1700583 (Refugee)

[2021] AATA 4082

1700583 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 4082 (20 August 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1700583

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Taiwan

MEMBER:Paul Windsor

DATE:20 August 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 20 August 2021 at 4:05 pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Taiwan – unaware of false claims in protection application – migration agent’s uncertain status – applicant’s goal to work in Australia – cancer treatment available in Taiwan – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994

CASES
Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445
Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and McIllhatton v Guo Wei Rong and Pam Run
Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347

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 dependants.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 15 December 2016 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Taiwan, applied for the visa on 8 December 2015.

3. In her protection visa application the applicant indicated she was born on [date] in Taipei, Taiwan.  She did not indicate an ethnicity or religion.  She stated she has never married.  She indicated she departed Taiwan legally [in] January 2014 on a Taiwanese passport and entered Australia on a subclass 417 working holiday visa.  She indicated she returned to Taiwan twice in 2015, to visit family, and last entered Australia [in] August 2015.[1]

4. In a statement included with her application the applicant indicated she fears arrest if she returned to Taiwan because she and her parents organised a protest against the construction of a [plant] close to their ancestral home.  She claimed her parents and other protesters were detained and her parents have been held in a detention centre and ‘were not allowed for meeting’.[2]

5. The delegate refused to grant the visa indicating that the applicant had advised at an interview with him (held on 6 December 2016) that her written statement was not true, she was not fearful of the government in Taiwan and, at the time she applied for protection, the only reason she wished to stay in Australia was that she had been diagnosed with [medical condition] six months ago and wished to stay in Australia to receive treatment for this.

6. The applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of this decision on 11 January 2017.  She provided the Tribunal with a copy of the delegate’s decision record.[3]

7. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal by video-link on 20 August 2021.  The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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).

11. 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.

12. 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

13. 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 (the Department), and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

    Findings and reasons

    Identity

14. On the basis of the copy of her Taiwanese passport submitted to the Department,[4] the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a national of Taiwan and that her identity is as claimed.  The Tribunal accepts that Taiwan is her ‘receiving country’ for refugee criterion purposes and for complementary protection purposes.

    Issues

15. The issues in this review are whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for one or more of the five reasons set out in s.5J(1) and if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her being removed from Australia to her receiving country of Taiwan, there is a real risk she will suffer significant harm.

16. For the following reasons the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

    Credibility 

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. When assessing claims made by applicants the Tribunal needs to make findings of fact in relation to those claims. This usually involves an assessment of the credibility of the applicants. When doing so it is important to bear in mind the difficulties often faced by asylum seekers. The benefit of the doubt should be given to asylum seekers who are generally credible but unable to substantiate all of their claims.

20. The Tribunal must bear in mind that if it makes an adverse finding in relation to a material claim made by the applicant but is unable to make that finding with confidence it must proceed to assess the claim on the basis that it might possibly be true (see MIMA v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220).

21. However, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any or all of the allegations made by an applicant. Further, the Tribunal is not required to have rebutting evidence available to it before it can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been made out (see Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451 per Beaumont J; Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347 at 348 per Heerey J and Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547.

    Assessment of claims

    Background

22. At the hearing the applicant indicated that her father passed away in 2019.  She said that her mother and [sisters] live in Taipei, Taiwan, where she was born and grew up. 

23. The applicant confirmed the advice in her application that she first came to Australia in January 2014 on a working holiday visa, and that she had been living in [regional] Victoria where she had been working in a [factory].  She indicated that she had since left that employment due to her ‘physical condition’ and was now living in [suburban] Melbourne and was [working].

24. The applicant indicated that she had returned to Taiwan in 2018 and 2019 to visit her father who had been seriously ill at the time, in addition to the two times she had returned to Taiwan (in 2015) prior to the decision being made to refuse to grant her a protection visa in December 2016.

25. The Tribunal asked the applicant about a news article she submitted to the Tribunal on 15 August 2021 regarding the arrest in late December 2018 of Ms [A] (the article indicated Ms [A] had been charged with offences under the Migration Act, including giving immigration assistance while not being a registered migration agent and falsely representing herself as a migration agent).[5]  The Tribunal noted that Ms [A] was the applicant’s ‘authorised recipient’ at the time of the delegate’s decision on 15 December 2016.  The applicant commented that she did not know if the article was true or not but said she had not been able to locate Ms [A] even though her company is still advertising its services, indicating that they can help people who wish to be able to work in Australia.  She said she used them because she wanted to stay in Australia to work here.

26. The applicant said she paid Ms [A] $2,500 to put in the visa application and then paid her $1,000 per month until 2017.  The Tribunal asked the applicant if she was aware that it was a protection visa application that had been submitted on her behalf.  She said she was only told that an application had been made for a working visa so she could work in [the] factory ‘with peace of mind’.

27. The Tribunal asked the applicant if she was aware of the claims made in her protection visa application.  She indicated she was not.  Consistent with the delegate’s decision record, she indicated it was only when she attended the interview with the delegate that she became aware it had been claimed that she feared arrest if she returned to Taiwan because she had been involved in a protest regarding the construction of a [plant].  She commented that she told the delegate at the interview with him that the claims were false.  When asked by the Tribunal, she confirmed that the claims included in the protection visa application were false.

28. The Tribunal sought to confirm the correctness of the advice in the delegate’s decision record that she had remained in Australia because she was undergoing treatment for [cancer].  The applicant indicated this was the case.  When asked if she had completed her treatment and was in remission, the applicant said the cancer recurred two years ago and she had undergone a course of chemotherapy up until the end of last year.  When asked if she was in remission now, the applicant commented that she thinks so, but indicated she sees her doctor regularly and continues to take daily medication and has an injection monthly.

29. The Tribunal asked the applicant if she has any concerns about returning to Taiwan now.  She replied that she wants to see her family but can’t due to COVID-19 restrictions.  The Tribunal noted that COVID-19 related restrictions are preventing travel at the moment but this will be temporary, and asked if she had concerns about returning to Taiwan once the COVID-19 related restrictions are lifted.  The applicant indicated that she wants to see her family but said she also wants to undertake further study in Australia, commenting that she wants to undertake a Bachelor [degree] because she wants to [work in a certain industry] in Australia.

30. The Tribunal reiterated comments made in its introductory remarks regarding the key criteria for a protection visa: that protection visas are for people who face a real risk of serious or significant harm in their home countries.  The applicant commented that she understands that but had wanted her ‘agent’ to apply for a working visa so she could earn more money and then be able to transfer to a student visa.  She asked whether the Tribunal could assist her to be able to do that.  The Tribunal explained that its role was limited to reviewing the decision to refuse to grant her a protection visa, and recommended that she seek advice from the Department and/or a (properly) registered migration agent regarding immigration options that may be available to her.

31. The Tribunal observed that relevant country information, including that noted in the delegate’s decision record, seems to indicate that good quality cancer treatment is readily available in Taiwan,[6] and is affordable given the comprehensive social welfare system,[7] and compulsory National Health Insurance scheme in Taiwan, in which 99.9 per cent of the population are enrolled.[8]  The applicant commented that she seldom went to see the doctor in Taiwan and indicated that when she returned in 2018 and 2018 she spent most of the time with her father, who was seriously ill.  The Tribunal commented that while that may have been the case, the country information indicates there is good quality cancer treatment available to her in Taiwan should she need to access it there in the future.  The applicant acknowledged this is the case but said she has been receiving treatment in Australia and has ‘more trust’ in the treatment here.

32. When asked, the applicant indicated there were no further matters she wished to raise with the Tribunal.

33. The Tribunal finds that the claims put forward in the statement of claims included with the applicant’s protection visa application were concocted by the applicant’s then authorised recipient.  Based on the applicant’s evidence at the interview with the delegate and at the hearing, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not fear, and does not face a real chance/real risk of suffering serious or significant harm from Taiwanese authorities or any other group or individual in Taiwan because she and/or her family members opposed the construction of a [plant] close to their ancestral home, or for any other reason.

34. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has undergone treatment for [cancer] in Australia and is still receiving some treatment in this regard.  The Tribunal accepts that she would prefer to continue treatment with her current medical service providers in Australia because she has established a relationship with them and trusts them.  The Tribunal finds, however, that relevant country information indicates that the applicant could access appropriate medical treatment in Taiwan if necessary.  The Tribunal finds that she would not be denied appropriate medical treatment for one or more of the reasons enumerated at s.5J(1)(a) of the Act.

    Refugee criterion

35. Given the findings of fact above, the Tribunal finds there is not a real chance that the applicant will face treatment amounting to persecution involving serious harm, for one or more of the five reasons mentioned in s.5J(1)(a) of the Act, should she return to Taiwan in the reasonably foreseeable future.

36. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).

    Complementary protection criterion

37. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative complementary protection criterion in s.36(2)(aa).

38. In considering whether there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Taiwan, the Tribunal has noted that in MIAC v SZQRB, the Full Federal Court held that the ‘real risk’ test imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in relation to the ‘refugee’ criterion.[9]

39. Considering the applicant’s circumstances, and having regard to the findings of fact set out above, the Tribunal also finds that there are not substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her being removed from Australia to Taiwan, there is a real risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm as set out in s.36(2A).

40. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal finds the applicant would not be denied relevant medical treatment in Taiwan through any act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause her to suffer significant harm.

41. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

    Member of the same family unit

42. 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

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

    Paul Windsor
    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.

    …

    5H    Meaning of refugee

    (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:

    (a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or

    (b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.

    Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.

    …

    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 the 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.

    …

    36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act

    …

    (2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:

    (a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or

    (aa)  a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    (b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

    (i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and

    (ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

    (c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

    (i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and

    (ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

    (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.

    …

    
    

[1] See the Departmental file.

[2] See the Departmental file.

[3] See the Tribunal file.

[4] See the Departmental file.

[5] See the Tribunal file.

‘Taiwan Cancer Registry – Introduction; Taiwan Cancer Registry, 1 January 2016 Taiwan Cancer Registry[Introduction] (ntu.edu.tw).

[7] ‘BTI 2018 Country Report – Taiwan’, Bertelsmann Stiftung, 23 March 2018, p.18, CIS7B83941566

[8] 'International Profiles of Health Care Systems 2017', The Commonwealth Fund, Mossialos, E, et al (eds), 31 May 2017, CISEDB50AD5513, 163-171.

[9] MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33 (Lander, Besanko, Gordon, Flick and Jagot JJ, 20 March 2013) per Lander and Gordon JJ at [246], Besanko and Jagot JJ at [297] and Flick J at [342].