1619805 (Refugee)

1619805 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 2970 (28 November 2017)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1619805
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Papua New Guinea
MEMBER:Michael Hawkins
DATE:28 November 2017
PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 28 November 2017 at 8:18am

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Papua New Guinea – Social group – Male Domestic Violence victim – Re-entered Papua New Guinea multiple times – Stayed with family during visits – Family members in Australia – Delay in applying for a protection visa – No real risk of significant harm
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 ss 5(1), 5H(1)(a)-(b), 5J(1), 5J(1)(a), 5J(1)(c), 5J(2)-(6), 5K, 5L, 5L(d), 5LA, 36, 36(2)(a)-(c), 36(2A), 36(2B), 36(2B)(b) , 65, 438 , 499
Migration Regulations 1994 Schedule 2
CASES
Kavun v MIMA [2000] FCA 370
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and McIllhatton v Guo Wei Rong and Pam Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445
Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
Selvadurai v MIEA and Anor [1994] FCA 1105
Subramaniam v MIMA (1998) VG310
Zhang v RRT & Anor [1997] FCA 423
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration [in] November 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 Papua New Guinea (PNG), applied for the visa [in] March 2016. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant is not a refugee as defined by s5H(1) of the Act and there were not substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed to his receiving country, there was a real risk he would suffer significant harm.
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.
‘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.
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.
Relocation
Under s.36(2B)(a) of the Act, there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country if the tribunal is satisfied that 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. That relocation must be ‘reasonable’ is also a requirement when considering the definition of ‘refugee’ and the tribunal draws guidance from the judgments of the High Court in SZATV v MIAC and SZFDV v MIAC which held that whether relocation is reasonable, in the sense of ‘practicable’, must depend upon the particular circumstances of the applicant and the impact upon that person of relocation within his or her country: SZATV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 18 and SZFDV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 51, per Gummow, Hayne & Crennan JJ, Callinan J agreeing.
State protection
Under s.36(2B)(b) of the Act there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country if the Tribunal is satisfied that 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. That is, the level of protection must be such to reduce the risk of the applicant being significantly harmed to something less than a ‘real risk’: MIAC v MZYYL [2012] FCAFC 147.
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.
CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the refugee criterion, and if not, whether he is entitled to complementary protection. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Background:
The applicant is a [age] year old man from the town of Port Moresby, province of National Capital District, PNG.
The applicant is of the Christian faith, is of Papua New Guinean ethnicity, and speaks English and Pidgin.
The applicant is unmarried. His father is deceased, his mother lives in Australia and he has siblings living in PNG [and] in Australia with her mother.
The applicant attended Primary School [and] Secondary School in [PNG] from January [date] to March 2011 when he withdrew.
The applicant worked in [various roles] since leaving school. He states he has been unemployed from when he came to Australia.
The applicant had previously travelled to and from Australia on two occasions, once between [May] 2015 and [August] 2015, and again between [August] 2015 and [November] 2015.
The applicant arrived in Australia on [date] January 2016, under Passport No [number deleted], issued [date] 2014 and expiring [2019] pursuant to a [temporary] visa granted on [date] May 2015 and expiring [date] May 2016.
The applicant applied for a protection visa [in] March 2016.
The applicant did attend an interview with the delegate, but had not provided additional information in support of his claims prior to the decision by the delegate. The applicant provided a submission on 16 December 2016 to the Tribunal including a short statement and a letter of support from village elders. At the hearing, the applicant handed up copies of letters from the local police confirming the interest they have had in the applicant’s brother over time.
Claims:
As set out in his Protection Visa Application Form:
The applicant claims that because his father is deceased and his mother has remarried, he has been harmed, physically harassed, threatened, felt rejected, unwanted and faced hardship.
The applicant claims that he does not want to return to PNG as his life is at threat and he may be severely harmed and he will be cruelly mistreated by his big brother.
The applicant claims that he left PNG because he was a victim of domestic violence. His older brother physically assaulted him in the family home on several occasions in the past and bullied him because he wanted the money his mother gave him from Australia. He further stated that his mother sent money home to PNG for the family however the applicant's brother kept the money for himself. This was the core reason for the domestic violence and the arguments between the applicant and his brother.
The applicant claims the physical harassment and fighting with his big brother for some time has led them to harm each other. They both reside at the same family home in Papua New Guinea with a few other family members. Sometimes his older brother thinks he owns the family home and wants everyone to follow his instructions. When the applicant would disagree with his brother, his brother would start fighting with him.
The applicant claims that he has tried seeking assistance from the local authorities however after confirming they would follow up on his personal situation, they never did. Authorities could not protect the applicant because most of the time the authorities do not follow up on cases or do not keep proper records of incidents in order to arrest someone. They often verbally warn troublemakers and tell family members that the issues they experience are domestic issues only and therefore no protection is provided.
The applicant claims that in PNG society, they have no say over their big brothers or elders as they are in charge and overrule even if they are wrong. His big brother always picked a fight with him because of the applicant disagreeing with his decisions.
The Applicant claims that he cannot relocate to another region in PNG as he has grown up and remained in Port Moresby all of his life. He will not be able to sustain himself through finance, employment or support from anywhere else. This is complicated and difficult to do so. His family home in PNG is his only home. He is not employed and cannot afford to rent a place or purchase a new home. He fears he will be homeless and fears being killed by his brother. His brother always uses weapons such as knives, an axe, spears etc. His brother has refused to give the applicant food to eat over long periods. Overall he believes that his brother will not stop harassing him. He is also unable to relocate due to his birth or origin.
Evidence:
The Tribunal has before it a range of material, including, relevantly:
- The applicants’ protection visa application forms completed and signed on [date] March 2016, lodged on [date] March 2016 (“visa application”.
- The applicants’ identity documents being a certified copy of passport;
- The protection visa decision record (‘delegate’s decision record’) of [date] November 2016;
- The review application form which did include a copy of the delegate’s decision record;
- Country information from the applicant’s submissions and other sources, as discussed at the Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal has also had regard to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s (DFAT’s) most recent Country Information Report on Papua New Guinea, published on 10 February 2017.
Country of reference / receiving country
The applicant claims to be a PNG national. Based on the copy of his passport provided to the Department of Immigration and Border Security (The Department) by the applicant and at the hearing, and in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal finds that PNG is his country of nationality and also his receiving country for the purposes of s.5(1) and s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
The Tribunal is satisfied on the basis of the evidence before it that the applicant does not have a right to enter and reside in any other country, therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not excluded from Australia’s protection obligations under s36(3).
Hearing:
The applicant attended the hearing on 26 September 2017. He was accompanied by his mother and sister. There was a subsequent hearing by telephone on [date] November 2017.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether the statement and application forms were written and prepared by the applicant. He said they were, with some assistance from his mother. The applicant confirmed that he had signed the application forms and statement.
The Tribunal also notes that the applicant’s departmental file includes a certificate and notification regarding the disclosure of certain information under s. 438 of the Act. The reason given for why disclosure of the information subject to the certificate would be contrary to the public interest is that the folio contains information relating to ‘an internal working document and business affairs’.
The Tribunal gave consideration to the validity of the certificate and on the basis that a public interest reason has not been identified for the relevant folio, finds the certificate invalid.
The folios the subjects of the invalid certificate have not been considered relevant to this review because they are largely administrative in nature. The Tribunal has put no weight on them.
The Tribunal asked the applicant to articulate what it was he fears in PNG. He stated that he doesn’t get along really well with his brother. He states that there is conflict. His brother threatens him and has used weapons against him. He fears facing the same harassment if he goes back to PNG.
The Tribunal read to the applicant his written claims as summarised in paragraphs 23 to 29 above. He agreed those claims were accurate.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant was very softly spoken and seemed nervous, so it said to the applicant that it would like to get to know him a little better. The Tribunal took some time to understand the applicant’s background. The Tribunal elicited the following information from the applicant, with the assistance of his mother, who was also a sworn witness:
·His father died in 2000, when the applicant was [age].
·His mother lives in [Australian City 1]. She remarried in 2010. She arrived in Australia in December 2009, sponsored by her then fiancé. His step-father passed away in 2014.
·He has a brother [Mr A] who is [age]. This is the brother that causes him grief. [Mr A] lives in the family home. He is married with a child.
·He has four sisters.
·The eldest sister is [age]. She married in 2001 and has three children. She lives in Port Moresby with her husband’s family. She wanted to return to the family home with her family, but [Mr A] wouldn’t let her. [Mr A] said that she had moved away, why would she want to return.
·The second sister is [age]. She married in 2010 and has two children. She lives with her husband in Port Moresby.
·The third sister would be [age]. She was married in 2000, but her husband was deceased. She used to live in the family home with [Mr A], but recently passed away.
·The fourth sister, [Ms B], is [age]. She was a sworn witness to the hearing. She is not married, and has lived in Australia since 2011. She was sponsored by her mother. She is a permanent resident. She, like the applicant, worked in a [certain role] in PNG until she moved to Australia.
·The applicant is [age] now. He is presently living with his mother and sister in [Australian City 1]. Whilst he stated that he was unemployed in Australia on his application form, he states that he has done some work on [farms].
·The applicant was [age] when he left PNG. Prior to leaving PNG, he worked in [labourer roles] since leaving school.
The Tribunal noted the applicant arrived in Australia [in] May 2015. It discussed with the applicant his return trips to PNG, once in August 2015 for three weeks, and a second time in November 2015 for eight weeks. The applicant noted that they didn’t celebrate Christmas that year.
On each occasion, he stayed at the family home.
The Tribunal queried the applicant as to why he went back to PNG, which was the source of his fears. The applicant said that he had to, as it was a condition of his visa. The Tribunal discussed this with him and asked him, as he had many documents with him, to produce his visa conditions that said he had to return to PNG every three months. He looked but could not find that document. The Tribunal invited the applicant to submit the visa conditions that required him to return to PNG after the hearing.
The Tribunal stated that it couldn’t understand how the terms of his [temporary] visa could require him to return to PNG. It would be illogical to force someone to return to a country from which they claim protection. The applicant was adamant that he went back to PNG because he had to. The Tribunal noted that his return visits coincided with three monthly intervals from the date of his arrival. The Tribunal further noted that he had not gone back a third time as by this stage he had a bridging visa.
At the subsequent telephone hearing, the Tribunal was able to confirm that it had received the applicant’s visa conditions, and confirmed that those conditions required the applicant to leave Australia every three months, but did not specify that he had to return to PNG. The applicant stated that he understood that he could go to another country. The Tribunal asked the applicant why, in those circumstances of him knowing that he didn’t have to go back to PNG, he did actually go back to PNG by choice. The applicant could not answer the question, he just said he went back home.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about his relationship with his brother. He said that until he was [age], in about 2009, he and his brother had many fights, but they were of a typical brotherly type, and Mum was always around to sort them out. It was when his mother moved out that things were bad. His brother assumed the role of the boss. If the applicant disagreed with [Mr A], [Mr A] would physically fight him. Sometimes they would fight weekly, even daily. There would be fights three or four times a month. Later, the fights involved weapons. The applicant said that his brother had used a knife, a bottle and an axe on him.

The Tribunal asked for specific details. The applicant said the assaults continued until 2015. The Tribunal reminded the applicant he had told the delegate there were no incidents past 2014. The applicant told the Tribunal that he was stabbed in the neck in 2013. He pointed to where he was slashed by the knife. He said he had been stabbed in the back, the neck, the shoulder and his hands. On the occasion of his stabbing in the neck, he went to hospital.
The applicant spoke of an incident in 2014 when [Mr A] threw a bottle at his head. He did not go to hospital on this occasion, but was tended by neighbours who worked at the hospital. They tended his wounds. The Tribunal asked the applicant, and again at the subsequent hearing, as to when in 2014 that assault happened. On neither occasion could the applicant recall a date.
The Tribunal confirmed that these were two major events. The applicant confirmed they were, but there were lots of other fights. He said that his mother returned regularly, once or twice a year and for a few weeks. During those visits, there was usually peace.
The Tribunal returned to the issue of the applicant’s return to the family home on his first visit. The applicant stated there was no fighting on this visit, just a lot of arguments. The applicant was asked why he stayed three weeks, if it was the case that he only had to fulfil a visa requirement. The applicant suggested that the immigration department might have had an issue with him if he stayed just one week. The Tribunal suggested this explanation was somewhat implausible as visa conditions did not prescribe how long one had to be out of the country, and as previously discussed, did not prescribe he go back to the country from which an applicant sought protection.
The Tribunal discussed the second visit. The applicant said that he went back with his mother. The mother said she went back to attend a couple of funerals. He said that his sister returned for Christmas.
At the subsequent telephone hearing, the Tribunal queried this, as he had told the delegate that he went back alone. The applicant said he went back alone but that his mother later joined him. He said that his mother came back about 3 or 4 weeks after he returned in time for Christmas. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether there were any issues with his brother during that 3 – 4 week period he was there alone, before his mother returned. He said there were not. No problems until Christmas Day.
The applicant referred to a fight on Christmas Day. The Tribunal queried this, as the applicant had told the delegate that there had been no incident since 2014 – the bottle throwing incident. The Tribunal stated that it had also asked the applicant twice of any post 2014 incidents, and he had said none. The Tribunal noted there was reference to this incident in an undated statement forwarded to the Tribunal on 16 December 2016. In that statement the applicant stated that “….he returned to Australia on [date] January 2016 all because I had another fight during the Christmas period and I didn’t want to stay on, so I came back.”
The applicant said there was a fight on Christmas Day. He said that some cousins and friends had come over for Christmas. They had all been drinking. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had previously said they had not celebrated Christmas. The applicant said they had just got together. One cousin slashed one of the applicant’s friends with a knife as a consequence of some issue over a girl. The applicant’s brother came out and took the cousin’s side. The applicant took his friend’s side and there was a fight. The Tribunal confirmed the fight was a consequence of the argument between the cousin and friend. He said it was.
The Tribunal invited the applicant’s mother to make a statement and answer some questions. She said that the applicant was a very quiet boy. She said that [Mr A] was a very aggressive boy, violent and possessive. She stated that she has kicked [Mr A] out of the home before, but he has been violent towards her. She has no control over him. She states that she has reported him to the police and he has been held overnight, but then his wife pays a fine and he is released. The Tribunal asked about police records of these charges, but she states that no records have been kept.
The Tribunal referred to a letter dated [December] 2016, submitted to the hearing. The letter purports to be from the Royal PNG Constabulary as a support letter for the applicant. It relies on information given to it by relatives of the applicant. It states his brothers do not want the applicant to have access to the house. It speaks of occasional violence but later notes that it is ongoing. It also notes that the family seek to have the applicant repatriated to Australia. The Tribunal notes that the letter does not refer to specific incidents and seems to rely largely on what the police have been told by relatives. It also speaks of “brothers” in the plural, when it is clear there is only one brother. The letter then seeks the assistance of the recipient.
The Tribunal referred to a letter from the local police dated [October] 2017 and submitted to the hearing. This letter confirms a similar earlier letter that confirms that [Mr A] has been in and out of the police station on several occasions on various cases including assault, abuse, violence and damaging property. The signatory states it was an ongoing issue.
The applicants mother states she has tried to get a restraining order against her son, but that corruption is rife and she has not been able to get one.
She further states that she feels she has no option than to leave things as they are, get the house into her name and sell it.
The Tribunal asked the mother about the status of title of the family home. She stated that it was presently in her father’s name. He passed away in 2004. There is a mortgage involved and she is trying to get administration of the estate. She is an only child and the house will go into her name. When that happens, she will sell the house.
The Tribunal asked the mother what will happen when she sells the house. She stated that if she was in PNG, the son would come looking for the proceeds of the sale, but he won’t come to Australia.
At the subsequent hearing, the Tribunal asked the applicant what would happen to him when his mother sells the house. He said he didn’t know.
The Tribunal spoke to the applicant’s sister, [Ms B]. She stated that [Mr A] is violent. He bullied her. He was violent towards her as well. Last Christmas he bullied her. [Mr A] has punched her in the mouth previously. She notes that [Mr A] and the applicant are enemies. She believes that [Mr A] could kill the applicant.
The Tribunal discussed a summary of the following country information with the applicant.
The severity of domestic violence cases in Port Moresby is increasing. This was reported by the Family Support Centre (FSC) at the Port Moresby General Hospital. The centre provides five essential services, including physiological first aid for survivors of domestic violence and sexual violence, including rape and child abuse. FSC has been conducting medical examinations since 2014 and has found that there's an increase of cases relating to violence, especially of children and women. The centre treats over 1000 survivors a year, with about 30-40 patients a month.[1]
[1] "Domestic violence getting more severe, reports centre", PNG Loop, 22 September 2016,
Laws to fight family violence and protect victims are ineffective and are hardly enforced……Victims rarely file reports and convictions are even more rare.[2]
[2] Freedom House, "Freedom in the World 2016 - Papua New Guinea"
Papua New Guinea's rates of domestic violence have been described as at "pandemic" levels by a member of the Australian Federal Police.[3]
[3] : "Papua New Guinea's rates of violence at 'pandemic' levels, Australian Federal Police officer says", Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) (News), 19 February 2015, >
The Family Protection Act (FPA) was passed in September 2013 and entered into force in March 2014.[4] The FPA specifically criminalises domestic violence, prescribing a sentence of a fine up to 5,000 kina (US$1,818), imprisonment of two years, or both. Domestic violence is broadly defined as committing or threatening to commit any of the following acts against a family member: assault; psychological abuse, harassment, or intimidation; sexual abuse; stalking; behaving in an indecent or offensive manner; or damaging property. A family member is defined as a spouse of the person; a child, parent, grandparent or sibling of the person or the person's spouse; or 'any other person who is treated by the spouse as a family member.[5] Nevertheless, sources indicate that the FPA has not been effectively implemented. In 2014 the Lowy Institute assessed that the government has achieved little in addressing domestic violence and, despite the formal passage of the FPA, has not prioritised practical efforts to tackle the violence.
[4] Human Rights Watch 2015, Bashed Up: Family Violence in Papua New Guinea, 4 November, pp.17, 20 < ibid
Domestic violence is criminalized yet existed throughout the country and was generally committed with impunity. Since most communities viewed domestic violence as a private matter, few victims pressed charges, and prosecutions were rare. In April the National Executive Council endorsed the Family Protection Bill, and parliament enacted it September 18. The act makes all forms of domestic violence criminal offences; gives legislative backing for interim protection orders; allows neighbours, relatives, and children to report domestic violence; and gives police the power to remove perpetrators from their homes to protect the victim. Widespread sexual violence committed by police officials and the unresponsiveness of these officials to complaints of sexual or domestic violence deterred reporting by both women and men.[6]
[6] US Department of State, "Papua New Guinea - Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2013", 27 February 2014
In regards to state protection, Papua New Guinea has one of the lowest police-to-population ratios in the world.[7] Issues that adversely impact on the effectiveness of the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary (RPNGC) include insufficient personnel and resources, difficulties in obtaining the cooperation of local communities, issues of internal discipline and clan rivalries.[8] The US Department of State reported that 'in many cases police lacked sufficient personnel or resources to prevent attacks or respond effectively' to societal violence during 2015.[9] In addition, Freedom House stated that the RPNGC are 'largely ineffective in curbing mob violence, tribal warfare, and other crimes.[10]
[7] Overseas Security Advisory Council 2016, Papua New Guinea 2016 Crime & Safety Report,11 July, p.9 < Overseas Security Advisory Council 2016, Papua New Guinea 2016 Crime & Safety Report, 11 July, p.9 < US Department of State 2016, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2015 —Papua New Guinea, 13 April, Section I.d < US Department of State 2016, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2015 —Papua New Guinea, 13 April, Section 1.d <>
The applicant stated that he has been to the police. He reported his brother after the 2014 bottle throwing incident. He said that the police listened to the complaint and then called [Mr A] and told him to come to the police station. [Mr A] went to the police station but told the police that it was just a fight between brothers and no charges were laid.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant why he couldn’t relocate elsewhere in PNG as his issues seemed to be confined to his brother and to the family home. The Tribunal discussed country information with the applicant.
According to DFAT, internal relocation in PNG is generally possible – people can and do regularly migrate to big cities, either in search of economic opportunities, or to escape tribal and other violence or natural disasters. A credible international source estimated that there are as many as 100,000 internally-displaced persons in PNG. As many as 50 per cent of Port Moresby’s population comprises of internal migrants residing in shanties. Those who relocate to Port Moresby and other major cities find very high unemployment – 80-90 per cent in the formal sector in Port Moresby – and very high levels of crime, including tribal fighting.
The applicant stated that he has no qualifications. The Tribunal reminded the applicant that he had had jobs in PNG in the past, in fact ever since he had left school, he had been employed. He is worried that he wouldn’t be paid enough to be able to rent something.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant had two sisters living in PNG and asked whether he could get support from them. He replied that both sisters were married and each were living with their in-laws and that he would not be welcome there as he would be a burden. The Tribunal further noted that he has many cousins and friends living in PNG from whom he might get support or share rent. He said he couldn’t live with them either as he would be a burden.
The applicant’s mother stated that he will not be able to support himself and that he would be a burden on the extended family.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why it took so long for him to make a protection visa application, noting that he made the visa application some eleven months after arriving in Australia.
The applicant stated that he didn’t know about protection visas. He told his mother that he didn’t want to go back when he realised his visa was almost due to expire. His mother had a friend who told him about protection visas. The Tribunal noted that he had been working on farms with backpackers and that surely one of them had mentioned something about visa opportunities. He said they had not.
The Tribunal further discussed the lapse of time between the bottle throwing incident in 2014 and his ultimate departure from PNG in May 2015. He said that he had to wait for his Mum to save up to buy the plane ticket.
The Tribunal stated that it really couldn’t ignore the lapse of time between leaving PNG, the eleven months it took to make a visa application, the two return trips to PNG and to the family home and the fact of no incidents during those two return trips. The Tribunal explained that in light of those timelines, it might form a view as to the genuineness of the applicant’s claims of fear of returning to PNG. The applicant replied by explaining that it took him some time to discuss his fears with his mother, as he didn’t want to worry his mother. The Tribunal asked whether he was more worried about how his mother would worry about him than his own safety. He said that was correct.
At the subsequent telephone hearing, the Tribunal asked the applicant again whether the only issues he had with his brother were in the family home. The applicant agreed that was the case.
The Tribunal also asked the applicant about his claims about criminal gangs referred to in the application form. At first, the applicant was unable to recall what the Tribunal was talking about. The Tribunal reminded the applicant that he had stated that he had had a problem with gangs. He remembered that there had been some issues, but they all related to his brother and a group his brother hung around with. The Tribunal reminded the applicant that he had told the delegate that there hadn’t been any issues with the gang since 2008. The applicant agreed with that.
The Tribunal confirmed again that the applicant’s only issues with his brother were in the house, and that he was not threatened by anyone else.
Assessment of Claims and evidence, and findings:
The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is ‘well-founded’ or that it is for the reason claimed. Similarly, that an applicant claims to face a real risk of significant harm does not establish that such a risk exists, or that the harm feared amounts to ‘significant harm’. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant himself or herself, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for him or her. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant. (MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70).
The Tribunal is aware of the importance of adopting a reasonable approach in the finding of credibility. In Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and McIllhatton v Guo Wei Rong and Pam Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445 the Full Federal Court made comments on determining credibility. The Tribunal notes in particular the cautionary note sounded by Foster J at 482:
…care must be taken that an over-stringent approach does not result in an unjust exclusion from consideration of the totality of some evidence where a portion of it could reasonably have been accepted.
The Tribunal also accepts that ‘if the applicant's account appears credible, he should, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, be given the benefit of the doubt’. (The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, Geneva, 1992 at para 196). However, the Handbook also states (at para 203):
The benefit of the doubt should, however, only be given when all available evidence has been obtained and checked and when the examiner is satisfied as to the applicant's general credibility. The applicant's statements must be coherent and plausible, and must not run counter to generally known facts.
The Tribunal has considered carefully all of the applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and makes the findings set out herein.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant attended his scheduled Protection Visa Interview with the delegate. As with his interview with the delegate, at the hearing the applicant expressed his claims in a genuine manner, his oral testimony was generally consistent with his written claims and he spoke fluent English for the duration of the hearing. The applicant appeared quite nervous at first and was very softly spoken. While the applicant spoke honestly, he experienced difficulty in expressing himself clearly and as a result he was prompted on several occasions throughout the course of the hearing, and in many cases, he referred to his mother for assistance with questions, particularly dates.
The Tribunal noted the process for the making of the application, and specifically noted the lapse of time between leaving PNG (more than six months and possibly longer given the applicant’s inability to remember the date of the bottle throwing incident) and the eleven months it took to make a visa application.
The Tribunal has had regard to the comments of Heerey J. in the Federal Court matter of Velauther Selvadurai v MIEA and Anor [1994] FCA 1105, where at paragraph 11 of the decision His Honour states:
The applicant complained of the tribunal’s taking into account the fact that the applicant did not lodge his application for refugee status until some 20 months after he had arrived in Australia and just prior to the expiration of his visa. In my opinion, this was a legitimate factual argument and an obvious one to take into account in assessing the genuineness, or at least the depth, of the applicant’s alleged fear of persecution….”

A delay in seeking protection can support an adverse credibility finding as well as a finding that the applicant's fear is not well-founded: Zhang v RRT & Anor [1997] FCA 423; Kavun v MIMA [2000] FCA 370 and Subramaniam v MIMA (Carr J,10/3/98). In Subramaniam v MIMA (1998) VG310 of 1997, the Court held that even a three month delay in lodging a Protection visa application is a legitimate matter to take into account when assessing the genuineness or depth of an applicant's fear of persecution. While a delay in making a Protection visa application by itself is not conclusive it reasonably remains an indication in the applicant's case that the claimed fear of harm in this regard is not genuine.
The applicant is an impressive young man who is very likeable and to whom the Tribunal particularly warmed to. He answered questions honestly and gave as much detail as he could recall. The Tribunal accepts that his father passed away when he was [age], and further accepts that his step father passed away in 2014. By reason of the lapse of time between his father’s death and his departure from PNG, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s written claim that he left PNG because of his biological father’s death.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s brother has assaulted him in the family home on at least two occasions, once in 2013 and again in 2014. The Tribunal accepts that it is likely that the two brothers argue when they are together. The Tribunal accepts that the older brother is likely a bully and bullies other family members and also most likely demands money from the applicant given to him by his mother. It is likely that arguments result in altercations between the brothers.
The Tribunal also accepts that following his mother moving from PNG, he was physically harassed, threatened, felt rejected, unwanted and faced hardship within the family home.
The Tribunal accepts, and notes the consistency with country information, that the applicant probably did seek assistance from the local police once but nothing eventuated. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s mother’s evidence that the police did warn the brother ([Mr A]) against his actions but otherwise took little notice.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is surrounded by a threatening environment at his family home.
The Tribunal has considered the application of s5L of the Act as to whether the applicant is a member of a particular social group. A characteristic must be shared by each member of the group; the applicant shares, or is perceived as sharing, that characteristic and that any of the following apply:
- The characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
- The characteristic is so fundamental to a members identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
- The characteristic distinguishes the group from society;
AND the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
Are victims of domestic violence, or male victims of domestic violence, members of a particular social group, given the country information sourced above suggests that domestic violence is prevalent in PNG. It further suggests that whilst domestic violence is socially perceived as a normal aspect of a woman’s life and a family matter, there is some support for males also being victims of domestic violence.
The Tribunal accepts that the harm the applicant fears is further harm in the nature of domestic violence from his brother in the family home. His brother harms him because he is either in the house or because he disagrees with him. The brother’s motivation to harm him is not because he is a member of a social group, that is, because he is a victim of domestic violence.
The Tribunal finds that the shared characteristic of the group is the fear of persecution, which is not permitted by s. 5L(d) of the Act.
The Tribunal notes the relevant law states:
5J (4); “If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
i.that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
ii.the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
iii.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:
iv.a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
v.significant physical harassment of the person;
vi.significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
vii.significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
viii.denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
ix.denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
The Tribunal accepts that significant physical harassment and significant ill treatment constitutes the serious harm. The harm is non-random and is directed at the applicant specifically.
The applicant has claimed no other reasons for fearing the harm he has described in his claims other than further harm in the nature of domestic violence from his brother in the family home. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant fears harm for his membership of the particular social group of victims (or male victims) of domestic violence. Therefore the Tribunal does not accept that the essential and significant reason for the persecution is for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) of s.5J.
The Tribunal has concerns about the genuineness of the applicant’s claims as to the well-foundedness of the fear of harm by virtue of the lapse of time between the last known attack on the applicant and his leaving PNG, the eleven months it took to make a visa application, the two return trips to PNG and to the family home and the fact of no incidents during those two return trips. It is also troubled by why the applicant told the delegate that he returned to PNG on the second occasion on his own, and not with his mother as was his evidence during the hearing.
Notwithstanding those concerns, the Tribunal must be satisfied that, pursuant to s.5J(1)(c), the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
The applicant has claimed that he is surrounded by a threatening environment at his family home in PNG. All the evidence of the applicant, his mother and his sister, as well as the supporting letters from the Royal PNG Constabulary (to which the Tribunal gives only limited weight given that it relies on information provided by the family, speaks of “brothers” when there is only one brother and confirms that charges relating to the brother emanate from actions around the home) corroborate the fact that all of the issues experienced by the applicant emanate only from his brother and only within the family home.
There are no issues beyond the family home. There have been no claims or evidence advanced that the applicant fears persecution anywhere other than in the family home and from the brother. The applicant claims that he can’t relocate for reasons of employment and affordability, but they are matters for consideration in relation to his claim for complementary protection.
The Tribunal finds that the real chance of persecution does not relate to all areas of the receiving country.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant will be subjected to significant physical ill-treatment, or significant hardship that threatens his capacity to subsist, amounting to persecution, if he returns to PNG now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, as the real chance of persecution does not relate to all areas of the receiving country.
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant holds any fears of gangs as claimed. As acknowledged by the applicant, the gang is no more than a group associated with his brother and he has not encountered any problems with them since 2008. Even at that time, the gang would only harass the applicant for money, believing him to have money. Ten years have since elapsed.
Cumulative claims
Having considered all of the applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence and submissions, as well as having considered the personal circumstances of the applicant, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance that the applicant will suffer persecution on the grounds of his membership of a particular social group, or any other reason if he returns to PNG now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for any reason (including race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group) now, or in the reasonably foreseeable future, if he returns to PNG. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that he does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act.
Are there substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims under complementary protection.
The applicant claimed that the family home in PNG is his only home. He claimed that he cannot move to another region in PNG as he has grown up and remained in Port Moresby all of his life. He claimed that he will not be able to sustain himself through finance, employment or support from anywhere else. And he claimed he could not relocate due to his birth or origin.
The Tribunal confirmed with the applicant that at all times since school, he had maintained [employment]. This was consistent with what he had told the delegate – that he could obtain fulltime work which covered his living expenses. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant could sustain himself in PNG and even specifically Port Moresby.
The Tribunal confirmed that he has two other sisters living in Port Moresby who are married with children. He also has many cousins and friends in Port Moresby. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has emotional support that he can rely upon and call upon. He may also be able to share a home with friends and minimise expenses.
Having considered all of the applicant’s personal circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is required only to relocate from the family home in order to be removed from the domestic circumstances within that home. Given his history of employment, his prospects of employment, the emotional support of other family and friends and the potential to even share a residence with friends other than his brother, it would not be unreasonable for the applicant to live elsewhere in PNG, and even Port Moresby, that is, other than in the family home.
The Tribunal is also troubled by the evidence of the applicant’s mother who on the one hand stated that the applicant could not support himself, yet on the other stated that it is her intention to sell the family home in the reasonably foreseeable future. In those circumstances, the applicant will find himself living somewhere in PNG other than in the family home now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
In view of the above findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm for any of the reasons claimed if he returns to PNG now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Having considered all of the applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence and submissions, as well as having considered the personal circumstances of the applicant, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will be arbitrarily deprived of life, the death penalty will be carried out on him, he will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or he will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment if he returns to PNG now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Conclusion: Refugee Criterion
Considering all of the above circumstances, both individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds there is not a real chance that in the reasonably foreseeable future the applicant will be persecuted for any reason (including race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group). His fear of persecution is not well-founded as required by s.5J of the Act and therefore he is not a refugee within the meaning of s.5H.
Conclusion: Complementary Protection
Considering the applicant’s individual circumstances both individually and cumulatively, and the country information, the Tribunal finds that there are not substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to PNG that there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.
Overall conclusion:
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Michael Hawkins
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.
…

[2017] AATA 2970

28 November 2017

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction