1701120 (Refugee)

1701120 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 1483 (31 August 2017)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1701120
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Malaysia
MEMBER:Sophia Panagiotidis
DATE:31 August 2017
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 31 August 2017 at 12:24pm
CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Malaysia – Political opinion – Attended Bersih rally – Worsening employment situation
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5H, 5J, 5K-LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration [in] January 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Malaysia applied for the visa [in] August 2016.
Background to the application
The following information was confirmed with the applicant during the hearing held on 22 March 2017. The Tribunal was assisted by in interpreter in the Malay and English languages.
The applicant was born on [date] in Sabah and has lived in Sabah, Perak and Selangor. He is a Muslim and divorced. He speaks some English and Malay. The applicant arrived in Australia [in] June 2016 after having been granted a [temporary] visa. He has previously travelled to [Country 1] and [Country 2]. He worked as a [occupation] in Selangor, having trained at [an] Institute.
The applicant's claims for protection are summarised as follows:
·He left Malaysia because he is a member of the Bersih movement which is opposed to the current government.
·If he returns to Malaysia he will be arrested, imprisoned and fined.
The Tribunal notes that in his application for the visa the applicant has provided the following information:
·He has joined the Bersih movement which has gained international recognition as a non-political group which aims to restore Malaysia. This movement’s demands has made many people like the applicant worry about the consequences that could affect him should he continues to stay in Malaysia and the demands are fair to any democratic country but is seen as an offence by the current government. The demands include free and fair elections and a clean government, the right to question and dissent, strengthening the parliament and democracy and saving the economy of Malaysia, the resignation of the Prime Minister. Since the strength of the current government is through cronyism, corruption and strong arm tactics, many Malaysians are helpless and like the applicant has opted to leave instead as they do not see any significant changes any time soon. It is also safer for the applicant in Australia as the government of Malaysia is chasing him.
·If he returns to Malaysia he will be caught by the police as they are now checking and searching for those who have joined Bersih because the government does not like those who object to their ideas and changes they have made. Therefore people who have joined this group will be imprisoned and pay a high fine.
The delegate considered that the information provided by the applicant in support of his application for a protection visa to be vague, brief and to lack detail. The delegate also noted that the applicant has not provided any further information to substantiate his claims.
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).
Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and relevant country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the criteria for a protection visa. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Country of reference
The applicant claims to be a citizen of Malaysia and provided a certified copy of his passport to the Department with his application. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is a citizen of Malaysia and that Malaysia is the applicant’s receiving country for the purposes of the refugee and complementary protection assessment.
There is no available evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant has a current right to enter and reside in any safe third country for the purposes of s.36(3) of the Act.
The applicant’s evidence
The applicant told the Tribunal that his parents had passed away and he has [number] siblings. One of his [siblings] is in [Country 3] and others live in various cities in Malaysia. He has no family in Australia. He told the Tribunal that he left Malaysia legally and did not experience any difficulty leaving Malaysia.
The applicant was asked why he left Malaysia. He said that he did so because he had joined the Bersih movement and he also left because of economic problems in Malaysia. He came to Australia to earn a living and to take care of himself and his child. He was asked if he had left Malaysia permanently or whether he intended to return. He said he intends to return to Malaysia because he has a [child] living there who is [age].
The applicant was asked why he applied for protection in Australia. He told the Tribunal that he wants to live in Australia and to obtain permission to work.
The applicant was asked if he fears returning to Malaysia. He said he does because it is difficult to earn a decent salary in view of what is happening in Malaysia. He said there has been an influx of foreign workers from Bangladesh and this has affected the available work. He said he had been working before he left Malaysia and he left that job because there was a lot of competition for local work and this resulted in the reduction of working hours and reduction in allowances because of Bangladeshi workers. He was personally affected by this and this is why he joined Bersih to demonstrate against what was happening and to remedy the economic situation.
The applicant was asked about his level of involvement with Bersih. He said he participated in a rally held in August 2015 in Kuala Lumpur. The applicant was asked if he had experienced any problems at the rally. He said he did not experience any problems personally and that the rally started peacefully but later the police provoked the participants and attacked some people.
The applicant was asked if he had been involved in other similar organisations in the past. He said his participation in the rally in August 2015 was the first time.
The applicant was asked the reasons he decided to join the rally. He said he decided to do so because he wanted to voice his dissatisfaction with the government and to show that people have a right to gather and to voice their grievances and for them to be heard by the authorities. He knew that the media would publicise the rally. One of the reasons he decided to participate was because of the economic downturn they are facing in Malaysia and that this may be as a consequence of the 1MDB scandal.
The applicant was asked who fears will harm him if he were to return to Malaysia. The applicant said that some people were targeted by the police and were in line of the water cannons and tear gas but he personally was not harmed during the rally. The crowd threw rocks at the police in retaliation and he also did so. He was not detained but ran away, a photo may have been taken and they may be able to identify him.
The applicant was asked if anything occurred between the rally in August 2015 and when he left Malaysia. He said he is not sure because he left Malaysia [in] September 2015 and went to [Country 3] and stayed for 10 days. He said he went because he was running away in case his photo was taken at the rally. After [Country 3] he went to [Country 1] for ten days and then returned to Malaysia. The applicant was asked if he experienced any problems from the authorities after he returned to Malaysia. He said he did not experience any problems at the airport on his arrival or when he returned home.
The applicant was asked if anything specific happen to make him decide to leave Malaysia. He said nothing specific occurred and he came to Australia because of the economic downturn he faced at home.
The applicant was asked if he were to return to Malaysia whether there was anything specific he fears will happen to him. He said he may be on the wanted list of participants at the rally.
The applicant was asked if he had any interest in politics before his participation in the Bersih rally in August 2015. He said he had been a member of a political party the Pan Islamic Party and the Keadilan Party of Malaysia. He said both are opposition parties to the government. Joined the Pan Islamic Party first a few years ago and then the Keadilan Party. The Pan Islamic Party want to introduce Islamic law into Malaysia and to fully implement sharia law and that is why the ruling National Front they oppose this. He was unsure what the objectives of the Keadilan Party were but he supported these two parties. They banded together along with the Gerakan Party to protest against the government. He mainly agrees with the objectives of the Pan Islamic Party. They were all involved with Bersih.
The applicant was asked if he had been involved in any political activities while he has been in Australia. He said he has not been involved in anything like that and nor has he been involved in any anti-government activities. He would not do so as it would be disrespectful towards the government in Australia.
The applicant said that prior to leaving Malaysia he was working but resigned from the job before he left. He had become unhappy there because many foreign workers from Bangladesh were coming and were willing to accept lower salaries and they were not required to provide evidence of their qualifications. They were not even trained but were trained on the job just by observing. Then his hours of work were reduced and he was not paid overtime because of a glut of workers. Up until then he did not have difficulty finding employment but he was disappointed when these things happened.
The Tribunal referred to country information contained in the country information report by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) that indicates that protests and demonstrations occur from time to time including the Bersih 4 rallies in August 2015. DFAT assesses that protesters face a low risk of arrest when engaged in political rallies. Such individuals have commonly been released on bail shortly following their arrest. High-profile organisers of political rallies face a moderate risk of official discrimination and could be charged under the Peaceful Assembly Act or the Criminal Code.[1] The Tribunal asked the applicant if he had any comment to make on this country information.
[1] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report – Malaysia, 19 July 2016
The applicant agreed that nothing had happened to him after his participation in the Bersih rally and that his application for a protection visa may not be strong but he wished to have more time to stay and work in Australia. He is divorced and has responsibility towards his child and he wants to give [the child] a future.
Assessment of the evidence and findings
The applicant has claimed to have attended a Bersih rally in August 2015 which was held in Kuala Lumpur after which he went travelling for a time to [Country 3] and [Country 1]. His reasons for attending the rally was because he was concerned about government corruption, the influx of foreign workers which has resulted in a deterioration of wages and standards and a decline in the economic environment. The applicant was questioned about the Bersih movement and demonstrated a fair understanding of its aims and goals. The applicant agreed he was not involved in organising or taking a leadership role in the rally but attended as a concerned citizen and as a person who had been adversely affected by government policy. The applicant also told the Tribunal that he had joined opposition political parties in the past but had not really been active in these. The Tribunal applicant accepts the applicant's evidence that he attended the Bersih rally in Kuala Lumpur on August 2015 as a result of what he sees as a deteriorating economic environment and wished to express his dissatisfaction with the current government’s policies.
The applicant has claimed that at the rally there was some violence but he was not arrested as he managed to run away. His evidence is that he had not experienced any adverse consequences as a result of his participation in the Bersih rally in August 2015.
Country information as discussed earlier was put to the applicant and in particular the assessment by DFAT that those who participated in the Bersih rallies face a low risk of arrest when engaged in political rallies and that the authorities were more interested in high profile organisers and individuals which the applicant agreed he was not[2].
[2] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report – Malaysia, 19 July 2016
The Tribunal accepts and finds that the applicant is not an organiser or a leader of any protest group, Bersih or another group. He attended one protest in August 2015 but was not arrested. When he returned home he resumed his normal activities until his departure in June 2016. The applicant was asked if he had any problems or issues in trying to depart from Malaysia, he replied that he had not. The applicant’s evidence was that he was not ever approached by the authorities from the time after the rally to the time he left Malaysia.
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is a person of interest to the authorities because of his attendance at the 2015 Bersih rally. The authorities have shown no interest in him. The Tribunal considers that the evidence of the applicant with regard to the lack of interest in the applicant accords with the country information as cited with respect to the authorities attitude towards protesters. The authorities did not arrest the applicant at the time of the rally in August 2015 and took no action to find or arrest him subsequently. The Tribunal considers that the applicant’s fear of harm because of his participation in this rally is not supported by his own evidence and the country information.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a real chance of serious harm arising from his involvement in a protest in August 2015 and in expressing his political opinion, on return to Malaysia and in the foreseeable future. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for this reason.
The Tribunal has considered the prospect of the applicant returning to Malaysia and becoming involved in a protest in the future. The Tribunal notes that the applicant involved himself in one rally on one occasion, and has not expressed his political opinion subsequently.
The Tribunal considers that the applicant can involve himself in political rallies opposing the present government, seeking free and fair elections and stopping corruption if he chooses to do so. The Tribunal considers that this, alongside the DFAT advice, demonstrates that the authorities have no issue with alternative political views being presented, and low level activists and those such as the applicant who attended one rally in 2015, do not face harm for having or pursuing their political opinions. The Tribunal considers that the country information demonstrates that the applicant will be able to express his political opinion freely on return to Malaysia and in the reasonably foreseeable future. The applicant is also able to be a member of an opposition party in Malaysia for the same reason without fear of being harmed. The Tribunal notes that the applicant had given evidence that he had previously been a member of two political opposition parties in Malaysia but that he did not experience any adverse consequences of his membership.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a real chance of serious harm arising out of his political opinion on return to Malaysia and in the foreseeable future. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for this reason.
From the applicant’s evidence, it appears that a major factor in his deciding to leave Malaysia was to escape from what he sees as a lessening of standards in his the workplace and in his profession as a [occupation] due to an influx of foreign workers which has resulted in an undermining of job security and falling wages due to increased competition. This has resulted in his economic hardship.

However, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds the applicant will be able to obtain an income from employment on return to Malaysia, and, having regard to both his training and skills as well as his capacity to work, the Tribunal does not accept that any financial hardship that the applicant may encounter will amount to serious harm or significant harm. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant will experience severe financial hardship that threatens his capacity to subsist or be denied the capacity to earn a livelihood, where the denial threatens his capacity to subsist or that he will be denied access to basic services, where the denial threatens his capacity to subsist or that he will be subject to any other form of serious harm non-exhaustively listed under s.5J(5) of the Act.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).
Complementary protection
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal has considered whether it is satisfied there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, in this case, Malaysia, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant will face significant harm in Malaysia because of his political opinion. For the reasons outlined earlier the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s participation in a Bersih rally would lead to his being threatened or harmed. The Tribunal does not consider this type of participation would amount to significant harm as defined in s.36(2A) or that there is a real risk he would suffer significant harm on this basis if removed from Australia to Malaysia. Having regard to the claims advanced and the evidence before the Tribunal, including country information referred to above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being returned to Malaysia, the applicant will face a real risk of significant harm arising from his political opinion.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant faces significant harm, as defined, if he is removed from Australia to Malaysia. The Tribunal is not satisfied that he has, in the past, or that there is a real risk that he would, in the future, be subjected to the arbitrary deprivation of life; the death penalty; torture; or cruel or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as set out in s.36(2A) of the Act. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Having considered the applicant’s claims singularly and cumulatively, the Tribunal is not satisfied there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Malaysia, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm.
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Sophia Panagiotidis
Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)   the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)   there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)   the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note: For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note: For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)   conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)   conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)   without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in them practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)   that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)   the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)   the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)   a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)   significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)   significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)   significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)   denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)    denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)   disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)   disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)   a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)   the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)   any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)   the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)   protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)   the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)   the person can access the protection; and
(b)   the protection is durable; and
(c)   in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
..
36Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)   the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)   the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)   it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)   the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)   the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2017] AATA 1483

31 August 2017

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice

Appeal