detailed below. The Tribunal has decided to wholly accept the applicant’s evidence.

23. The applicant was born in Phnom Phenh, Cambodia. She belongs to the Khmer ethnic group and is a Buddhist. She separated from her first husband before she travelled to Australia. She has two children [age] and [age] who have remained in Cambodia and are being cared for by her mother.

24. The applicant operated a business buying and selling [goods]. She made a poor business decision and took out a business loan from ‘private lenders’ in order to purchase [equipment] from [overseas]. She lost about 20,000 USD. She has accumulated a debt of about 70-80,000 USD with private money lenders.

25. One of her customers suggested that she could travel to Australia and earn money and repay her debt. She was told she could earn about 7,000 USD per month. She decided to travel to Australia for two or three years. She took out a mortgage over her family home and approached an ‘agent’. She was told to give the agent a photograph and her passport and he would organised the paperwork to apply for the visa. The agent promised her work and accommodation in Australia. She paid him a deposit. In total she paid the agent about 25,000 USD.

26. The applicant was instructed to meet the agent at the airport in Cambodia. The agent provided her with a new Cambodian passport which falsely stated she was born on [Date of birth 1]. The agent arranged for to travel to Australia with [young] children who she had never met before. The applicant said she was actually born on [Date of Birth 2] and the agent had changed her date of birth so that it would correspond with the dates of birth of the [children].  At this point she realised that she was being misled and taken advantage of. The applicant was able to provide a copy of a bio-data page from an old passport which in support of her clams that she was born on [Date of Birth 2].

27. On 14 October 2012 the applicant arrived in Australia as the holder of a [temporary visa]. She met a man in [Suburb 1] who took custody of the children. She does not know where the children were taken. She has never seen them again. When she asked about her work and accommodation, she was given a telephone number. She was given no assistance or work. She met some Cambodians who helped her find accommodation. She attempted to ring the agent in Cambodia but there was no response. She felt trapped and cheated. She could not return to Cambodia because she had to find work to pay off her debts.

28. The visa was only valid until 24 October 2012 after which date she remained unlawfully in Australia. She commenced to work as a [occupation]. She found it difficult to save money and repay her debts.

29. She claims that the day she left Cambodia, four people representing the private money lender came to visit her mother and demanded their money. Her mother almost [harmed herself] as a result of fear and stress. Her mother warned her about returning to Cambodia.

30. Two months after coming to Australia she met a man called [Mr A]. [Mr A] was born in Cambodia but had been living in Australia for about 20 years and he was an Australian citizen. They formed a relationship. [Mr A] consumed alcohol excessively and had a gambling problem. [Mr A] became emotionally and physically abusive towards her.

31. She wanted to leave [Mr A] and report his abuse to the police but she did not know where to go. [Mr A] would tell her that no one would believe her because she has travelled illegally to Australia. He told her that he came from a privileged and well connected family in Cambodia and if she told anyone she would also have problems in Cambodia. The applicant kept quiet and did not tell anyone because she feared she would be deported.

32. On 8 July 2014 she was apprehended by the Department of Immigration (the Department) and detained for a few days. She was subsequently granted a bridging visa because [Mr A] said he would sponsor her as his spouse. She married [Mr A] on [date] December 2014.[Details of first pregnancy deleted]. She fell pregnant a second time and in February 2015 she gave birth to [son]. She did not want to get pregnant because she could no longer work.

33. On 31 August 2016 [Mr A] was drunk and physically abusive towards the applicant. [Details of abuse deleted]. The applicant called her mother in Cambodia and told her everything. Her mother told her to leave [Mr A] and seek help. People at her work observed her injuries and the police became involved. The following day she packed her belongings and reported [Mr A] to the police. The applicant provided a detailed account of the family violence she experienced in Australia in her statutory declaration. [Mr A] was charged with aggravated assault against a partner. On [date] November 2016 he pleaded guilty and was convicted and placed on a 12 month good behaviour bond and subject to a final intervention order issued by [the Court].

34. The applicant has provided the Tribunal with a copy of an affidavit which was filed with the [Court], the Intervention Order and Certificate of Record confirming the criminal conviction. She has now lost contact with [Mr A] and does not know where he is. She gave evidence that [Mr A] was abusive towards their son.

35. In assessing the applicant’s claims the Tribunal notes that evidence regarding the family violence was not before the delegate because the violence perpetrated against the applicant only took place after her application for protection visa was lodged.

36. The applicant fears she will be separated from her son if she is deported from Australia. She fears harm from the money lenders if she returns to Cambodia. She also feels guilty because she has been separated from her children in Cambodia.

37. The applicant said that her mother is regularly approached by the money lenders and questioned about her (the applicant’s) whereabouts. The money lenders assume the applicant has money because she went to work in Australia. She claims the money lenders wanted to take her home but it was mortgaged to the bank.

38. The money lenders have reported the applicant and her mother to the police to try to recover the debt. The applicant said the police in Cambodia can easily be bribed by the money lenders who have money and are well connected. She would obtain no protection from the police as a single woman who has no funds and is in debt. She fears she will be arrested and mistreated by the police.

39. The Tribunal questioned the applicant if she could sell the home to pay for the debts. The applicant said that the house is only valued at 10,000 USD and it is subject to a mortgage. Her mother tried to sell her house but there were no buyers. She does not know where her mother and children would live if she sold her house. Her sister is currently helping her with the mortgage repayments.

40. She claims she has only been able to work for about one year in Australia because she fell pregnant in the second year. She was subsequently apprehended by the Department and has no work rights. She is currently being supported by [a charity]. Her son is also in receipt of Centrelink payments because his father is an Australian citizen.

41. It was submitted that children born to an Australian citizen parent who are born in Australia automatically acquire Australian citizenship if one parent is an Australian citizen. The applicant fears that if she has to return to Cambodia she will never see her son again because he is entitled to remain in Australia.

42. She originally intended to travel to Australia for a few years, work and be able to repay her debts. She is now distraught because she has left her two children behind in Cambodia and does not want to leave Australia because she will be harmed by the money lenders.

43. She wants her son to remain in Australia but is not prepared to allow [Mr A] to care for him full time. She claims [Mr A] has been abusive towards the child in Australia.

44. The Tribunal was provided with a supporting letter dated 14 November 2016 from her case manager ([Ms B]) at [Domestic Violence Centre 1]. [Ms B] confirms that she conducted a risk assessment which indicated the applicant has a ‘high risk score of 60’ and she has concerns about the applicant’s mental health due to the impending migration outcomes. It was submitted that if the applicant is separated from her son, this would have a detrimental impact on her psychological state.

45. The applicant claims she would prefer to die than leave her son. In September 2016 [Domestic Violence Centre 1] workers reported to [Mr A] to [Abuse Support Line 1]. In November 2016 a further report was made to [Abuse Support Line 1] following further suicidal thoughts expressed by the applicant.

    Country Information

46. With respect to the applicant’s status as a single mother, independent reports indicate that divorced Cambodian women face social stigma and isolation, economic hardship, and limited options for supporting themselves.[1]

    [1] Cast Aside (Divorced and Bereaved Women Still Lack Equal Rights)’, Peace Women website, source: Legal Aid of Cambodia website, 22 June 2010.

47. Country information supports the applicant’s claim that divorced women do face many obstacles. It is very difficult to be a single mother in Cambodia because she will often be regarded as a ‘bad woman and mother’ and face economic difficulties.[2]

    [2] German Technical Assistance, Human Rights in Cambodia Project and United Nations Development Fund for Women, Violence Against Women: A Baseline Survey, CEDAW South East Asia website, 2005, p.10.

48. More generally, attitudes towards women in Cambodia are strongly influenced by traditional codes of conduct.  There are historically unequal power relations between men and women and pervasive discrimination against women in both the public and private spheres.[3]

    [3] DFAT, Cambodia Ending Violence Against Women: Concept Note, 30 April 2012, p.2

49. In relation to access to state protection, country information confirms that:

    There is limited access to justice for many citizens in Cambodia, especially vulnerable groups – the poor, survivors of domestic violence and rape, ethnic minorities and persons with disabilities. Recent studies suggest that access to the formal justice sector is limited by the resources required to file a complaint, low level of knowledge about relevant laws and judicial processes, and lack of trust in the legal system.

    Violence against women remains a concern. A survey by the Cambodian Ministry of Women’s Affairs found that 22.5 per cent of married women experienced violence in their homes, and a similar percentage were raped by their husbands – with 9 out of 10 victims not seeking legal redress. This reflects social norms, women’s limited knowledge of the law and judicial process, the threat of sanction or stigma, lack of money to pay for legal representation, inadequate survivor assistance services and a lack of trust in justice institutions. Women with disabilities are extremely vulnerable to violence and abuse. It is estimated that 40 per cent of deaf women in Cambodia have been sexually abused.

    …

    The 55,000-strong Cambodian police force is poorly trained and equipped (though improving); routinely charge illegal fees for service and cases are rarely decided on evidence.[4]

    [4] Cambodia Justice Sector Delivery Strategy Delivery Strategy for Australian Contributions to the Law and Justice Sector in Cambodia (pp. 1-2) < type="1">

    Police officers often do not initiate investigations into cases, and when they do they are prone to settle cases on their own, outside of the judicial system, through payment. Sok Sam Oeun, executive director of the Cambodian Defenders’ Project, said, ‘The police believe they don't need to proceed on a case unless there is a complaint. If a body is found floating down the river they don't investigate. They prod the body to let it loose but don't investigate.’ He cited a case where a man was found dead on a roadway. The police came and reported to the hospital that the man was still alive so that they wouldn't have to spend money to take him to the hospital morgue themselves. They did not investigate the case.[5]

    [5] >

    With respect to state protection, Freedom House reported in 2015 that rule of law in Cambodia is generally weak.

    The judiciary is marred by inefficiency, corruption, and a lack of independence… Abuse by law enforcement officers, including illegal detention and the torture of suspects and prisoners, is common. Jails are severely overcrowded, and inmates often lack sufficient food, water, and health care…Women suffer widespread discrimination, particularly in the economic sphere. Rape and violence against women are common…Men, women, and children are frequently trafficked to and from Cambodia for prostitution and forced labor. Cambodian men are often forced to work in slavery-like conditions on fishing vessels in international waters, and women have been drawn into forced prostitution or factory labor after traveling to China for brokered marriages. Corrupt officials reportedly impede anti-trafficking investigations to protect suspects with government ties.[6]

    [6] >

    More recently in 2018, Freedom House reported that ‘The government does not frequently interfere in personal social freedoms, but women suffer widespread social discrimination. Rape and violence against women are common.’[7]

    [7] >

    According to a 2013 NGO-CEDAW Committee report, ‘the existence of legal rules and regulations promoting equality, do not mean that equality is in fact delivered or even guaranteed.[8]

    [8] Cambodian NGO-CEDAW Committee, Shadow Report 2013, p.36 < >

    According to a 2015 International Bar Association Human Rights Institute report, ‘In June 2015, the World Justice Project ranked Cambodia 99th out of 102 countries studied for the strength of the rule of law in them’.[9] Moreover, according to the report, ‘Anecdotal evidence … suggests that judges routinely fail to observe basic standards of professional and ethical conduct in the manner in which they preside over cases and render judgements’.[10]

    [9] International Bar Association Human Rights Institute, Justice versus corruption: Challenges to the independence of the judiciary in Cambodia, September 2015, p.15 <

    [10] International Bar Association Human Rights Institute, Justice versus corruption: Challenges to the independence of the judiciary in Cambodia, September 2015, p.28 <

    According to the US Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2014 – Cambodia, although the law ‘requires police, prosecutors, and judges to investigate all complaints, including those of police abuses … judges and prosecutors rarely conducted an independent investigation as part of a public trial’, effectively allowing police to act with impunity.[11]

    [11] US Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2014 – Cambodia, 25 June 2015, Section d, p.5 <

    The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women in 2013 argued that there was ‘limited progress made in the prevention and elimination of violence against women’ by Cambodia, although the State party had developed ‘a second national action plan for the prevention of violence against women’ during the period 2009-2012. The Committee noted concerns that the ‘the lack of public trust in the justice system and the negative attitudes of judicial officers and law enforcement personnel towards women victims of violence continue to impede the effective prosecution of cases.’ Furthermore, the Committee highlighted the State’s approach to resolving cases of violence towards women through ‘mediation’ to be ineffective as ‘this may discourage women from taking legal action against perpetrators’.[12]

    [12] UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Concluding observations on the combined 4th and 5th periodic reports of Cambodia, 29 October 2013, p.5 <

    Well-founded fear of persecution

    The next issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether the applicant’s has a well-founded fear of persecution for one or more of the grounds under the Convention.

    As detailed above, the Tribunal found the applicant to be a credible witness and has accepted her claims and evidence. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has borrowed money in Cambodia to fund her business and to enable her to travel to Australia. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has only been able to undertake limited work in Australia. She has not been able to save money and has been unable to repay her debts. The Tribunal accepts that her family have been threatened and pressured by the money lenders in Cambodia. The Tribunal accepts that there is a real chance the money lenders would physically harm and seek to extort the applicant because she is not in a position to repay the loan. The Tribunal finds, however, that the harm feared by the applicant is for a personal reason and is not motivated for reasons of her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or her political opinion. 

    The Tribunal acknowledges however the relevant Convention nexus can also be satisfied where there is a discriminatory failure of state protection attributable to one of the five reasons.  For example, Gleeson CJ in Multicultural Affairs v Khawar (2002) 210 CLR 1 observed, (at paragraph 32), that:

    Where persecution consists of two elements, the criminal conduct of private citizens, and the toleration or condonation of such conduct by the state or agents of the state, resulting in the withholding of protection which the victims are entitled to expect, then the requirement that the persecution be by reason of one of the Convention grounds may be satisfied by the motivation of either the criminals or the state.

    Whether a supposed group is a ‘particular social group’ in a society will depend upon all of the evidence, including relevant information regarding legal, social, cultural and religious norms in the country. However, it is not sufficient that a person be a member of a particular social group and also have a well-founded fear of persecution. The persecution must be for reason of the person’s membership of the particular social group.

    With respect to the applicant’s status as a single mother, independent reports indicate that divorced Cambodian women face social stigma and isolation, economic hardship, and limited options for supporting themselves.[13] More generally, attitudes towards women in Cambodia are strongly influenced by traditional codes of conduct.  There are historically unequal power relations between men and women and pervasive discrimination against women in both the public and private spheres.[14]

    [13] Cast Aside (Divorced and Bereaved Women Still Lack Equal Rights)’, Peace Women website, source: Legal Aid of Cambodia website, 22 June 2010.

    [14] DFAT 2012, Cambodia Ending Violence Against women Concept Note, DFAT website, April, p.2

    The Tribunal also notes that most recent medical report dated 31 May 2018 confirms that the applicant has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and depression after a prolonged history of domestic violence. The Tribunal also notes country information that indicates pervasive stigma for those with mental health illnesses in Cambodia, which increases the applicant’s vulnerability on return.[15]

    [15] McLauhlin, D and Wickeri, E, Mental Health and Human Rights in Cambodia, 13 August 2012, p.3 <>

    The Tribunal finds that the applicant fears physical harm from the money lenders. She fears she will not have access to police protection because she is a single/separated woman in Cambodia. The applicant would also face a potential retribution from the authorities because she departed Cambodia on a false passport.

    As detailed above, the UN has reported that there is a lack of public trust in the justice system, and the negative attitudes of judicial officers and law enforcement personnel towards women victims of violence continue to impede the effective prosecution of cases.

    Given the information set out above, the Tribunal finds that there is a systematic and discriminatory failure on the part of the authorities of Cambodia to protect single/separated women from violence perpetrated against them.

    The Tribunal considers that the applicant’s membership of the particular social group of ‘single/separated women’ in Cambodia is the essential and significant reason for the persecution which she fears, and that the persecution feared involves systematic and discriminatory conduct.  Since the information about the unwillingness of the authorities to protect women from violence refers to the whole of Cambodia, the Tribunal accepts that there is no part of that country to which the applicant could reasonably be expected to relocate where she would be safe from the harm that she fears.

    Looking to the reasonably foreseeable future, the Tribunal finds that there is a real chance that the applicant would experience serious harm from money lenders in Cambodia.  The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s personal circumstances and finds that the applicant would not have access to state protection because she is a single/separated woman in Cambodia.

    For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant satisfies the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).

    The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

    Christopher Smolicz
    Member