1701431 (Refugee)

1701431 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 710 (11 March 2020)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1701431
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   India
MEMBER:Hugh Sanderson
DATE:11 March 2020
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 11 March 2020 at 10:07am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection visa – India – political opinion – member and supporter of the Congress Party – applicant had previously provided bogus documents – fear of harm from BJP party members – credibility concerns – inconsistent evidence – relocation possible – fear of persecution not well-founded – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 36, 65, 424,438,499
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 and Border Protection on 30 December 2016 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of India, applied for the visa on 30 October 2015. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or that he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm if he returned to India.
Background
The applicant was born in India and is currently [age] years old. He is married and has a child who is currently [age] years old. Both his wife and child remain living in India. In India, he claimed to be an [Occupation 1] working with his father. The applicant first entered Australia [in] September 2015 holding a [temporary] visa. He then applied for the protection visa.
In a statement provided in support of the application, the applicant said as follows:
I am an Indian national arrived in Australia [in] September 2015.1 was born on [date] in south west of India in a [Occupation 1]) family. My father is [a] local [Occupation 1]. I had [number of] years of education. I worked with my father as an [Occupation 1] in our local [Workplace 1]. I had always desired to be significant presence in my local community. After the demolition of Babari Masjid and Gujarat 2002 massacre we could see the social condition becoming more and more vitiated by communal and racist forces. Religious and caste conflicts were increasingly hardening hearts. It was becoming more and more difficult to keep away from disturbance around.
I came to know that the ideal of the Bharatiya Janata Party are economic self reliance, uniform civil code and cultural nationalism. But I have not been able to accept the polarise Indian society by provoking communal riots.
I liked the ideology of the Congress party. The Congress party is a liberal nationalist party that follows a form of nationalism that support values of freedom, tolerance, equality and individual rights. I believed that through my political involvement I would be able to provide strong oppositions of the BJP activities.
The place where I dwell is a mixed area. Majority of the Hindu population in this area are connected to BJP and corrupt money flowed easily to their hands and some was used for the illegal activities in the area and every occurrence here was intertwined with religion and their party. They threatened and butchered everyone including the people affiliated to the other political parties. During the general election I worked very hard for the Congress candidate in my area. [Mr A] is a [Position 1] of my area and we worked together very hard for our party. The BJP member noticed our activities and informed their leaders about our activities. Being a son of local [Occupation 1] and [worker] of local [Workplace 1] general public motivated to join the Congress party and voted for Congress party for the first time and some of them converted from CPIM party. The BJP members unleashing terror in Kerala out of frustration that it failed to win even a single Lok Sabha seat in the state. The [Workplace 1] administration affiliated with the BJP asked my father to stop me from working for Congress party specially working with [Mr A]. But my political belief and expression of this cold not hinder by this intimidation and I pursued with my political work. I wanted to adhere to my sacred basic human right of freedom of expression and express my political belief surpassed all this intimidation. Furthermore my true patriotism towards mother India made me to canvass vigorously against BJP.
Since the date of Kerala Panchayat Election has been announced the BJP members threatened to kill me. It will be held [in] November 2015. We have started conducting meeting and visiting voters to request votes for the UDF candidates six months before. The BJP members attempted to kill me and [Mr A] in few times. They attacked us on the meeting; some of our members were injured. The local leader of the BJP warned my father about the consequence if I continue to work for the Congress party. The BJP goons went to my house to find me but I was not home at that time. They assaulted my pregnant wife and my father was dashed to the ground and kicked. All our valuables were ransacked and further insult to the injury those goons had grabbed her hair and warned her to tell me to stop all my political activities. When I heard this I was shaking convulsively with fear of my life and my family but my fellow members attacked the BJP office on the same day which triggered riots in the area. Whoever was in the office were beaten and two of our members were [injured]. All of their furniture, billboard and leaflets were destroyed. They had left before the police arrived. I was very worried about my wife and my father asked me to go and stay in my in-laws house. In the same night they attacked many of our members and following day they went to my father [Workplace 1] and warned him. They could not do much in front of the locals. My father's friend who is a BJP member warned my father the gravity of the situation and advised him I should leave the country as soon as possible. I did not want to leave the country but I had to think about my family. My child was born just before I left India. It was a very difficult to leave my young family but the BJP attempted to kill me few times and I was lucky but I could not take any more chance.
I would humbly beg the Australian government to grant me political asylum. I am deeply disturbed and worried about my wife and new born baby whose life are at stake.
The applicant was interviewed by an officer from the Department on 9 December 2016. During that interview, he made the following claims:
·He travelled to [Country 1] and [Country 2] for [from] [February] 2015 to escape the issues he was having in India;
·His fear in India started in July 2014 after his baby was born (it is noted he claimed his child was born on [a different date]);
·He had been working with Mr [A] of the Indian National Congress Party (Congress Party) and about 10 other people collecting money from houses;
·Mr [A] was attacked [in] July 2013 while he was shopping, but the applicant later changed this to say that he was attacked while meeting with people for political reasons;
·The applicant had been pushed by three or four people from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) who shouted that he should not be involved in the Congress Party;
·The applicant made no First Incident Report (FIR) to the police about the assault;
·After his wife and father were attacked in the applicant’s house [in] June 2014 the applicant ran away to his in-laws’ place [and] he stayed there for two weeks;
·The applicant returned to his father’s home and stayed there for a month, only leaving to go to the [Workplace 1] which was close by;
·In September 2014 the applicant felt it was safe enough to travel to his local town but he believed that he might be attacked by the BJP in India because of his political activity;
·The applicant believed it might be better in a few years, but it was too dangerous to return to India now; and
·As the government in India is so strong, he could not relocate anywhere else in India.
The delegate who considered the application noted the following issues:
·The applicant’s responses to the claims he made were characterised by evasiveness, inconsistencies and contradictions;
·Despite claiming to work closely with Mr [A], he was not able to provide any personal details of Mr [A], such as his first name, or details about the alleged attack he suffered;
·Although he claimed his home was ransacked and attacked by “goons” he claimed to have returned to the home and stayed there that night, only going to his in-laws’ home the following day;
·Despite claiming that he faced the threat of death in his own home, he only stayed with his in-laws for two weeks as he claimed he could not stay there any longer due to “cultural reasons”;
·The applicant claimed that he was in hiding in August 2014 but claimed that he went to Chennai [in] August 2014 to the [Country 3] embassy to apply for a visa to travel to [Country 3] and when this contradiction was put to him he responded by saying that he had nothing to say; and
·In his [temporary] visa application and incoming passenger card, the applicant claimed that he was a [Occupation 2] which indicated that he was willing to provide false information to get a migration outcome.
Taking into account all these matters, the delegate was not satisfied the applicant is or ever was an [Occupation 1] or involved in political activism in India. The delegate was not satisfied the applicant had ever been assaulted or targeted by members of the BJP or that he has been or will in the future be targeted by them for any reason. The delegate did not accept the claims made by the applicant and found that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution or that there was a real risk he would suffer significant harm if he returned to India. The delegate refused the application.
Information to the Tribunal
The applicant was granted a variation of his bridging visa to enable him to travel overseas. The applicant departed Australia [in] August 2018, returning [in] September 2018.
The applicant provided a statement to the Tribunal dated 7 August 2019 where he made the following claims:
·Since he left India the BJP have come to look for him many times and threatened his wife;
·When his wife has refused to say anything they have harassed her and they have grabbed her hair and warned her about him;
·The BJP won the general election and have become more aggressive;
·Under the current BJP government in India there is an assault on the secular and free Indian Constitution and any dissent is not tolerated;
·Even the Supreme Court of India has not lived up to its role as a custodian of constitutional rights;
·There have been attacks on Congress Party members in Gujarat indicating Congress Party members are not safe from the BJP.
The applicant provided photos of protests obtained from the internet as well as a table (unsourced) of Kannur political murders for the period from 2005 to 2017. This showed that in 2017, the most recent year for which data was given, there were two cases of political murders, the victims being from the BJP.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 4 March 2020 to give evidence and present arguments. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Malayalam and English languages. Much of the hearing was conducted without the need of the interpreter as the applicant was able to communicate in English.
The applicant provided a copy of his Indian passport showing his travel since its issue [in] 2014, his driver’s licence and a copy of the Department’s decision.
The Tribunal explained the process under s.424AA of the Act. The Tribunal explained to the applicant it would be putting to him information which would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review. It would explain what that information was, why it was relevant and then invite the applicant to comment on or respond to the information. If he required more time to comment on or respond to the information he could request an adjournment.
The Tribunal noted that on the Department’s file there was a certificate issued pursuant to s.438 of the Act. The Tribunal indicated that although it would not provide documents to the applicant that was subject to the certificate, it would put to the applicant the gist of the information to allow him to comment on that information. The applicant indicated that he did not object to the issue of the certificate being addressed in this manner.
The applicant said that he was currently living with three other Indians who had all applied for protection visas. He said that he did not know the basis of any of their claims.
The applicant said that he did not have any idea of the current political situation in India, apart from reading the papers. He said that he did not follow any political party. He said that when he was living in India the federal constituency in which he was living was Kannur.
The applicant said that his family living in India consisted of his wife and child and his parents. He later referred to his brother. He said that his marriage to his wife was an arranged marriage and they came from the same caste. He said that his mother was related to his wife’s family. He said that his wife is currently living with her parents in [Municipality 1] which was about [specified] distance from his family. He said that his wife and child have no problems living in India. He claimed that people had asked his wife where the applicant was now as they wanted to find him.
He said that his parents were living in his father’s home, where the applicant had always lived when in [India] . He said that his father retired from being a [Occupation 1] in 2019. He said that his parents have no problems living in India.
The applicant said that he had applied for a visa for himself and his wife to travel to [Country 3] in August or September 2014. He said that he had to travel by train to Chennai to apply for the visa. He said he and his wife planned to visit [City in Country 3] but the visa application was refused. He said the reason they wanted to go to [Country 3] was to have a honeymoon there.
The applicant said that his wife [needed] surgery in 2018. This took place in a hospital in Bangalore and he travelled to Bangalore, departing Australia [in] August 2018. He said that his wife was discharged from hospital two weeks after he arrived in Bangalore and then was taken by ambulance back to her hometown of [Municipality 1], about [specified] distance from Bangalore, travelling with the applicant’s brother. He said that he remained in Bangalore, staying in a hotel. He said that he had no problems from anyone while living in Bangalore. He said that he did not depart India until [September] 2018.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why, if his wife had been discharged from hospital and had returned to her hometown, the applicant had remained in [Bangalore]. The applicant said that he stayed there because of his enemies and he felt safer there. The Tribunal asked why if he had travelled to India to spend time with his wife who was having surgery, he would have remained in Bangalore away from her instead of returning to Australia. The applicant said that he decided to stay in Bangalore until he returned to Australia. The applicant did not give any adequate response why he would decide to delay his return to Australia if his wife had left Bangalore and returned to [Municipality 1].
The applicant claimed that he was a member of the Congress Party. He claimed that when he joined the Congress Party you are given a one rupee voucher. He said that he no longer had this and had no evidence that he had ever been a member of the Congress Party. He said that he was only an ordinary member and was not a leader or anything else. He said that he campaigned for the party. He was not able to provide details as to what that campaigning entailed.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why he believed he could not return to India. He said that some people attacked his house in June 2014. The applicant said that this was because he was doing work for Congress and this was not liked by the supporters of BJP. He said that in July 2013 [Mr A] had been attacked by people and he had hurt his hand. The applicant confirmed that he was not involved in that attack at all.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why BJP supporters would have attacked his home in June 2014. The applicant said there was no election campaign going on at that time but because he was a member of the Congress Party they attacked his house. The applicant said that he was not in the house when the attack took place. He said that his wife was pushed and her hair was grabbed. He said that his father was also pushed. He said that some furniture was smashed but no other damage was done. He said that his wife and father were not injured. The applicant said that he did not report the matter to the police as the police do not deal with these matters. The applicant said that he had no evidence to show that the house was ever attacked by anyone.
The Tribunal asked the applicant what he did after the alleged attack on his house and his father and wife. He said that his father suggested that they not take any further action. He said that other members of the Congress Party wanted to take action. As far as he was concerned, he did not get involved in any further action and remained living in his parents’ home with his wife. The applicant said that he did not report the matter to the police or do anything else because the BJP was stronger in their area.
The applicant confirmed that after the alleged attack on his house that he did nothing further. He said that he remained living there with his parents and wife and continued to attend the [Workplace 1] where his father was a [Occupation 1]. He said the only time they left their home village was when they travelled to Chennai to apply for a visa to enter [Country 3]. The applicant said there was not much damage done to the house and since then nobody has attacked the house or any members of his family. He said that he had not been attacked by anyone. He said that after about a month he again started working for the Congress Party.
The Tribunal noted the claims that the applicant was making in respect of the attack on his house was inconsistent to that information provided in his statement. The Tribunal noted that in his written statement he claimed that the BJP goons “assaulted my pregnant wife and my father was dashed to the ground and kicked. All our valuables were ransacked and further insult to injury those goons had grabbed her hair and warned her to tell me to stop all my political activities”. This was inconsistent to the claims the applicant was now making which were that his wife had her hair pulled and both his wife and his father were pushed, but were otherwise unharmed. It was also inconsistent with not much damage being done to the house. The applicant did not give any response when this inconsistency was raised.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant had in his statement claimed that it was the demolition of Babri Masjid that led to his increasing political activity. The applicant said the demolition of Babri Masjid occurred in 2002. He then said it happened in 2000. He then said it happened in 1996. The Tribunal noted that the attack on demolition of Babri Masjid by Hindu nationalists occurred in 1992 when the applicant was only [age] years old. This made it inherently unlikely that the demolition of the Babri Masjid would have caused the applicant to become politically active and undermined the claims that he was making. The applicant did not respond to this.

The Tribunal referred to the process under s.424 AA of the Act referred to above. The Tribunal referred to the interview conducted by the Department with the applicant. Details of this interview were set out in the Department’s decision which the applicant had provided to the Tribunal. During that interview, the applicant claimed that after the attack on his house he and his wife fled the next day to her parents’ home in [Municipality 1] and remained there for two weeks before returning to the applicant’s hometown. He claimed that they left [Municipality 1] because culturally it was not appropriate for them to remain living with his parents in law. This was inconsistent to the information that was now being provided by the applicant which was that he remained living in his parents’ home in his hometown and the only time he left his hometown was when he travelled to Chennai.
The applicant said that what he presented in his application was not right and he was not aware of what he should say to get the visa. He said that he stayed in his parents’ house for a month and then went to his wife’s parents’ house for two weeks after that. The Tribunal noted that this was again inconsistent to the information he was providing to the Tribunal which was that the only time he left his parents’ house after the alleged attack on the house was to travel to Chennai for one day. The applicant said that he had nothing to say about this.
The Tribunal noted that in the most recent general election in April 2019 that in Kerala the BJP did not have anyone elected and in the constituency of Kannur the BJP were reported to receive 9% of the vote compared to 49% of the vote for the Congress Party candidate. This indicated that the BJP were not a force in the applicant’s hometown and that the applicant would not face any threat of harm or persecution from the BJP. It also indicated the BJP would not have any influence over the police in the area which would have prevented the police from conducting an investigation into any alleged assault or attack.
The applicant said that the BJP have a very cruel nature and that they are very violent. The Tribunal noted that the information the applicant had provided to the Tribunal as to Kannur political murders was that in 2017, the most recently cited year, there were two cases of murders, both of which were of members of BJP. Since 2012, it was claimed that 10 members of the BJP had been murdered and over that same period five members of the Congress Party had been killed. The applicant said that there was always violence, often between the BJP and the communist parties. The Tribunal noted this was consistent to country information it had seen which did not highlight any conflict between the BJP and the Congress Party but referred to conflict between the various communist parties in Kerala and the BJP. The applicant said that he had nothing further to say.
The applicant claimed that he had no problems when he was staying with his wife’s parents in [Municipality 1]. He said that his wife had no problems living there. He said that his wife had said that somebody had asked about him in 2016. The applicant again confirmed that he had no problems when he was living in Bangalore when he travelled there in August and September 2018.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why, if the Tribunal accepted his claims at best that he was a member of the Congress Party in his local area, he could not relocate to another area of Kerala, such as his wife’s hometown of [Municipality 1] or to Bangalore or to any other area in the south of India. The applicant said that the BJP is the dominant party everywhere and he would face persecution. The Tribunal noted that country information did not support this claim. The applicant said that he wanted to be given a couple of more years to be able to stay in Australia.
The Tribunal noted the Treaty of Friendship between India and Nepal. This would allow the applicant and his family to live and reside in Nepal where he would not face any persecution from the BJP or any other group. The applicant said that he could not say anything about this.
The Tribunal referred to the process under s.424AA of the Act. The Tribunal referred to the applicant’s [temporary] visa application and the documents provided in support of that application. The Tribunal indicated that these documents and the information being provided by the applicant were all bogus. This indicated the applicant was willing to provide bogus documents and information in support of an application. As the applicant had previously provided bogus documents and information, the Tribunal may conclude that the information the applicant was currently providing was not credible.
The applicant said that his father arranged for an agent in Chennai to make the application and they provided all the documents. The applicant claimed that he did not know anything about this. He said that all he knew was that he was told that when he arrived in Australia he had to put on his incoming passenger card that he was a [Occupation 2].
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 (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
Country information
The DFAT Country Information Report for India dated 17 October 2018 describes India as having “a diverse political landscape, which represents different ethnic, religious, secular and political interests”.[1] The Republic of India is a federal constitutional democracy made up of 29 states and seven unions. The Constitution divides powers between the central government and the states with some areas of shared responsibility. There are also local governments. According to the Commission of India, India has more than 2000 registered political parties representing diverse political, ethnic and religious interests. Many of the parties have a regional focus.[2]
[1] DFAT Country Information Report for India dated 17 October 2018 at paragraph 3.20
[2] DFAT Country Information Report for India dated 17 October 2018 at paragraph 2.28
Since independence, India in politics has been dominated by the Congress Party however in the 2014 general election the BJP, a Hindu nationalist party, formed government in coalition and were again successful in the May 2019 elections. The various states of India have different political dynamics. In the last decade, no one party has dominated the government in Kerala or been successful in the federal general elections. In the last 10 years, the Congress Party has been in a coalition with other parties known as the United Democratic Front. Its main rival has been the Left Democratic Front which, currently, comprises the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)), the Communist Party of India and various independents supported by the Communist Party of India (Marxist). The BJP is in an alliance called the National Democratic Alliance. In the most recent general election the BJP and other parties of the National Democratic Alliance failed to win any seat in Kerala.[3]
[3]
There are various reports of political violence occurring in Kerala and in the constituency of Kannur in particular. On 17 May 2016 the BBC reported on the death of a worker from the RSS, the Hindu nationalists organisation associated with the BJP, who was murdered by a group of six CPI(M) workers who were subsequently arrested by the police.[4] A report by the Business Standard in 2016 described the elections as “peaceful, though there are a few incidents reported”.[5] Another report from the Caravan Magazine described the conflict between various political parties, highlighting the fact that the main conflict was between the BJP and CPI.[6] Another report from News 18 also reported on violence which was allegedly perpetrated by one of the communist parties of the Left Democratic Front.[7]
[4]
[5] 29/9/16
[7] >
The reports of violence are generally associated during periods of election campaigns. DFAT assesses that “leaders and members of opposition political parties do not face official or societal discrimination. The risk of political violence between rival supporters increases during parliamentary and state elections, especially in states where results are tightly contested. However, in general, elections in India are peacefully conducted.”[8]
[8] DFAT Country Information Report for India dated 17 October 2018 at paragraph 3.25.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
On the basis of the applicant’s identity documents, including his passport and evidence provided at the hearing before the Tribunal, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a national of India. Therefore, for the purposes of s.36(2)(a) of the Act and the meaning of refugee in s.5H of the Act, the Tribunal accepts that India is the country of nationality. For the purposes of s.36(2)(aa) of the Act, the Tribunal accepts that India is the receiving country.
The basis of the applicant’s claim is that he was a member and supporter of the Congress Party and that members of the BJP had threatened and attempted to kill him. Various claims were made by the applicant as to events he claimed happened which showed that he had a well-founded fear of persecution due to his political opinion and faced a real risk that he would suffer significant harm from BJP members if he returned to live in India. Although the applicant claimed in his written statement that he had helped convert members of the CPI(M) to the Congress Party, he made no claim that he had ever been threatened or harassed by any member of the CPI(M) or any other group or organisation apart from the BJP.
The Tribunal does not accept the claims that the applicant has made. The Tribunal does not accept that he was ever a member or supporter of the Congress Party or that he was ever threatened or that he or his family were ever assaulted or were harmed by supporters of the BJP or any other group, organisation or individual for any reason.
The Tribunal did not find the applicant a credible witness. During the hearing before the Tribunal, the applicant was evasive and vague in his answers. The Tribunal put to the applicant numerous inconsistencies in his evidence. In response to this, the applicant often declined to answer or was unable to respond. As set out below, the applicant also made claims where the evidence made those claims inherently unlikely. When this was put to the applicant, he again often declined to provide any clarification or evidence as to why the claims he was making would be credible. At the end of the hearing, he simply claimed that he wanted to have a few more years in Australia. If the claims that the applicant has made were genuine and there was a real risk that he would suffer significant harm or had a well-founded fear of persecution, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant would simply be seeking a few more years in Australia before returning to India.
The applicant provided little or no independent documentation to support his claims. Although he claimed that he was a member of the Congress Party, he is not able to provide any documentation to establish this. He claimed that he had been given a voucher worth one rupee (about two cents) when he joined, but no longer had that voucher. He had no other documentation which would establish his claim that he was an active member of the Congress Party who had a profile which would have made him a target of any political opponent. He was not able to provide any evidence to establish the claim that his parents’ house had been attacked at any time or that his father and wife had been assaulted by “BJP goons”. He claimed not to have made any police report as a result of the attack on his parents’ home and the assault on his father and wife.
Apart from his statements and his passport, the only documentation the applicant did provide were photos it appears he obtained from the internet which are unrelated to any of the claims he has made.
Although in his statement he claimed that he worked very hard for the Congress candidate in his area, he was not able to provide any detailed information as to what he actually did apart from “canvassing for votes”. He was not able to provide any details of what he did to canvass for votes. At the hearing he described himself as “just a party member.” He said that he was “not a leader or anything else” in the Congress Party. When asked about his current political thoughts he said that he did not have any current ideas about politics in India. The fact that the applicant was not involved in any leadership position within the Congress Party, did not appear to have participated in any rallies for the Congress Party, was not involved in the organisation of the Congress Party and currently has no ideas about politics in India is not the profile of a person who would be targeted for any reason for his political opinion.
In his statement, the applicant identified two events which inspired him to join the Congress Party and oppose the activities of the BJP. The first was the demolition of Babri Masjid. When the Tribunal asked the applicant to provide details of when the demolition of Babri Masjid occurred the applicant initially stated it was in 2002, before then claiming it occurred in 2000, before then claiming it occurred in 1996. The attack on and the demolition of Babri Masjid occurred in 1992 when the applicant was [age] years old.
The other event the applicant referred to was riots in Gujarat that occurred in 2002. If it was the demolition of Babri Masjid and the Gujarat riots that prompted the applicant to join the Congress Party and oppose the BJP, it would be expected that he would have more detailed knowledge of the events, in particular the date on which the demolition of Babri Masjid occurred. That he was unable to provide the date on which the demolition of Babri Masjid occurred and he referred to two events which did not occur in Kerala calls into question the evidence the applicant has provided as to why he became a supporter of the Congress Party.
There were numerous inconsistencies in the claims made by the applicant. In his statement, the applicant claimed that the BJP members had attempted to kill him and [Mr A] (who the applicant said was the [Position 1] of the Congress Party in his area) a few times. In his written statement he claimed that it was difficult to leave his young family but the BJP had attempted to kill him a few times and he was not willing to take any more chances. As reported in the Department’s decision (a copy of which the applicant provided to the Tribunal) the applicant did not claim when interviewed by the Department that there had been any attempt to kill him. He described an occasion where he was pushed by 3 to 4 people from the BJP who shouted at him that he should not get involved in the Congress Party. Apart from the attack on his parents’ home, which is discussed below, when interviewed by the Tribunal the applicant did not make any claim that he had been attacked at any other time or that there had been any attempt to kill him. He said that nothing had happened to him since the attack on the home.
The Tribunal does not accept that if the applicant had been subject to attacks or threats to kill him in India from supporters of the BJP or any other group that he would not have raised these issues at the hearing before the Tribunal. The inconsistency in the claims made by the applicant as to the actions of BJP members against him, ranging from attempting to kill him, to pushing him and telling him to not be involved with the Congress party to making no claim at all of any assault on him, undermines all the applicant’s claims.
The most significant event the applicant claimed occurred to support his claim was an attack on his parents’ home where he and his wife were living that occurred [in] June 2014. Again, the applicant has provided inconsistent information as to this event.
In his written statement, he claimed that the BJP goons assaulted his pregnant wife, pushing her and grabbing her hair, and his father “was dashed to the ground and kicked”. He claims all their valuables were ransacked. This is not consistent with the information the applicant provided to the Tribunal. At the hearing, the applicant claimed that his father and wife were pushed and his wife had her hair pulled. He did not claim that his father was “dashed to the ground and kicked”. The applicant claimed that some furniture was smashed but there was no other damage done. This is not consistent with the claim that “all our valuables were ransacked”.

The Tribunal does not accept that if the alleged attack on his home occurred in the manner he claimed with his father being thrown to the ground and kicked that he would have simply described to the Tribunal his father being pushed. The Tribunal does not accept that the description given by the applicant to the Tribunal of some furniture being smashed is consistent with his original claim that all their valuables were ransacked. When these inconsistencies were put to the applicant he did not provide any response.
The applicant stated that he had no independent evidence to support the claim that his parents’ home was ever attacked or that his wife and father were assaulted. He claims not to have reported the matter to the police because the BJP was stronger in their area and he did not believe the police would do anything. He claimed that the police did not deal with those matters.
The Tribunal does not accept that if the alleged attack on the applicant’s parents’ house did occur and his father and wife were assaulted that the applicant or his father would not have made a complaint to the police. As set out above in country information, the BJP have only a small support base in Kerala. The Tribunal does not accept that if a complaint was made by an individual to the police about an attack on a house and a personal assault that the police would not have at least recorded that complaint as an FIR. The Tribunal does not accept that the BJP would have any influence or control over the police in Kerala that they would not have responded to such a complaint. The Tribunal does not accept that if the alleged attack and assaults took place that no action would have been taken by the police in response to that complaint. The fact that no complaint was made to the police about the alleged attack and assaults makes it inherently unlikely that the attack on the house or assaults on the applicant’s father and wife occurred.
The applicant gave inconsistent information as to his actions after the alleged attack on the house and assaults on his father and wife. In his written statement, the applicant claimed that his father asked him to go and stay at his in-laws’ house. When interviewed by the Department he claimed that he and his wife ran away to his wife’s parents’ home [in] [Municipality 1], the day after the attack. He claimed they stayed there for two weeks but then returned to his hometown because it was not culturally appropriate to remain at his in-laws’ house.
Before the Tribunal the applicant did not claim that he left his home village after the alleged attack on his parents’ home. He claimed that he remained living there with his wife. He claimed the only time he left the village was to travel to Chennai to apply for a visa to travel to [Country 3]. He made no mention of the claim that he had to travel to his parents-in-law’s home in [Municipality 1] for any reason.
When the inconsistencies in his claims as to the attack on the house and the assaults of his father and wife and what he did after that were put to him, the applicant provided a further version of what happened. He claimed that he stayed at his parents’ house for a month after the attack before going to his in-laws’ place for two weeks.
The Tribunal accepts that people who have lived through traumatic events will often not be able to recall clearly the particulars of those events. The Tribunal does not accept, however, that the significant inconsistencies in the narrative provided by the applicant in his initial application, when interviewed by the Department and then at the hearing before the Tribunal can be explained by simple lack or confusion of memory. There is no evidence to indicate that the applicant has been diagnosed as suffering from any mental health condition or that he has been diagnosed as suffering from memory loss. The significant inconsistencies in the claims made by the applicant as to what he and his wife did after the alleged attack make it inherently unlikely that the attack never took place. It also makes the claim that he and his wife left his home village due to the threats he faced there to stay with his wife’s family in [Municipality 1] inherently unlikely.
The claim that he went to his parents-in-law’s house in [Municipality 1] to escape any risk of harm or persecution in his own hometown is also inherently unlikely. The applicant claimed he only spent two weeks at his parents-in-law’s house but returned to his hometown due to “cultural reasons”. The Tribunal does not accept that if the applicant’s wife had been assaulted in his hometown and that there was a real risk that he would suffer significant harm or feared persecution in his hometown that his parents-in-law would have required him and his wife to return to his hometown for any cultural or other reason. The Tribunal does not accept that if the applicant did have a well-founded fear of persecution or that there was a real risk that he would suffer significant harm in his hometown that he would have only spent two weeks at his parents-in-law’s house.
Other claims the applicant has made are inherently unlikely. The applicant claimed that he travelled with his wife to Chennai in August or September 2014 to apply for a visa to visit [Country 3]. The applicant claimed that he wanted to take his wife on a honeymoon there. He does not claim that he was applying for a visa to enter [Country 3] and would then make an application to remain there as a refugee.
The Tribunal does not accept that if the applicant’s parents’ house had been attacked and his wife and father had been assaulted and the applicant believed there was a real risk he would suffer significant harm or face persecution from the supporters of the BJP that he would have been making arrangements to go on a holiday to [Country 3]. The fact that he travelled to Chennai by train at that time indicates that he was not in hiding from anyone. This makes the claims being made by the applicant further unlikely.
The applicant claimed that he continued to go to his father’s [Workplace 1] and work there. This is despite the fact that in his statement he claimed that the [Workplace 1] administration was affiliated with the BJP and had specifically asked his father to stop the applicant from working with the Congress Party. Again, it is inherently unlikely that if the applicant were of any interest to the BJP that he would have been able to continue to work at the [Workplace 1] if the administrators of that [Workplace 1] were affiliated with the BJP and they did not approve of any work the applicant claimed to have been doing with the Congress Party.
The applicant travelled to [various countries] in February 2015. The applicant claimed that he travelled at this time to escape the threats that he was receiving in India. He claims he only went for a week because he could not cope with being separated from his wife. The Tribunal does not accept these claims. The visa granted to the applicant to visit [Country 2] shown in his passport allowed multiple entries for a 12 month period. If the applicant did genuinely have any fears for his safety in India, he would have been able to travel to [Country 2] over this period to escape those threats. That he did not travel at any other time indicates that he was not receiving any threats and did not face any persecution or a real risk of suffering significant harm in India. The Tribunal does not accept that any overseas travel the applicant did in 2015 was due to any belief that he would suffer significant harm or persecution in India. The Tribunal finds that if the applicant did have any well-founded fear of persecution or there was a real risk that he would suffer significant harm in India while he held a valid visa to enter [Country 2] that he would have exercised that right to travel to [Country 2] and spend time there. That he only spent one week out of India while holding that visa undermines the credibility of all his claims.
The applicant did not make any claim that he had been attacked at any time after the alleged attack on his parents’ house in June 2014. He claimed that he again started working for the Congress Party about a month after the alleged attack on his parents’ house. The applicant did not take any steps to attempt to leave India to come to Australia until a year after the alleged attack on his parents’ house. He did not claim that when he was applying for a visa to enter [Country 3] that he was doing so in the hope of being declared a refugee. As the applicant was not the subject of any further threat or assault over the 12 months before he entered Australia, the Tribunal does not accept that there is a real risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm or that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in India.
The applicant claimed that his wife, who was living with her parents in [Municipality 1], is being harassed by people asking about him. In his written statement dated 7 August 2019 he claims that they have grabbed her hair and warned her about him. There is no information which would indicate the applicant’s wife has complained to the police or any other authorities about this alleged harassment. This claim was inconsistent to the information provided by the applicant during the hearing before the Tribunal which was that in 2016 somebody had been asking about him. No claim was made that his wife was assaulted or had her hair pulled to get information from her. There is no supporting information which would indicate that the applicant is of any interest to the BJP or any political party or organisation or individual in India. There is no explanation as to why, if the applicant has no current interest in politics and has not lived in India since 2015 that the BJP or any organisation or individual would have any interest in him. This is particularly so when the alleged threats made against him are to have him stop working for the Congress Party which, on the applicant’s claims, he has not done since 2015.
Before the Tribunal, the applicant claimed that his parents and brother have no problems living in India. His brother is now working at the [Workplace 1] where his father was previously a [Occupation 1] until he retired in 2019. His wife is living with their child in her parents’ home in [Municipality 1]. Apart from a claim the applicant made that his wife was asked in 2016 by someone about where he was, he indicated that she had no problems living in India.
After the applicant applied for the protection visa, the applicant was granted a variation of his bridging visa to allow him to return to India. The basis of this variation of his bridging visa was that the applicant’s wife was having an operation in Bangalore. The applicant stated that his wife had a [medical condition] and was having an operation to rectify the problem. He claimed that he travelled to Bangalore when his wife was in hospital. He claimed that she was only in hospital for a further two weeks after he arrived and then she returned to [Municipality 1]. The applicant claimed that he remained in Bangalore for a further three weeks. He said that he did not have any problem staying in Bangalore. He claimed that he remained in Bangalore because he could not return to his hometown. He did not provide any adequate explanation as to why, if his wife had returned to [Municipality 1] and if he did have a well-founded fear of persecution in India or there was a real risk that he would suffer significant harm in India that he would remain in India in Bangalore three weeks after his wife had left Bangalore.
That the applicant applied to return to India and then remained in India from [August] 2018 to [September] 2018 further undermines the claim that the applicant has any fear of persecution or there is a real risk that he would suffer significant harm in India. That he would remain staying in Bangalore for almost three weeks after his wife had returned to [Municipality 1] after being discharged from hospital if he had a well-founded fear of persecution or there was a real risk that he would suffer significant harm in India is inherently unlikely.
The Tribunal has considered all the claims of the applicant both individually and cumulatively. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has been a member of the Congress Party or that he has been involved in any political activity in India. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant or any members of his family have been assaulted for any reason or that his parents’ home was attacked by supporters of the BJP or any organisation or individual. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has been threatened by any individual or organisation for any reason. The Tribunal does not accept that if the applicant were returned to India that he would have a well-founded fear of persecution due to his political opinion or for any reason or that there is a real risk that he would suffer significant harm in India.
Accepting the applicant’s claims at its highest, the applicant was simply a member of the Congress Party who participated in some limited activities in his home village. He was not a leader of any organisation within the Congress Party or involved in the administration of the Congress Party. He was not involved in any state or national organisation within the Congress Party. He was not involved in any attack by the Congress Party on the BJP or any other party. At most, accepting the applicant’s claims, his profile as a politically active member of the Congress Party would be limited to the local constituency of Kannur.
The Tribunal has considered whether, accepting the applicant’s claims at their highest, it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to another region in India where there would be no appreciable risk of the claimed persecution or a real risk that he would suffer significant harm.
The applicant was able to return to India and remain in Bangalore for a period of almost six weeks. He did not indicate that he had any difficulties staying in Bangalore. The applicant was able to remain with his parents-in-law in [Municipality 1] in the period immediately after or soon after (depending on the version given by the applicant) the alleged attack on his parents’ home and the applicant. He did not indicate that he had any difficulties while staying with his parents-in-law in [Municipality 1]. This would indicate that the applicant could relocate to [Municipality 1] or to any area in southern Kerala and he would not face any real risk of significant harm or persecution.
The applicant did not provide any plausible reason why he would not be able to relocate in India and live with his wife and child. The only concern he expressed was that the BJP is the dominant party everywhere and he would face persecution. The Tribunal does not accept this. Although the majority party in the national government, the BJP is not the dominant party in Kerala or in other states in southern India. As indicated above, taken at its highest, the applicant does not have a political profile that would be of any interest to the BJP or any organisation or individual. The Tribunal finds that the applicant would be able to reasonably relocate to areas in the south of Kerala as well as other areas in southern India, including Bangalore, and that in doing so he would not have a well-founded fear of persecution and there would not be a real risk that he would suffer significant harm for any reason.
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).
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.
Hugh Sanderson
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.
…

[2020] AATA 710

11 March 2020

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction