1621722 (Refugee)
[2020] AATA 3913
•18 August 2020
1621722 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 3913 (18 August 2020)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER: 1621722
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Stateless/ UAE
MEMBER:Meena Sripathy
DATE:18 August 2020
PLACE OF DECISION: Sydney
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 18 August 2020 at 4:27pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – stateless Palestinian/United Arab Emirates – no right to return to country of former habitual residence – right to residence under father’s working visa cancelled – travel document from third country expired – no right to enter or reside in any other country – status in country of former habitual residence if hypothetically returned – no legal work rights, access to basic services or state protection – possibility of fines, arrest or detention – particular vulnerability as stateless Palestinian – decision under review remittedLEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 5H(1), 5J(1)(a), (4), (5), 36(2)(a), (3)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2CASES
AJZ17 v MHA [2019] FCA 1485
Chen Shi Hai v MIMA (2000) 201 CLR 293,
MIMA v Savvin (2000) 98 FCR 168
SZUNZ v MIBP (2015) 230 FCR 272
Tahiri v MIAC [2012] HCA 61Any 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 dependants.
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 and Border Protection on 25 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 stateless, applied for the visa on 4 December 2015. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the delegate, having accepted the applicant was a stateless Palestinian, who had no rights to enter or reside in any other country, was not satisfied the applicant faced a real chance of persecution in the UAE, his country of former habitual residence, for one or more of the reasons set out in s5J(1)(a) and therefore found he is not a refugee. The delegate was also not satisfied there were substantial grounds for believing there was a real risk he will suffer significant harm if removed to the UAE.
The issues in this case are: identification of the country of reference or ‘receiving country’ to assess his protection claims; ie. his country of nationality (determined solely by the laws of that country) or if he has no country of nationality, his country of former habitual residence; whether there is a real chance, if the applicant returned to the country of reference, he would be persecuted for one or more of the following reasons: race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to the country of reference, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. If this is answered in the affirmative, whether the applicant has a right to enter and reside in a third country and has taken all possible steps to avail himself of this right: s36(3); and s36(4) and (5) of the Act do not apply.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
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 themselves of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).
Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Evidence before the Department
Information in the application forms indicate the applicant is a [Age] year old single man, born in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE). His father is Palestinian and his mother is a [Country 1] citizen. He claims to be stateless. He speaks, reads and writes English and Arabic. He has [brothers], [sisters] who reside in UAE and [step-sisters] and one step-brother who reside in Egypt and [another country]. The applicant arrived in Australia [in] February 2015 on a student visa valid to 21 September 2020. He travelled on an Egyptian travel document issued under his father’s guardianship, which was valid to [2019]. He provided one residential address in Abu Dhabi from 2003 until his departure in 2015. He is educated to high school level in UAE and currently enrolled in a Bachelor of [Subject 1] at [University 1].
In a statutory declaration dated 14 August 2015, the applicant made the following claims for protection:
·He is Palestinian by descent and stateless. He does not have the right to citizenship or to reside in any country.
·He was born in the UAE but does not have the right to citizenship or nationality in the UAE.
·He fears return to the UAE.
·He had a residence visa granted to his father through his employer. This visa allowed him to stay outside the UAE for no more than 6 months. His parents cannot sponsor him if he is over 18 years unless he is engaged in full time education in the UAE.
·He cannot acquire citizenship rights in the UAE or a right to nationality. If he returns he would not be able to subsist because he will need to have an employer to sponsor his visa, with no substantial education and no experience it will be difficult to find an employer to sponsor him.
·His father was born in Palestine in [year]. In 1948, the Israelis bombed his home and his family fled and gained refugee status in Egypt. He lived in Egypt until 1973 when he relocated to [Country 1], where he married the applicant’s mother, a [Country 1] citizen.
·In 1973 they travelled to UAE whether his father obtained an employer sponsorship visa.
·He is the holder of a Palestinian travel document. His UAE status is under his father’s employer sponsorship visa. He has no right to live or work in UAE without a valid work visa.
·On 3 February 2015 he was granted a Student visa, valid for 5 years, to travel to Australia to study. He entered Australia [in] February 2015.
·He cannot return to UAE because he has no valid visa to enter and cannot obtain such a visa.
·He will not have access to the basic welfare that other residents have such as medical, education, housing and employment.
·He will not have the same state protection rights as UAE citizens, and therefore will be vulnerable.
·He will be denied the right to work legally in the UAE.
·The government will not allow Palestinian refugees to gain residency in UAE. They are treated as second class and denied legal work rights.
·He cannot return to UAE because he has no legal right to enter and the state will not protect him as a non citizen.
·He also has no legal right to enter and reside in Egypt, [Country 1] or Palestine.
·There is nowhere he can live permanently. He can enter other Arab countries with his Palestinian travel document but cannot stay permanently or work.
In a submission provided with the application, the applicant’s representative argued:
·The applicant is stateless and his former country of habitual residence is UAE, and this is the country of reference to assess his protection claims.
·He has no right to enter or reside in any other country.
·The applicant fears persecution in the form of a denial of his core human rights on the basis that he cannot return to the UAE without a valid work visa and will not have the same rights as citizens of the UAE. The essential and significant reasons for his fear of persecution are his nationality or lack thereof, or Palestinian nationality, and his race (Palestinian). The fear of persecution is well founded, in that there is a real chance that he will face the claimed harm.
The applicant was interviewed by a officer of the Department on 16 February 2016. The Tribunal has listened to an audio recording of this interview. The delegate’s decision record indicates the following further information was provided at the interview:
·His father applied for and was refused Egyptian and [Country 1] citizenship.
·He has visited Egypt on visitor visas. His father’s first wife and his half siblings live in Egypt.
·He has [brothers] and [sisters] who are full siblings and [half siblings].
·He has a cousin and a sister who are [citizens of another country]
·Two of his siblings were born in [Country 1] but were refused [Country 1] citizenship or travel documents in recent years after trying to use their uncle’s connections.
·His father’s UAE employment was terminated in 2002 and the family lost subsidised housing and now rent an apartment in Abu Dhabi.
·His father’s subsequent employment in the private sector as [an Occupation 1] [doing a job task] was recently terminated. He has not arranged another employment sponsorship due to his age.
·His secondary education was subsidised by the UAE government and he graduated from high school with good marks.
·He was unable to study [Subject 1] in the UAE because he would be precluded from professional employment which is reserved for Emirati nationals. He is studying [Subject 1] in Australia and his sister is paying for his studies.
·His sister cannot pay for his studies in UAE because he does not want to end up in the same uncertain situation as his father.
·His siblings face discrimination in their professional prospects in the UAE because they are Palestinian non-citizens. They must work for private employers and/or are barred from professional registration.
·His private medical insurance in the UAE was obtained through his father’s employment sponsorship visa.
·In preparation for his father’s impending retirement his children living and working in the UAE intend to take over their parent’s sponsorship.
Following the interview the applicant’s representative provided a submissions dated 29 February 2016 supplying evidence of:
·The father’s termination of employment and employer sponsorship in the UAE and his father’s inclusion as a dependent on his brother’s employer-sponsorship visa.
·The applicant’s attestation that he was informed by the UAE embassy in Australia that they will not issue visas to travel document holders.
·Evidence of an application for the applicant to visit the UAE submitted on behalf of the applicant by his brother that he was informed by telephone was refused.
The delegate accepted that the applicant was of Palestinian origin, stateless and that the UAE was his country of former habitual residence. The delegate also accepted that he had no current right to enter and reside in any other country, including Egypt, [Country 1] or the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). Therefore the delegate assessed the applicant’s protection claims against UAE as his country of former habitual residence.
The delegate refused the application on the basis of not being satisfied the applicant faced a well founded fear of persecution for any of the specified reasons in the UAE, or that he faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to the UAE, being the country of former habitual residence.
Evidence before the Tribunal
On 23 July 2020 the applicant submitted a statement, police certificate and VEVO check confirming grant of a BVE with work rights in November 2018. In his statement the applicant explains that he has no access to basic services in the UAE to education, social security, subsidised housing, government employment or any other assistance. The injustice and discrimination he will face goes far beyond what the media can report or talk about. His country has been in conflict for more than 70 years and there is no country in the area willing to give him residency or the right to stay, even Egypt. His father has been in the UAE since 1972. For Palestinians and foreign workers in UAE it is just a matter of time before you are no longer needed there and localisation of jobs in the private sector does not help as the UAE’s future vision demands all Emiratis can work. His family’s situation in the UAE is unstable as all foreign workers have to have a sponsor to be able to have a working visa. Despite his family being in the UAE for 48 years, most sponsors do not hold their end of the contract, they have no right to own property, some sponsor’s abuse their rights, such as by holding passports and salary payments. Risks like these are unbearable and they have to make alternative choices about careers. He and his siblings faced harassment and discrimination, injustice and inequality in their lives. His siblings are very educated people and well qualified but it was never enough to compete in a shrinking market of jobs. His family are planning to submit applications to migrate to [another country] soon, to be able to have a home. The applicant submits that he believes he meets the criteria to be granted protection in Australia.
On 24 July 2020 the applicant appeared by video hearing before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments. An interpreter in the Arabic and English languages was available, as requested by the applicant, however his services were not required during the Tribunal hearing.
The applicant confirmed his current circumstances. He lives in rental accommodation with two [Country 1] friends. He is presently working part time as [an Occupation 2] [doing a job task]. Prior to this job he worked as [an Occupation 3] in a [Workplace], but lost this job as a result of the economic downturn caused by the coronavirus pandemic and lockdown situation. Prior to working he was studying in Australia, which was the reason he came here. After completing the Foundation course in 2016, his family’s circumstances changed and they could no longer afford to support his studies and he had to cease study.
The applicant provided the following evidence about his family composition and their circumstances. His parents are living in Abu Dhabi. His father was born in Palestine and fled to Egypt in 1948. He lived there until the 1970’s then went to [Country 1] where he married the applicant’s mother. They travelled to UAE and have lived there since. His father was married previously to an Egyptian national and had [children] from this marriage. The applicant believes they divorced prior to his father marrying his mother. His half siblings still reside in Egypt, but he is unsure of their status. He believes his half brother only recently obtained Egyptian citizenship.
The applicant’s mother is a [Country 1] citizen. His father was not entitled to [Country 1] or Egyptian citizenship. He held an Egyptian Travel Document from the beginning and has continued to hold this to date. The applicant believes he last renewed it in 2018 and used it to visit his children in Egypt last year.
The applicant’s own Egyptian travel document expired in 2019 and he has sought to renew it. He contacted the consulate in November 2019 and provided the requested documents. He said they told him they needed an approval from Egypt. After that he heard nothing back from them. In March 2020 he emailed again and they replied that he should attend in person. He has not been able to since then due to the Covid 19 situation. He understands that the approval from Egypt was provided and sees no reason why he would not be eligible for a renewal of his travel document. However, it does not give him the right to enter Egypt. He needs a visa to enter as he has been given in the past. He has not applied for a visa to enter Egypt because he sees no reason to go there. He is not entitled to live and work there permanently. He last travelled to Egypt in 2014 to visit his family. Prior to that he visited Egypt once or twice before, in 2011 and 2012, for short visits only. He also visited Jordon in the past for short visits only. He has never resided in Egypt or in [Country 1].
The applicant provided information about his siblings in UAE and their residence status. [One] brother, [Mr A], completed his tertiary education in [Country 1] and when he tried to return to UAE he encountered difficulties because of his travel document status. At this time his father arranged for him to get a Palestinian Authority (PA) passport. Because of where they came from in Palestine (not West Bank or Gaza) it contained no national identification number and therefore is of limited utility. On the basis of this document [Mr A] was able to enter UAE on a 3 month visa to seek employment. [Mr A] no longer holds an Egyptian Travel Document. It took him over a year to find an employer sponsor and in that time he incurred fees he had to repay. He has maintained legal residence since then on the basis of his employment. He is now the sponsor of his parents and unmarried siblings, as well as his wife and children.
The applicant’s father never applied for a PA Passport because it was not of much use and he already had an Egyptian travel document. The applicant also never applied for a PA passport in the past. Since being in Australia he said he tried but was told these passports are not being issued to persons in his circumstances any longer. He asked his sister in UAE to also try from there but she was told the same. He does not hold a PA passport.
The applicant’s sister [Ms B] lives and works in UAE. She has an Egyptian travel document, but as she is now married to a [Country 1] citizen she may have a [Country 1] passport. She has legal residence in UAE.
His sister [Ms C] is also living, working and married in UAE. She also has a [Country 1] passport from her husband.
The remaining siblings of the applicant reside in UAE and continue to hold Egyptian travel documents. [A number of] sisters are working and sponsored by their employers. [One] sister is studying in [Country 1] for the past three years. She returns to UAE every 6 months to maintain her residence there. She continues to be under [Mr A]’s sponsorship. [One] brother recently turned 18 years. He finished studying high school and did a [Subject 2] course in UAE. He is now looking for a job. He is no longer eligible to be included under [Mr A]’s sponsorship because he is a male over 18 years. He needs to find an employer to sponsor him or he will remain unlawful. He is considering options to leave the country.
The applicant confirmed he never worked in the UAE prior to coming to Australia as he was a student. In Australia he has not completed any qualifications. He has worked here as [an Occupation 3] and as [an Occupation 2]. He was unable to continue with his studies due to financial circumstances of his family. He considered study in UAE before coming to Australia. He wanted to do [Subject 1] studies but was told he would face difficulties getting employment in that field as a result of his non-citizen status and that he only held a travel document. His sister experienced the same. She studied [Subject 3] in UAE only to discover during the course that she was ineligible to practice as a non-citizen.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant the issue arising on his evidence about whether he has a right to enter Egypt. The delegate found on his evidence before the Department that he had no right to enter or reside in Egypt as the country information indicated that Palestinians need to return every 6 months to be eligible for a travel document but this is contradicted by his evidence about his requests to the consulate and his sisters’ ability to renew theirs. The applicant accepted that the consulate appears to be willing to renew his travel document though he has yet to receive it. It does not however, give him the right to re-enter or reside there. He has not applied for a visa to travel to Egypt. He does not see the point as his circumstances there would be the same as in UAE. None of his siblings have been able to get permanent residency in Egypt. They are all looking for security and permanency anywhere. If they could get a right to reside permanently in Egypt they would go there.
The Tribunal explained that the delegate accepted he was a stateless Palestinian and his country of former habitual residence was UAE and it is likely to concur with that. If it made this finding, it would then proceed to assess his claims for protection against UAE. It asked him if he wished to make any submissions or say anything further about the issue of the country of reference.
The applicant said he has tried to apply for a visa to enter UAE from here and has been told they won’t permit it because he holds only a travel document. His brother [Mr A] also tried to apply for a visa for him from there and was told it was refused. He referred to the copy of the application provided to the Department.
The Tribunal explained that even if he cannot re-enter UAE it has to assess his claims on the basis of the risk of harm were he, hypothetically, to be returned there. The applicant said when he left UAE he had never worked there. Despite living there for the longest time, he suffered discrimination and insecurity throughout his life. He described having to change schools in grade [deleted] when his father lost his government job and could no longer afford the school. He had to go to a night school that was free. It was inferior education. After two years they changed the policy and he returned to day school.
The Tribunal put to him that if the harm experienced affects all non citizens it may be characterised as a law of general application and in that sense is not persecutory. It asked him if he believed that he was affected differently to others and if so on what basis. He agreed the laws apply to all non citizens but, unlike other non citizens, he has no where he can go. He saw the authorities treat all non citizens badly depending on the politics at the time. He had [Country 2] and [Country 1] friends expelled without reason. He had Palestinian friends in similar situation to himself who had no residence. They lived in the shadows and could not ask for anything. One of his friends was detained. He does not know the details because it was around the time he came to Australia. The conflict in his country is continuous. The situation keeps changing it never stays the same. It is impossible to live one’s life with such insecurity. He has no where to go and cannot imagine a future anywhere.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that there is independent information that indicates UAE has publicly supported the Palestinian cause, for example before the UN. There is also information that on occasion they have expelled and deported Palestinians without cause (in 2009 and 2010). The applicant said in response that it is not so clear cut that UAE supports Palestinians. At the present they are making new laws to treat non citizens differently from Emiratis, including imposing higher tax liabilities.
The applicant stated he has not explored employment sponsorship from Australia because he does not believe he stands a chance to arrange sponsorship from here. He has no qualifications and no past experience working there. There are so many people, including locals who are seeking jobs. He would be discriminated against on the basis of his lack of nationality and citizenship status. His brother and sisters had such difficulties themselves finding employment despite their qualifications. His sisters were able to remain under his brother’s sponsorship while they were looking for work because they were unmarried females but he would not be entitled to that because he is a male over 18 years.
The applicant confirmed he has never been involved in any political activities or held political opinions that would attract the attention of the UAE authorities in the past or now.
Independent information
Legal status of Palestinians
The MEDEA Institute sums up the legal status of Palestinians into the following three categories:
·Those who are in the territories under Palestinian authority are progressively given a Palestinian passport, after the Israeli authorities have given their approval;
·Obtaining a passport issued by the Palestinian Authorities does not translate into a recognition of citizenship equal to the Israeli citizenship. Thus, this passport is recognised by a small number of states. In particular a Palestinian native of the autonomous zones of Gaza and the West Bank can at any time be extradited to Israel for a minor or serious crime committed in Israeli territory, the reverse is excluded. Most of the Palestinian refugees outside the Palestinian territories are stateless and are possibly given travelling documents by the host Arab State;
·Most Palestinians residing in [Country 1] have been given a [Country 1] passport but their status is not exactly equal to that of the other nationals of this country as their passport is valid for a period shorter than that granted to those with full [Country 1] citizenship.[1]
Palestinians and Egypt
[1]'Palestinians legal status', MEDEA Institute, 01 September 2012, CX294252
A research response of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board in respect of the situation of Palestinians in Egypt[2] refers to the various types of Egyptian residence permits and travel documents Palestinians and their descendants are eligible for in Egypt, depending on when they arrived there. The response obtained information from [Ms D], who authored the book, [Title deleted]. [Ms D] explains:
Regulations governing the travel documents are strict. To ensure re-entry into Egypt, the Egyptian travel document holder with a valid residency permit who is travelling or residing abroad must either return to Egypt every six months or provide the Egyptian authorities in advance with proof of employment or of current enrollment in an educational institution abroad. In such cases, a one-year return visa may be granted. No extension or renewal can be granted through Egyptian embassies abroad. Any delay beyond the stipulated deadline can result in denial of entry or deportation. (ibid.)
Similarly, in correspondence with the Research Directorate, a clinical professor of law at [University 2], who specializes in refugee law, has taught and conducted research in Egypt, and has published articles about the legal status of Palestinian refugees around the world [5], also said that Palestinians with an Egyptian travel document must return to Egypt every six months or provide the Egyptians with proof that they meet one of the exemptions, which include marriage to an Egyptian, proof of university enrolment, or proof of authorized private employment in Egypt (Clinical Professor 9 Sept. 2014). However, the Professor also noted that, "[e]ven then, there is no guarantee that the Egyptian authorities will permit re-entry" (Clinical Professor 9 Sept. 2014).
According to [Ms D], tens of thousands of Palestinians from Gaza and their descendants hold Egyptian travel documents for Palestinian refugees, although they lack residency rights in Egypt. … She noted that people with these documents who reside outside Egypt are "vulnerable" to changes in politics, such as during the 1990-1991 Gulf crisis, when thousands of Gazans with Egyptian travel documents were expelled from Gulf states, were not accepted by any state, and were stranded in Kuwait (ibid.). [Ms D] explains that there are "hundreds if not thousands of cases" that go undocumented in which Palestinian residents or former residents of Egypt with Egyptian travel documents are denied re-entry for transgressing the rules of the travel document (by either carelessness or circumstance), or due to "bureaucratic red tape or error" (ibid.). [Ms D] states that "[f]or the Palestinian who has overstayed his visa, denial of re-entry, detention at the border, imprisonment upon arrival, or deportation are common occurrences" (ibid.). She also indicated that it is common for stateless Palestinians with only an Egyptian travel document to be detained at the border.
[2] Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Egypt and Palestine: The status of a Palestinian with an Egyptian Travel Document for Palestinian Refugees in Egypt, including rights to residency, employment and education; ability to travel between Gaza and Egypt with this document (2009-2014), 11 September 2014, ZZZ104959.E, available at: 24 July 2020]
Other sources consulted in the response indicate a person who has not regularly renewed their travel document will not have any right to enter Egypt, that “Palestinians in Egypt are ‘denied rights to secure residency, employment, property, communal interaction and family reunification’ and that "current status of Palestinian refugees, no matter how long they have resided in the country, is 'foreigner' under Egyptian law".[3]
[Country 1] citizenship
[3] ibid.
Regarding the right of a [Country 1] female citizen to pass on her nationality to her children, [Country 1] [Law] on Nationality, last amended in [Year], with few exceptions, does not permit women to transmit their nationality to their children or upon marriage to their husbands. [Organisation] states that [Country 1] law allows for the possibility of naturalization of a non-national husband and children being, however, such applications are at the discretion of the Council of Ministers and must be filed in person with the Ministry of the Interior in [City] (the [Country 1] capital). The website notes that none of the woman it had interviewed has received a successful outcome and in many cases received no reply or was rejected without explanation. This was despite at least one of the applicants receiving the support of a [Country 1] member of parliament.[4]
Palestinians in UAE
[4] [Citation deleted]
A DFAT Cable response from 2007 states that Palestinian refugees, including those born and bred in UAE, have no automatic right of re-entry to the UAE after departure and are treated like all other foreigners. They have no right to UAE citizenship, to permanent residence, or to a UAE entry visa. They are treated exactly as all other foreigners wanting to enter the UAE. They must have a work visa, and a sponsor in the UAE. Without that, they cannot re-enter the UAE. The UAE does not issue any travel documents for Palestinians. All Palestinians in the UAE must have travel documents from another country. Palestinians, like all other foreigners in the UAE, are dependent on a valid work visa. A Palestinian male with a valid work visa may sponsor his wife and his children on his own work visa providing he earns a sufficiently high salary.[5]
[5] 'Entry and residency rights', Australia: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), CX180335
A research response of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board in respect of the situation of Palestinians in UAE[6] provides the following information on the residence status of stateless Palestinians in the UAE:
[6] Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Palestine and United Arab Emirates: residence status of stateless Palestinians, including access to employment, education, health care and other services, and the ability to travel in and out of the country; the requirements and procedures to renew residence status; treatment of stateless Palestinians whose residence status has expired (2015-November 2017), 24 November 2017, ZZZ106014.E, available at: 20 July 2020]
According to sources, the UAE is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention (UN June 2012, 1; The National 19 June 2017). However, in a June 2012 submission prepared as part of the Universal Periodic Review of the UAE, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) states that "[d]espite the absence of a national framework regulating issues related to asylum, the Government of UAE continues to respect international refugee protection standards, including the essential principle of non-refoulement" (UN June 2012, 1). The US Department of State's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2016 states that the UAE allowed the UNHCR "and other humanitarian organizations to provide protection and assistance to refugees, asylum seekers, stateless persons, and other persons of concern" (US 3 Mar. 2017, 16).
…….
In correspondence with the Research Directorate, a senior associate at a law firm in Dubai, whose areas of practice include employment, banking, and international law, indicated that the "UAE does not have a refugee visa category for any nationality" and that "Palestinians are given the chance to obtain UAE residency visas just like any other nationality, on the basis of employment or ownership of businesses or property" (Senior Associate 5 Nov. 2017).
Article 13(C) of the UAE's Ministerial Decision No. (360) of 1997 Regarding the Issuance of Executive Regulation of the Federal Law No. (6) of 1973 Concerning the Entry and Residence of Foreigners states that a foreigner cannot be granted an entry permit or visa unless "[h]e should have a sponsor residing the in the State, whether U.A.E. National or foreigner" (UAE 1997).
Similarly, the website of the General Directorate of Residency and Foreigners Affairs of Dubai provides the following information:
All foreign nationals, whether visitors or residents, require a sponsor in the UAE. A sponsor is a UAE entity - individual or institution - who vouches for the foreigner and will carry out many vital functions on his or her behalf. This could include applying for a visit or residency visa, opening a bank account and so on. (Dubai n.d.a)
……
The UNHCR submission states that "[a]ll non-citizens in the UAE fall under national immigration laws (Expatriate law) with regard to their legal status in the country[,] including refugees and asylum seekers who are registered with UNHCR," and that "work sponsorship is an essential pre-requisite for becoming a legal resident in the country" (UN June 2012, 2). Individuals can therefore be "at risk of losing their legal residence as a result of work termination" (UN June 2012, 3). According to the same source, "[g]ranting a permit for refugees to stay in the UAE beyond the valid legal residence period requires a special request from UNHCR and is temporary, pending the finalization of resettlement procedures to a third country" (UN June 2012, 3).
On access to employment, health care and other services, the response states:
The website of the General Directorate of Residency and Foreigners Affairs of Dubai provides the following information regarding education:
Public schools are reserved for the children of UAE nationals, GCC nationals, and holders of decrees issued by the President or the Vice-President of the UAE. Any child can enroll in a private school. Private school expenses can range from AED 5000.00 [C$1,740] to over AED 70,000.00 [C$24,300] per year. Related expenses such [as] bus fares, books, school uniforms, etc. may be charged separately. (Dubai n.d.c)
The BADIL legal researcher indicated that, in Gulf countries such as the UAE, "Palestinians with work visas do not have access to public services; they must use private healthcare and education services" (6 Nov. 2017). According to Jamal, the "UAE allows two children of expatriate public-sector employees to attend public schools free of charge," which has been beneficial to some Palestinians (2017, 119).
US Country Reports 2016 provides the following information:
Access to employment, education, and other public services, including health care, is based on an individual's status as a legal resident. Persons with a claim to refugee status, including those with either short-term visitor visas or expired visas, were generally not eligible for such benefits, and as a result some families, particularly from Iraq and Syria, reportedly did not have access to healthcare or school for children. The government provided or allowed access to some services on a case-by-case basis, often after the intervention of UNHCR representatives. (US 3 Mar. 2017, 18)
On the ability to travel in and out of the country, it says
US Country Reports 2016 states that a "lack of passports or other identity documents restrict[s] the movement of stateless persons, both within the country and internationally" (US 3 Mar. 2017, 16). The Senior Associate stated that "Palestinians are permitted to travel in and out of the UAE, provided they have the relevant visa, by using the travel document issued by the Palestinian Authority" (5 Nov. 2017).
On the treatment of Palestinians whose residence status has expired:
The UNHCR reports that "deportation is a possible consequence of overstaying a legal residence permit" for all non-citizens, including refugees and asylum seekers registered with the UNHCR, in the UAE (UN June 2012, 3). In 2009, hundreds of Palestinians were deported from the UAE (Jamal 2017, 124; Haaretz 4 Sept. 2009; Human Rights Watch 19 July 2010) and in 2010 a number of Palestinians were also expelled (Jamal 2017, 124). Human Rights Watch states that the Arab Charter for Human Rights, which has been ratified by the UAE, "obliges governments to deport foreigners only in accordance with the law and to give deportees the opportunity to appeal their deportation order. It prohibits any form of collective expulsion" (Human Rights Watch 19 July 2010). According to Jamal, Palestinians expelled in 2009 and 2010 "simply received notices from immigration authorities that they must leave the country with their families. Authorities provided no explanations or opportunities for appeal" (2017, 124).
US Country Reports 2016 provides the following information:
While the government extended informal protection from return to refugees in some cases, any persons lacking legal residency status were technically subject to local laws on illegal immigrants and authorities could detain them. There were no reports, however, that the government sent individuals who expressed a fear of return back to their country of origin against their will. (US 3 Mar. 2017, 17)
Regarding Gulf countries including the UAE, the BADIL legal researcher stated that
if their residency permit has expired and hasn't been renewed, then Palestinian refugees risk detention by the local authorities, and potentially deportation. We have been contacted both by Palestinian refugees who had been detained, and who have been deported. (6 Nov. 2017)
The same source further explained that if the "kafeel" [sponsor] "for any reason stops guaranteeing you, then the country usually expels you" (BADIL 6 Nov. 2017).
Article 21 of Federal Law No. 13 of 1996 for the Entry and Residence of Foreigners, for Amendment of Certain Regulations of Federal Law No. 6 of 1973 in Respect of Immigration and Residence provides the following:
Any foreigner whose entry visa or residence permit was canceled or whose residence expired by the date of expiry of his entry visa, permit or residence permit and fails to renew the same, if allowed and permitted by law during a grace period not exceeding thirty days from the date of such expiry or fails to depart the country through the said grace period, shall be subject for the payment of penalty in the amount of U.A.E. Dhs. (100) [C$35] one hundred against each day of illegal residence in country effective from the date of expiry of the said grace period.
In the even [sic] of new borns [sic] to the foreigner the grace period stipulated under this article shall be extended to four months from the date of such birth and upon expiry of such grace period without fixing its residence his parent or custodian then shall be compelled with the payment of the established penalty. However, the Minister of Interior or his delegate may exempt all or part of the said Penalty under this article.
In the event such defaulter shall be subject to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months or the payment of penalty not exceeding in total the sum of U.A.E. Dhs. four thousands [sic] [C$1,380] and the court may order its deportation. (UAE 1996)
Article 29 of the same law provides the following:
Without prejudice to the provisions of article 21 of this law deportation of any foreigner from country shall be made by the General Directorate of Naturalization and Residence if such foreigner is not holding residence permit or its permit have expired or been cancelled.
Reentry into U.A.E. shall not be allowed unless and only the necessary conditions and procedures of reentry are satisfied according to the provisions of this law. (UAE 1996)
Furthermore, the GLMM report states that
[a] foreigner may be deported, even if he is a holder of a residence permit, if his deportation is part of a court judgment, or if he has no evident means to earn a living, or if it is considered by the security authorities as required by public policy, security, or morals. The deportation order, which is issued by the Ministry of Interior, may include members of the foreigner's family who are supported by him. (GLMM 2015, 4)
Amnesty International’s Human Rights in the Middle East and North Africa Review of 2019 states that
Foreign nationals were among those arbitrarily detained and ill-treated.[7]
[7] ‘Human rights in the Middle East and North Africa: Review of 2018’, Amnesty International, Review of 2019, p 69.
According to a report of the Global Detention Project in 2016,
Aliens can be detained for up to three months for failing to maintain a valid residence permit; failing to leave the country after cancellation or expiry of an entry or residence permit; or failing to pay overstay fines (Article 21 of Federal Law No. 6 on Entry and Residence of Aliens). The Department of Nationality and Immigration is authorized to order the deportation of any alien who does not have a residence permit or who has not renewed his permit in accordance with legal requirements (Article 29).
In addition, the Minister of Interior is authorized to detain any foreigner against whom a deportation order has been issued for a period not exceeding two weeks, but only if the detention is essential for executing the deportation order (Article 25). The Minister may order the deportation of a non- national—even if holding a residence permit—if convicted and the court has issued an order for his deportation; if he has no apparent means of living; or if the security authorities see that public interest or public security or public morals require his deportation (Article 23).[8]
[8] Global Detention Project (GDP), Immigration Detention in United Arab Emirates, January 2016, 6,
The same source indicates that
Based on the above information, the GDP concludes that it has information indicating that there are at least seven facilities in the UAE that are currently used for immigration-related detention and that only one of these facilities—the Amjan Immigration Office—is immigration-only. All of the other facilities appear to combine criminal incarceration with immigration functions. And of these, only two, the Sharjah Jail for Men and the Al Sadr Prison, appear to have some system for segregating migrant detainees from the rest of the prison population. In addition, as noted earlier in in this report in the section on “Minors,” at least one of these facilities, the Dubai Central Jail for Women in Al Aweer, detains accompanied children alongside their mothers (43)…
There are few current reports detailing conditions of detention facilities. According to the U.S. State Department’s 2014 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices prison conditions in the UAE vary widely. There were “unconfirmed reports that police and prison guards mistreated individuals” and in Dubai prisoners “reported poor sanitary conditions, inadequate lighting, and poor temperature control. Some prisons were reportedly overcrowded, especially in Abu Dhabi and Dubai.”
The U.S. State Department also reports that “Ombudsmen cannot serve on behalf of prisoners and detainees. Prisoners had a right to submit complaints to judicial authorities; however, details about investigations into complaints were not publicly available.”
UNHCR staff members told the GDP that they need prior authorization from the authorities to visit detainees, but that access is always granted (45). UNHCR access is mainly for the purpose of conducting refugee status determination interviews, and the number of cases in detention were reported as “very few.” They said that the conditions of detention in prisons in Dubai and Abu Dhabi were good (46).
IOM representatives contacted by the GDP also reported that they visit detainees, mainly for the purpose of assisting with resettlement outside the country...[9]
[9] Global Detention Project (GDP), Immigration Detention in United Arab Emirates, January 2016, 11-12, >
The same report also states that the UAE has only ratified half of the core international human rights treaties.[10]
[10] Ibid, p6
The Regional Report on Citizenship by Zahra Albarazi, analysing the fundamental concepts, trends and challenges with regard to nationality in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), refers to the impact on nationality systems of across the region of the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 as follows (footnotes omitted):
The massive displacement of the Palestinian population following upon the formation of Israel – just under one million people16 - has had significant ripple effects on nationality policy in the region as a whole. The large-scale and protracted displacement of Palestinians to the neighbouring states (and around the world) makes them one of the world’s most entrenched refugee populations. Today, the number of Palestinians registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) is close to 5.5 million. The impact of the presence of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees in countries like Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq and Syria on the rules regulating access to nationality in those states is significant. In many of these countries, because generation after generation were born there, Palestinians have come to make up a considerable percentage of the population. This created demographic and challenges to services, in countries where a very delicate confessional balance existed and who have had limited infrastructure. In reaction to the influx of large numbers of displaced Palestinians, countries in the region adopted the Casablanca Protocol which set out certain rules for the treatment by these states of Palestinians on their territory and which, with a view to protecting the right of return for Palestinians stated that they should get various rights while “retaining their Palestinian nationality”. States in the region have interpreted this as excluding them from naturalisation. The exclusion of Palestinians from naturalisation procedures therefore is evident in the practice of MENA states, although it is only Iraq that specifically excludes Palestinians as part of the letter of its law, saying that “Iraqi nationality shall not be granted to Palestinians as a guarantee to their right to return to their homeland”.[11]
[11] 'Regional Report on Citizenship: The Middle East and North Africa (MENA)', Zahra Albarazi, European University Institute, 27 November 2017, 20190627110116, pp4-5
The UAE is listed as among the Arab states which joined the League’s charter upon signing the Casablanca Protocol, an agreement by Arab states to regularise and standardise the treatment of Palestinians, with regard to employment, entry and return, freedom of movement between Arab states and issuance and renewal of travel documents.[12]
CONSIDERATION
[12] League of Arab States, Protocol for the Treatment of Palestinians in Arab States ("Casablanca Protocol"), 11 September 1965, available at: 12 August 2020]
Country of reference or ‘receiving country’
The applicant provided to the Department a Egyptian Travel Document, valid to [2019] on which he entered Australia as evidence of his identity, nationality or citizenship. This document indicates that the applicant was born in UAE, is of Palestinian nationality and a student.
In his Statement of Claims dated 14 August 2015 lodged with the application, and consistently in his oral evidence to the Department and Tribunal, the applicant has claimed he is Palestinian and stateless. His evidence is that his father fled Palestine in 1948 and obtained refugee status in Egypt. His father lived in Egypt until 1973 when he went to [Country 1], met and married the applicant’s mother who is a citizen of [Country 1] and they travelled from there to UAE where the applicant was born and lived all of his life until he came to Australia. The applicant held a residence visa in UAE granted on the basis of his father’s employment which has now expired. His Egyptian travel document on which he travelled to Australia was issued to him as a descendent of his father. He is not eligible for [Country 1] citizenship through his mother.
The Tribunal accepts the biographical history regarding his father’s Palestinian origins and mother’s citizenship on the basis of the applicant’s evidence and documents provided in support.
The applicant’s Egyptian travel document presented to the Department expired in September 2019. He told the Tribunal he contacted the Egyptian consulate in Sydney to request a renewal but to date has not been issued one. The Tribunal notes in his evidence to the Tribunal the applicant referred to his father and siblings having been able to renew their Egyptian travel documents and his belief that he will also be able to once he can attend the Consulate in person. However he submitted that the travel document does not entitle him to travel to and enter Egypt, for that he needs a visa and he hasn’t applied for one. When asked why not the applicant said he sees no point as he has no rights to reside and work on a permanent basis there.
The Tribunal has considered independent information about the status of Palestinians in Egypt and UAE as set out in paragraphs 39-40 above. On the basis of this information and the applicant’s evidence it finds that he is of Palestinian descent and has until recently been the holder of an Egyptian travel document granted on the basis of his father’s previous residence there. Although he has sought to renew this travel document, he has not yet been granted a new one. The Tribunal accepts on the available country information that the applicant does not hold, nor is eligible for, citizenship or nationality of Egypt or the UAE. It also accepts his claim (consistent with independent information referred to in paragraph 41 above) that he is not eligible for [Country 1] citizenship through his mother. The applicant told the Tribunal he does not hold a passport issued by the Palestinian Authority. The Tribunal accepts, on available independent information, this would not in any event entitle him to citizenship of any country at this time.
Therefore, and consistently with the delegate’s findings on this issue, the Tribunal accepts the applicant is of Palestinian descent and stateless.
The Tribunal also accepts, consistently with the delegate’s findings, that the applicant’s country of ‘former habitual residence’ for the purposes of assessing his protection claims is UAE. In reaching this conclusion the Tribunal notes that the Act does not define the term ‘country of former habitual residence’ and relevant judicial authorities indicate the determination requires a broad factual inquiry, taking into account factors such as the actual and intended length of stay, purpose, strength of ties to the state and to any other state (both past and present) and the degree of assimilation into the state.[13]
[13] Tahiri v MIAC [2012] HCA 61 (French CJ, Bell and Gageler JJ, 13 December 2012) at [16], SZUNZ v MIBP (2015) 230 FCR 272 per Buchanan J at [30]-[31], Flick J at [53], and Wigney J at [118
In the present case, on the basis of the uncontested and uncontroversial evidence that the applicant was born in the UAE and resided there continuously until he came to Australia and this is where his close family members continue to reside the Tribunal finds the UAE is the applicant’s country of former habitual residence.
Right to enter and reside in a safe third country
The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant has a current right to enter and reside in any other country.
On the basis of the evidence and discussion above, the Tribunal finds the applicant has no rights to enter and reside in Egypt or [Country 1] or any other country and therefore s36(3) does not apply.
The Tribunal also notes that under the current codified definition of refugee, article ID of the Refugees Convention was not expressly incorporated, and therefore any Palestinian refugee making claims for protection is to be considered against the definition of refugee under s5H of the Act.[14]
[14] See PAM Policy Refugee and Humanitarian -Refugee Law Guidelines [accessed 11 August 2020] referring to the
This leads to the substantive issue in the review, assessment of the applicant’s protection claims against the UAE.
Protection claims assessed against UAE
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has no current residency permit for the UAE that would permit his entry into and/or give him a right of legal residence in the country. It accepts that his previous residency permit held when he arrived in Australia would have been automatically cancelled once he was absent from the country for more than 6 months.[15] In any event it expired [in] February 2015.
[15] UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), United Arab Emirates: Country of Origin Information Relating to the Return and (Re)admission of Individuals Who Previously Resided in the UAE and Who Require a Visa Prior to Arrival, 12 May 2020, available at: 20 July 2020
It also accepts, on the evidence provided, that the applicant’s father’s employment has ceased and his brother is now the sponsor for his parents and unmarried and minor siblings but that he is unable to include the applicant in that sponsorship because he is male and over 18 years of age. The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal is that he has tried unsuccessfully to apply for an entry visa to UAE, including with sponsorship by his brother.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has applied for, but has yet to be issued, an Egyptian travel document.
Therefore the Tribunal considers the applicant’s protection claims on the basis that he has no right of entry or residence permit in the UAE and without such documentation it is highly unlikely he will be permitted to enter that country.[16]
[16] Ibid, page 4
The definition of refugee in s5H(1) and the complementary protection criteria in s36(2)(aa) when read with the definition of receiving country in s5(1), requires that a person who is outside of their country of former habitual residence with no right of return must also have a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm in order to satisfy either of those tests. It is well established that a person is not entitled to refugee status merely because he or she is stateless and unable to return to his or her country of former habitual residence, that is, a stateless person must have a well-founded fear of being persecuted for a Convention reason.[17] Under the current codified definition of refugee, this means for one of the five reasons specified in s5J(1).
[17] See MIMA v Savvin (2000) 98 FCR 168, per the Full Federal Court. See also Rishmawi v MIMA (1997) 77 FCR 421, Diatlov v MIMA (1999) 167 ALR 313 and DZABG v MIAC [2012] FMCA 36 (Brown FM, 25 January 2012) (undisturbed on appeal: DZABG v MIAC [2012] FCA 827 (Dowsett J, 7 August 2012).
So the Tribunal turns to consider the hypothetical situation of what would happen to the applicant if he were to return to the UAE in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant, if returned to UAE, would be a stateless Palestinian without a residence permit. The country information referred to above, indicates that Palestinians, including those who were born and grew up in UAE, have no automatic right of re-entry after departure from the country and must, like any other foreigner, obtain employer sponsorship or otherwise be sponsored by a lawful resident or UAE citizen to enter, live and work lawfully there.
In his claims and evidence to the Tribunal the applicant has expressed his fears that, not having a lawful residence permit, he will be unable to access basic services including education, social security, subsidised housing, government employment or any other assistance. He claims that this, together with discrimination against non citizens generally in obtaining employment, threatens his capacity to subsist. He claims that the insecurity of his life and future in UAE is unbearable and his family’s experiences indicate that he would face these consequences upon return. Specifically, he refers to his father having resided in UAE for over 40 years without security of status and having now to depend on sponsorship of his son in his retirement.
The applicant held a residence permit when he previously lived in the UAE. The Tribunal accepts that upon return without a lawful residence permit, his circumstances would be very different from before. It accepts he would not be able to work lawfully or access education, health or other public services that are dependent on a lawful residence status. He would be liable to be detained for not having a residence permit, have fines accumulated for each day of illegal residence and would live under the constant threat of deportation and expulsion from the country.
With regard to the nature of the harms feared, the Tribunal accepts that without a legal right to enter, reside and work in UAE, the applicant is denied the capacity to lawfully earn a livelihood and denied access to basic services dependent on legal residence, including health and education. It accepts that such exclusion from economic life and access to services threaten his ability to subsist. It also accepts that his lack of legal residency leaves him vulnerable to arrest, detention and imprisonment if he entered and sought to work without a lawful permit. The Tribunal also accepts that the prospect of a lifetime of insecurity of residence status and the perpetual exclusion of citizenship of itself amounts to serious psychological harm. The Tribunal is satisfied that these consequences, if not singularly, most definitely cumulatively amount to serious harm for the purposes of s5J(5).
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has a subjective fear that he would face these harms, and it is satisfied on the independent information referred to above that there is a real chance, in the sense that it is not remote or far fetched, that he would face these consequences. The country information clearly indicates that access to employment, education and other public services is based on a person’s status as a legal resident, and reports by Amnesty International and the Global Detention Report refer to arbitrary detention and ill-treatment of foreigners and that aliens can be detained for up to three months. The country information also indicates that many immigration detainees are held with criminal detainees and there are reports of poor prison conditions and mistreatment.
The Tribunal has considered whether the denial of entry, residency, employment, freedom of movement, health care and education and the risk of arrest, detention, expulsion and fines for being unlawfully present or working in the UAE are ostensibly laws of general application as they apply to any person who is a non citizen of the country. The applicant’s response to this is that, unlike other non citizens he has no where he can go and while the government treats all non citizens poorly depending on the politics at the time, he was particularly vulnerable as a stateless Palestinian and the insecurity of his situation is unbearable.
The Tribunal observes that the High Court in Chen Shi Hai v MIMA held that laws or policies which impact adversely upon a particular section of the population are not properly described as laws or policies of general application:
Laws or policies which target or apply only to a particular section of the population are not properly described as laws or policies of general application. Certainly, laws which target or impact adversely upon a particular class or group - for example, “black children”, as distinct from children generally - cannot properly be described in that way. … To say that, ordinarily, a law of general application is not discriminatory is not to deny that general laws, which are apparently non-discriminatory, may impact differently on different people and, thus, operate discriminatorily. Nor is it to overlook the possibility that selective enforcement of a law of general application may result in discrimination. As a general rule, however, a law of general application is not discriminatory.[18]
[18] Chen Shi Hai v MIMA (2000) 201 CLR 293, per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ at [19]-[21]. See also per Kirby J at [72] and Wang v MIMA (2000) 105 FCR 548 at [50]-[68].
M Akram International Journal of Refugee Law, Volume 30, Issue 3, October 2018, Pages 407–443,
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
Immigration
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
Judicial Review
Statutory Construction
Procedural Fairness
Standing
Remedies
10
0