1703435 (Refugee)

1703435 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 516 (1 February 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1703435
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   India
MEMBER:Hugh Sanderson
DATE:1 February 2021
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 01 February 2021 at 7:47am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection visa – India – arranged marriage – threatened by former husband – domestic violence – husband withdrew sponsorship of Partner visa – a divorced single woman –provided false or misleading information to the Department – credibility concerns –decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 424AAA, 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 8 February 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 India, applied for the visa on 6 July 2016. 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 there was a real risk that she would suffer significant harm if she returned to India.
Background
The applicant is a citizen of India and is currently [age] years old. She has a sister who lives in Australia. Her mother and a sister and brother continue to live in India. Her father died in 2010. She was previously employed as an [Occupation 1] at the [workplace] in Chandigarh. She speaks Punjabi, Hindi and English.
She first entered Australia holding a Subclass 600 Visitor visa [in] August 2015, then returned to India [in] September 2015. She returned to Australia [in] November 2015 after being granted a further Subclass 600 Visitor visa on 6 October 2015. She has not departed Australia since then.
The applicant claims that she is threatened by her former husband, [Mr A], and his family in India. She provided a statement where she said as follows:
My cousin who lived in Perth, arranged for myself to marry his work colleague whom I had never met.
The work colleague lived in Perth at the time, his name is [Mr A].
My family agreed and so did my husband's family without our consent, it was arranged marriage.
I belong to a middle class family in India, my father is not alive. I was in fear from my husband's side of the family. They would tease and taunt me because my family and I were not well off.
There was added pressure from my husband's side to provide them with the dowry, a huge amount. My family tried their best to accommodate the needs of my in laws.
We married [in] July 2015, in India.
My husband is a permanent resident of Australia and came to India just for the marriage. He returned back [in] August 2015 and I came to Australia [in] August 2015.
In India, there was a lot of problems I was facing with my in laws, when I would discuss this with my husband he would blame me.
As a result my husband sent me back to India, and I had only spent [couple of] days with him in Australia during the marriage.
I suffered severe domestic violence, this included, physical violence. My husband would hit me, slap me, and throw objects at me. I also suffered emotional abuse which has caused me severe depression. The emotional abuse involved, name calling, teasing, insults to myself and my family in regards to the status of my family, their respect, dignity.
My husband would force me to have sexual relations with him without my consent, I had no feeling towards him or attachment because of the negativity my husband created in our relationship.
When I was sent back to India, I went to my in laws home and was rejected from their home. I was made unwelcome in their home. They said words to the effect: "Nothing is here for you, get lost."
I was calling my husband to inform him that there is a drama being created by his family, but my husband refused my calls.
After two months, my husband and I managed to work out things over the phone, my husband acknowledged his mistake and told me to come back to Australia.
I returned to Australia [in] November 2015 on a visitor visa. However the situation in my marriage worsened. My husband would hide things from me, he invaded my privacy by searching my phone, he would prevent me from talking to my family and friends, he would tease and taunt me and ended up kicking me out of the home on the road. I had nowhere to go but called my sister who lived in Sydney. I am living with my sister here in Sydney.
The threat against me is if I return to India I have no safe place of refuge. My father has passed away and there is no man of the house to look after me. In Indian culture, once a girl marries and leaves her parents' home, she then belongs to her husband and his family. My in laws have abandoned me and will search for me if I return to India. It is very common in India that death can occur due to a failure in paying the dowry and breaking the marriage. I am very scared for my life in India it is not safe for me.
My In laws are well connected socially as well as politically. They have resources to have me tortured if not killed.
It is very easy for them to have me humiliated and abused due to their resources.
The applicant provided a referral to [a] Psychological Services from the [a] Medical Centre dated 15 March 2016 stating that she had reported being abused by her ex-partner repeatedly and was very depressed and needed counselling.
The applicant was interviewed by an officer from the Department on 6 February 2017. In that interview, she made various claims, including the following:
·When she went back to India in September 2015 her in-laws did not allow her to return to their home;
·The applicant rented a place in New Delhi, the same city where her in-laws lived, with some other girls;
·The applicant tried to call her husband every day, but he refused to take her calls and put a block on her telephone calls;
·Eventually the applicant’s husband took her call and he agreed for her to return to Australia on a Visitor visa;
·The husband’s family are threatening her and they are politically connected, but she does not know anything about this as her husband was very secretive and did not tell her anything about them;
·When the husband withdrew his sponsorship of her Partner visa, her sister suggested she not go back to India and instead apply for another visa;
·The applicant’s family live in a village in the state of Punjab;
·The applicant’s family provided gifts to the husband’s family by way of a dowry, and these gifts have not been returned by her husband’s family;
·It was not a love marriage but was an arranged marriage;
·The applicant’s mother was feeling pity for her, but due to problems that would be faced by her family if she returned to live with them in the shame that she would bring, she cannot do this;
·The applicant’s mother said that it was her life and she should do whatever she wants to do, and her mother said that she should take legal action against her husband and his family, but the applicant does not want to do this;
·During the relationship, the applicant’s husband was hiding the fact that he was continuing to talk to his family, which the applicant did not want him to do as the applicant considered it was his family who was the main problem in their relationship, and when she told him not to contact them, her husband abused her and beat her for making these accusations against him;
·The applicant’s husband said that the applicant should go to Sydney and live with her sister, but she did not want to do this, but only wanted to be with her husband;
·The applicant’s husband wanted a divorce from her and keeps calling her asking her to cooperate to get a divorce, but she does not want a divorce as she considers that she belongs to her husband and she will not allow him to divorce her;
·The applicant’s attitude is that after marriage she belongs to her husband and she does not want to be a problem to any of her own family;
·If she went back to live with her family in India, it would be a problem for her mother and also for her sisters and she does not want to be a problem for them;
·There is danger if she goes back to India because she might suffer an acid attack or be raped as it happens all the time in India;
·The applicant’s husband was trying to get a divorce and so the applicant returned to Perth to see him [in] January 2017 for three days, but she would not cooperate and help him get a divorce and she has not spoken to him since then; and
·The applicant could live somewhere else in India, but she would always be in danger of her life as women in India are raped and murdered all the time and she does not want to live her life in danger.
The applicant said that her husband had been trying to persuade her to get divorced as she believed he wanted to remarry. She returned to Perth in January 2017 to attempt a reconciliation with her husband and, although he was pleasant to her during their time together, he insisted that he wanted a divorce.
Although claiming that the husband’s family were politically well-connected and financially well off, the applicant was unable to provide any details or information about any political connections she claimed his family has. She claimed that she has nowhere to go in India and that her husband’s family would look for her and she does not want to adversely affect her family’s reputation. She claimed that she also fears general violence in India including acid attack and being raped. She does not want to divorce her husband as she believes that once married, a woman belongs to her husband.
The delegate who considered the application noted the following issues:
·Although it might be accepted the applicant’s husband had threatened her, the fact that she was able to leave him without any difficulty and then returned to see him in 2017 indicated that he is not a threat to her;
·The applicant has not had any direct communication with her husband’s family since they turned her away from their home in September 2015;
·There is nothing to indicate any continuing threat against the applicant in India from the husband or his family or anyone else;
·The applicant could not provide any clear indication as to why her former husband, who wants to divorce her, would be threatening her in any way;
·There would be no obligation for the applicant to advise the husband or any of his family if she returned to India and it would appear unlikely that they would have any way to find out about her return or where she is;
·The applicant has family in India who would be able to accommodate her there;
·The applicant would be able to relocate in Delhi and establish herself there as she has done in the past;
·The applicant has the capacity to care for herself, particularly as she attained a Master’s degree [and] has worked as an [Occupation 1] in a [workplace] in India;
·The applicant reads and speaks Punjabi, Hindi and English which would allow her to relocate in many areas in India;
·India’s booming economy has seen an increase in the numbers of single women working in cities and has been accompanied by greater freedoms and opportunities;
·There are services made available by the Indian authorities to assist single women;
·Although gender violence has been recognised as a problem in India, traditional attitudes towards women are evolving and most Indians live with a relatively low risk of any violence occurring to them; and
·Despite various inadequacies, the police and judiciary have relatively effective law-enforcement principles.
Taking all these matters into account, the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution in India or that there was a real risk she would suffer significant harm in India. Accordingly, the delegate found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa.
Information to the Tribunal
The applicant’s agent provided submissions in support of the application, in which the following was claimed:
·The applicant will be systematically and ‘discriminatively’ targeted by her in-laws if she returns to India;
·The applicant’s former husband has threatened her if she returns to India;
·The applicant’s in-laws have continuously demanded dowry entitlements from the applicant and threatened her if they do not receive those entitlements;
·Although her marriage to her former husband has been dissolved, the threats that the husband has made against the applicant are continuing;
·The applicant suffered family violence during her marriage to her husband; and
·Cultural practices in India mean that her in-laws will harm her if she returns to India due to the breakdown of her marriage to her husband and based on the dowry claims made by them.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 27 January 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Hindi and English languages. The applicant spoke English during the hearing and did not need the assistance of the interpreter apart from interpreting a few words. The applicant was represented by her migration agent who did not attend the hearing.
The Tribunal commenced the hearing by explaining the process under s.424AA of the Act. The Tribunal explained to the applicant it would be putting to her information which would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review. It would explain what the information was, why it was relevant and then invite the applicant to comment on or respond to the information. If she required more time to comment on or respond to the information, she could request an adjournment.
The applicant said that she was living by herself and working as a [worker]. She said that after leaving her husband and travelling to Sydney on 26 January 2016 she stayed with her sister for two months before finding alternative accommodation. She said her sister has moved to Melbourne, however she wanted to stay living in Sydney. She said that since that time she has primarily lived in rented accommodation by herself. She was able to obtain various jobs and has been working as a [worker] for the last three and a half years.
The applicant said that her mother and brother continue to live in her home village in India. She said that she has two sisters who live by themselves and work in Chandigarh, two sisters who were married, both living in cities in Punjab, and her sister who lives in Melbourne. She claimed that her mother and her siblings are not talking to her and she does not know what they are doing. She said that she last saw her mother before she first came to Australia in August 2015.
The applicant said that her marriage to her husband was an arranged marriage. She said that they had never met each other in person prior to the marriage, although they had spoken to each other over the phone. She said that she first met her husband on the day they were married [in] July 2015 and they had not met each other in person at any time before that.
The applicant said that after she first arrived in Australia in August 2015 she and her husband were not happy. She said that they were having problems in the marriage and she would want to talk to her husband but he would refuse to talk to her. She said that he would call her names, like “psycho” and “mad”. She said that her husband told her to leave Australia and then he withdrew his sponsorship of her Partner visa.
The applicant said that when she returned to India she was met by her husband’s brother and his wife at the airport. She said that they told her they would not take her to their home and they didn’t want anything to do with her. They called the applicant’s father’s sister’s son who lived in New Delhi and arranged for him to collect the applicant and take her to his home.
The applicant said that she stayed at her relatives’ place overnight and then went over to her in-laws’ home early in the morning. She said that she managed to barge into her in-laws’ home and confront her mother-in-law and brother-in-law, wanting to talk to them and find out what they had done to her marriage to her husband. She said that they refused to talk to her and told her to leave. She said that she was also trying to call her husband at this time, but he had refused to answer her calls. She said that her husband then rang his brother who told her that her husband said that he never wants to talk to her and she should leave his family’s home and never return. The brother said that her husband wanted to divorce her. She said that her husband had said that she should return to her own family’s home.
When asked what her brother-in-law did, the applicant said that her husband’s brother did nothing. She said that although her family were secretive and never said what they did, she realised that her husband’s brother was hopeless and did nothing. She said that her mother-in-law was confined to a wheelchair and could not do anything although she believed that her mother-in-law was sorry for her.
The applicant said that after being turned away from her in-laws’ home she travelled to Chandigarh and stayed with one of her sisters. She said that she got a [job]. She said that she spoke to her mother over the phone, but did not visit her. She said that her mother was upset about the breakdown of the marriage, asking what she was going to say to other people in the village. Her mother encouraged her to take legal action against her husband and his family, saying that they should be taking her back into their home.
The applicant said that she was calling her husband all the time, but he had blocked her number and was refusing to take her calls. Eventually, he took one of her calls and said he would agree to allow her to return to Australia and he would sponsor her Partner visa application if she saw a psychiatrist in New Delhi. She said that she made arrangements to see the psychiatrist on one occasion and consulted them over the phone on a number of occasions. She said that she saw her on one other occasion when she was leaving India. She said that she was prescribed some medication.
The applicant said that after returning to Australia she continued to live with her husband. She said that when cleaning the house one day, she found the letter her husband had written to the Department saying that he wanted to withdraw his sponsorship of her Partner visa application. She said that he sent this to the Department at midnight on 24 January 2016. She said that she found out he had sent the letter on 25 January 2016 and she was telephoning him all the time to ask about it, but he refused to take her calls. She said that she then had gone to his workplace so that he could explain himself to her but he just insulted her in front of his workmates, calling her a “psycho” and “mad”. She then called her sister who arranged for the applicant to travel to Sydney where she was living. The applicant said that she remained in the home she shared with her husband on the night of [date] January 2016, expecting him to return to the home, but he failed to do so.

The applicant claimed that after arriving in Sydney she would call her husband all the time but he refused to take her calls. She said he put a block on her calls so that it went straight through to a message bank. She said that her sister said that she should go to the police because her husband had beaten her badly, but as she wanted the marriage to work and she had a feeling that everything would be okay she did not do anything. She said the few occasions her husband did answer her calls he refused to talk to her and simply called her “a psycho” and “mad”. She said that she continued to call her husband for about a year, but he refused to take her calls.
The applicant said that her husband had divorced her in February 2017. She said that she travelled to Perth in January 2017 as she and her husband were required to have counselling at the Family Court due to the fact that the husband wanted to apply for a divorce and they had been married for less than two years. She said the only time she saw her husband at this time in Perth was at the counselling. At that counselling, the counsellor concluded that there was no chance of any reconciliation and so the parties were able to divorce each other despite having been married for less than two years. The applicant then claimed that her husband met her at the airport, despite not knowing what flight she was on. She said that she wanted to stay with him in his home, but he did not allow her to do so. Despite this, she said that he wanted to stay with her in her hotel room while she was in Perth and she allowed him to do this.
The applicant said that she has had no contact with her husband’s family since before January 2016. She said that her husband’s family have not tried to contact her or her family at any time. She said that she has not had any contact with her husband since January 2017. She said that as some friends of hers wanted to see his photo, she has checked his profile on [social media] and found out that he had got married again about six months after they were divorced.
The Tribunal referred to the process under s.424AA of the Act referred to above. The Tribunal referred to the applicant’s Visitor visa application made on 29 September 2015. In that application, the applicant claimed that she wanted to visit Australia for the following reasons:
I went Australia last month to be with my husband as we recently got married. But because of the bad health of my mother, I could not spend much time with him and had to come back. But now she is fine and I would like to go back.
This was relevant as it was inconsistent to the claims made by the applicant as to the reason why she returned to India in September 2015, and in particular the claim that she returned to be with her mother who she said was in bad health was inconsistent with what she did in India as she did not spend any time with her mother. This indicated the applicant was willing to provide false and misleading information in order to obtain an immigration outcome she desired and undermined her credibility in relation to the current claims.
The applicant said that it was her husband who sent her back to India and that it was her husband who applied for the Visitor visa. She said that even though she signed the document she did not read it and she did everything her husband told her to do.
The Tribunal referred to the statement provided by the applicant in support of her Partner visa. In this statement, the applicant claimed that she first met her husband [in] January 2015 at the wedding of her cousin where they became good friends and continued to communicate with each other after that. She claimed that they fell in love and that the applicant’s husband proposed marriage to her and she agreed, only after getting the approval of her mother and other relatives. This was inconsistent with the information she was now providing in which she claimed that it was an arranged marriage and she had never met her husband prior to their wedding [in] July 2015. These claims were repeated in the application which was signed by the applicant. This again undermined the credibility of the applicant and indicated she was willing to provide false and misleading information to the Department and to the Tribunal.
The applicant said that she gave everything with regard to the Partner visa to her husband and she did not know what claims were made in the application. She said that because her husband [knew] what to say to make sure she got the visa.
The applicant claimed that her family does not talk to her and that she would bring shame on herself and her family if she were required to return to India. She confirmed that she has not heard from her husband since they were divorced in 2017 and has not heard from her husband’s family since before that. She confirmed that she believed her husband’s brother did nothing and was not involved in any business or politics or anything else. She said that she was not sure about her former husband’s family as she had never been told anything about them.
The Tribunal referred to the definition of a refugee in the Act and also the meaning of significant harm in the Act. The Tribunal put to the applicant that the claims being made by her indicated that her husband and his family had no interest in her and did not want anything to do with her. The Tribunal indicated that it appeared the applicant’s main concern was that in India being a divorced person would bring some shame to herself and her family, however, this did not appear to meet the definition of a refugee of having a well-founded fear of persecution or that there was a real risk she would suffer significant harm.
The applicant responded by saying that people in India do not see her with good eyes. She said that her family did not talk to her because she is divorced. She said that it was because of her husband that the marriage did not last and why should she be the person who suffered. She said that it was not fair. She said that she had nothing else to say to the Tribunal.
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.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
On the basis of the applicant’s identity documents, including her 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 applicant claims that she faces persecution and a real risk she will suffer significant harm in India as she is a single divorced woman. She claimed that her former husband’s family have threatened her and demanded further dowry payments and that she will face social discrimination in India. She claims further that as a divorced single woman she will be arbitrarily targeted by her husband’s family in India and will be subject to honour killing and societal shame from both her husband’s family and her family.
Country information
DFAT reports that traditional social practices and the low status of women in many parts of India can result in domestic and gender-based violence.[1] The Constitution provides a number of guarantees in relation to women’s rights and legislation has been passed by the Indian government to specifically address concerns about the treatment of women and in particular domestic violence. Despite the plethora of laws to prevent crimes against women, in practice violence against women in India continues. Violence can occur throughout the life-cycle from pre-birth to infancy, childhood, adolescence and adulthood, and can include sexual, domestic and dowry related violence.[2] There are a number of sociodemographic and sociocultural risk factors including the stigmatisation of unmarried, separated or divorced women.[3]
[1] DFAT Country Information Report – India, 10 December 2020 at 3.113.
[2] DFAT Country Information Report – India, 10 December 2020 at 3.117.
[3] DFAT Country Information Report – India, 10 December 2020 at 3.119.
Single women reportedly make up 21% of India’s female population, at around 73 million people. The 2011 census recorded an almost 40% increase in their numbers over the preceding decade.[4] Divorce rates in India remain low by international standards, however, they are increasing. In 2017 the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development reported India’s divorce rate stood at 1%. In 2019 it was reported that absolute number of divorces had gone up from 1 in 1,000 marriages to 13 in 1,000 marriages over the last decade or so. It was also reported that despite divorcees being riddled with stigma, women are challenging that perception and are pushing for change.[5]
[4] DFAT Country Information Report – India, 10 December 2020 at 3.122.
[5] Happily divorced: Indian women are breaking the stigma around separation like never before - The Economic Times (indiatimes.com), first printed 27 January 2019, accessed 27 January 2021.
Overall, DFAT assessed women across India generally face a low risk of official discrimination, in that there are constitutional and legal protections for women. There are, however, discriminatory regulations and complaints about barriers to reporting crimes and business participation.[6] Women, particularly in rural areas and from lower castes, face a moderate risk of societal discrimination and violence and long-standing traditional values and gender roles can restrict the participation of women in the workforce and community and in gaining access to health and mental health care.[7]
Credibility
[6] DFAT Country Information Report – India, 10 December 2020 at 3.131.
[7] DFAT Country Information Report – India, 10 December 2020 at 3.133.
The Tribunal did not find the applicant a credible witness. The applicant has provided inconsistent information to the Department over the course of her various visa applications. In respect of the protection visa application, she claimed that it was an arranged marriage and the first time she met her husband was on the day they were married [in] July 2015. This is inconsistent to the information she provided to the Department in support of her Partner visa application. In that application, the applicant claimed in a statement and in the formal application she signed that she first met her husband [in] January 2015 at a relative’s wedding. She claimed the relationship developed at that time and that they fell in love and her husband proposed marriage to her. She then asked permission from her mother and other relatives to marry the applicant and this was granted.
The applicant explained this inconsistency by claiming that the Partner visa application was prepared by her husband and he provided the false information because it was the easiest way to get the visa. The Tribunal does not accept this. The Tribunal finds the applicant would have been aware of the claims made in her Partner visa application. The fact that the applicant has provided two significantly inconsistent claims as to the start of her relationship with her husband undermines her credibility and the claims that she has made in relation to the protection visa application.
When the applicant returned to India in September 2015 she claimed that it was because her husband had told to do so and she confronted her mother-in-law and brother-in-law in their home and, after they told her to leave, she then stayed with her sister in Chandigarh. She said that although she spoke to her mother on the telephone, she did not see or spend any time with her mother and she was not ill, nor did she need any help at that time. This is inconsistent with the claims the applicant made when applying for her Visitor visa to return to Australia where she claimed that she had returned to India due to the ill-health of her mother and now she was better she was able to return to be with her husband.
The applicant again claimed that it was her husband who had written this and she had not made these claims. The Tribunal does not accept this. The Tribunal finds that the applicant deliberately provided the information in the Visitor visa to deceive the Department into granting her a further Visitor visa. The fact that the applicant was willing to provide false information in respect of the Visitor visa undermines her credibility and the information she is providing in support of the protection visa application.
The applicant gave further inconsistent information in respect of her trip to Perth in January 2017 and the contact she had with her husband at that time. The reason the applicant travelled to Perth was in order to obtain a certificate from a counsellor from the Family Court as the parties had been married for less than two years and a certificate was required to state that they had considered reconciliation before the divorce could be granted. As the divorce was granted shortly after that, on the husband’s application, the applicant acknowledged that the counsellor she and her former husband spoke with concluded that there was no likelihood of reconciliation.
The applicant initially stated that she only saw her husband at the counselling when she travelled to Perth. The applicant then changed this evidence to state that her husband met her at the airport, despite his not knowing what flight she was arriving on. The applicant claimed that she asked to stay with her husband in his home, however, he refused but then asked to be able to stay with the applicant in her hotel room for the three nights she was staying in Perth. She claimed he did this because he did not want to let his friends know that she was staying in his home.
As indicated above, the applicant initially gave inconsistent information as to when the applicant spent any time with her former husband, initially saying that it was only during the counselling and then changing this evidence to say that he met her at the airport and then stayed with her overnight in her hotel room. This inconsistency raises questions as to the credibility of the claims being made by the applicant.
It is inherently unlikely that if the applicant’s husband wanted to divorce the applicant that he would be providing any continuing solace to her by staying overnight in her hotel room while she was in Perth. Further, it is inherently unlikely that he would have arranged to stay with the applicant in a hotel room if he was living by himself in his own home. The actions are further inconsistent with the conclusion by the counsellor from the Family Court that there was no likelihood of reconciliation after the counselling session the applicant and her husband had with that counsellor. It is noted the applicant, by reviewing the husband’s [social media] page, discovered that he had re-married about six months after divorcing her. Again, if the applicant’s husband was in a relationship with another woman at that time who he married six months later, it is inherently unlikely that he would have been staying with the applicant in a hotel room while she was in Perth.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant has been willing to provide false and misleading information in support of applications to the Department. Specifically, in respect of the protection visa application, the Tribunal finds that she has exaggerated her claims and, in particular, the alleged threats that have been made against her by her former husband and his family and the events that occurred during her relationship with her former husband and any claims she has made as to any threat or risk of harm she faces in India.
Assessment of claims
The applicant has claimed that she suffered family violence committed by her former husband and that he has threatened her since the end of their relationship. Her agent has claimed that he continues to threaten her, indicating that she will be harmed if she returns to India. The Tribunal does not accept the claims made by the applicant.
The Tribunal accepts the applicant married her former husband and that she travelled to Australia on a Visitor visa to spend time with him. The expectations of that relationship were not met and, within [number] days, the applicant’s husband had asked her to return to India and he soon after withdrew his sponsorship of her application.
The actions of the applicant are not consistent with her having a well-founded fear of persecution or believing that there was a real risk that she would suffer significant harm from her former husband or any member of his family. She acknowledges that she was constantly ringing him to confront him as to why he did not want to continue his relationship with her and he was blocking her calls as he did not want to speak to her. She does not make any claim that her former husband was threatening to harm her in any way, but instead called her names such as “psycho” and “mad”. The applicant claimed that before her former husband would agree to sponsor her for a Visitor visa to allow her to return to Australia, he asked her to see a psychologist in India, which she did. Although the names the applicant’s former husband may have called her are insulting, it may be that he genuinely believed the applicant had a mental health issue and she needed professional assistance. It does not indicate that the applicant’s former husband was threatening her or had any intention to harm her in any way.

Over the period that the applicant was in India from September 2015 to November 2015 she claimed that she was constantly ringing her former husband and he was initially blocking all her calls. She claims that when she confronted her mother-in-law and brother-in-law in their home the day after she arrived in India, her former husband refused to take her calls and instead telephoned his brother so that he could tell her that her former husband did not want to talk to her, wanted to divorce her, and that she should leave his mother’s home and never return. This is not the behaviour of a person who is making any threats against the applicant but merely a person who wants her to leave him and his family alone and ask that she have nothing further to do with him.
The applicant claims that she continued to telephone her former husband while she was in India and, eventually, the applicant’s former husband did speak to her and agreed to resume his sponsorship of her Partner visa application.
There is nothing to indicate that while the applicant was in India until November 2015 the husband or any member of his family threatened her or attempted to contact her after she had confronted her husband’s mother and brother in their home. There is nothing to indicate that any threat was ever made against the applicant by her former husband or any member of his family. There is nothing to indicate that the husband or members of his family attempted to contact the applicant, but rather it was the applicant who was persistently calling her former husband and insisting he speak to her. The fact that the applicant returned to Australia to live with her former husband in November 2015 again does not indicate that the applicant felt threatened or had any fear for her welfare or safety in the presence of her former husband or that he was a risk to her in any way.
After returning to Australia, it appears the relationship between the applicant and her former husband did not improve. The applicant claims that while she was cleaning the home, she discovered her former husband had written to the Department to withdraw his sponsorship of her Partner visa application. The applicant claims that she confronted her former husband at his workplace and he again insulted her by calling her a “psycho” and “mad”. There is nothing to indicate that the applicant’s husband made any threats to harm the applicant.
The applicant claims that she returned to their home and remained there overnight. She spoke to her sister and arranged a flight to Sydney the following day. She said that although she was expecting her former husband to come to their home after work, he did not and she remained in the home alone that night. The behaviour of the applicant again is not consistent with a person who has a well-founded fear of persecution or believes that there is a real risk she would suffer significant harm by actions from her former husband. It is inconsistent with her claims that he “ended up kicking me out of the home on the road”.
The applicant claimed that she suffered family violence committed by her former husband during the relationship. There is little evidence to support this apart from the claims made by the applicant. She provided a referral from her general practitioner dated 15 March 2016, at the time that she was claiming the family violence provisions in order to obtain the Partner visa application. There is nothing to indicate that she received any further counselling or treatment or that there was any report made to substantiate her claims of suffering family violence. The report from her general practitioner merely repeats her claim that she had been abused and she was depressed. There is no assessment as to whether the claims made are genuine.
The applicant claimed her sister suggested that she report the abuse to the police. The applicant did nothing about this. There is no photographic or any other evidence to support the claims that the applicant’s former husband was ever abusive to her during the relationship.
The behaviour of the applicant after travelling to Sydney is again not consistent with the applicant’s former husband persecuting her or being a real risk to the applicant. The applicant acknowledges that she was continually telephoning her former husband to speak to him. He blocked her telephone calls. The applicant acknowledged that her former husband was not attempting to contact her but was intentionally trying to avoid any contact with her. The behaviour of the applicant supports a finding that she was not threatened by her former husband and at no time did she feel persecuted by him or believe that there was a real risk that she would suffer significant harm due to any actions of her former husband either in Australia or in India.
This finding is supported by the fact that the applicant travelled to Perth in January 2017 to undertake counselling arranged by her former husband in order to allow him to divorce the applicant within two years of being married. As indicated above, the Tribunal does not accept the claim made by the applicant that her former husband shared her hotel room while she was in Perth. The fact, however, that the applicant travelled to Perth and had counselling with a Family Court appointed counsellor again indicates that the applicant does not have any genuine fear of her former husband or that she faces any persecution from him or there is a real risk she would suffer significant harm from him. There is nothing to indicate the applicant raised with the counsellor she saw that she had ever suffered family violence committed by her husband or that she was fearful of him for any reason.
The applicant has not had any contact with her former husband since they were divorced in February 2017. Although the applicant’s agent claimed that the applicant’s former husband is continuing to make threats against the applicant, the applicant did not claim this and there is nothing to indicate the applicant has had any contact with her former husband since they had counselling prior to their divorce in February 2017. The only contact the applicant acknowledged she has had with her former husband is by accessing his [social media] page so that she could find out what was happening in his life, including the fact that he had remarried. She claimed that she only did this because friends of hers wanted to see what her former husband looked like and so she accessed his [social media] page to show them photos of him.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not face any persecution as a divorced woman or that there is a real risk she would suffer significant harm from her former husband. The Tribunal finds that the relationship between the applicant and her former husband was unsuccessful and, regardless of whatever happened during the relationship, when that relationship ended the applicant’s former husband wanted nothing further to do with the applicant and has not made any threats against her or that any action of his or any person on his behalf would amount to any persecution or any real risk to the applicant.
The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant would face any persecution or that there is a real risk that she would suffer significant harm from any of the actions of her former husband’s family.
When the applicant returned to India in September 2015 when her former husband had indicated that she should return to India, and he withdrew his sponsorship of her Partner visa application, the applicant believed that she was going to be staying at the home of her in-laws. This, in itself, is unusual in that she blamed her in-laws for the troubles in her relationship with her former husband. The fact that she believed that she was going to be staying with them and wanted to do so is inconsistent to their threatening her over an insufficient dowry being paid by her family or for any other reason.
The applicant claimed her brother-in-law met her at New Delhi airport and he said that she was not welcome in their home. She stayed the first night back in India with a relative. She then went to her mother-in-law’s and brother-in-law’s home and, without being invited, she made her way into the home and confronted them.
The evidence of the applicant was that at that time her former husband’s family did not threaten her or assault her in any way, but instead told her to leave their home and never return. She said that whilst she was there, she was constantly ringing her former husband who refused to answer her calls. Her former husband contacted his brother who advised the applicant he had said she should leave the home and never return.
The behaviour of the applicant is not consistent with a person who has a well-founded fear of persecution or believes that there is a real risk that she would suffer significant harm by any actions of the husband’s family. It is not consistent with a person who believed that her husband’s family were demanding further dowry payments from her family and that she was at risk if she did not comply with these threats.
Since the incident when she forced her way into her in-laws’ home, she has not had any contact with her in-laws. For the remainder of the time that she was in India, they did not contact her and did not threaten her in any way. There is nothing to indicate that at any stage they were attempting to persecute her or that there was a real risk of the applicant suffering significant harm by any action of her in-laws or anyone on their behalf.
The applicant at one stage claimed that her former husband’s family had political connections that would allow them to locate her and harm her. This is inconsistent with the information she provided as to the applicant’s family. She said that her former mother-in-law was confined to a wheelchair and she believe her mother-in-law felt sorry for her. She described her brother-in-law as hopeless and did nothing. She claimed that she had no information about them because her former husband did not provide her any information about them. This does not support the claim that her former husband’s family have any political or any other influence that would allow them to harm the applicant in any way or locate her, or even be aware, if she returned to India.
The Tribunal has considered all the claims made by the applicant as to any threat from the husband or any member of his family or any other associate of her former husband or his family. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s former husband or his family have been demanding any dowry from the applicant or that they have made any threats against the applicant or any member of her family due to any insufficiency of any dowry paid when the applicant married her former husband. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s former husband or any member of his family have made threats against the applicant or that they want any contact with her at all. Contrary to this, the applicant has acknowledged that she persistently called her former husband until at least January 2017 and he was blocking her calls as he did not want to have any continuing contact with her.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for any reason from the applicant’s former husband or his family or that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm for any reason from her former husband or his family if she returns to India.
The applicant has claimed that if she returns to India she would not obtain any support from her family. The Tribunal does not accept this. The evidence of the applicant is that when she returned to India in September 2015 and her in-laws refused to allow her to stay with them she then stayed with her sister in Chandigarh. The fact that her sister took her into her home at the time that her parents-in-law had rejected her and she believed her relationship with her husband was at an end indicates that she was receiving the continuing support of her family despite what may have been considered the end of her marriage to her husband.
The applicant claimed that although she was not visiting her mother, she telephoned her mother and her mother was supportive of her. This included her mother saying that she should do whatever she wants to do and suggesting that she take legal action against her former husband and his family for ending the relationship. Quite apart from the fact that this indicates the applicant and her family do not have any concern of any threat from her former husband or his family, it indicates a high degree of support and acceptance by the applicant’s mother of her situation. It does not indicate that her mother is rejecting her or that her mother is a threat to her in any way.
When the applicant finally left her husband in January 2016, it was her sister in Sydney who organised for her to travel from Perth to Sydney and stay with her for about a two month period. Again, this indicates a degree of support and acceptance of the applicant’s situation and does not indicate that the applicant’s family are not supporting her and would not continue to support her if she returned to India.
At its best, the claims made by the applicant indicate that both she and her family feel a degree of shame due to the fact that the applicant’s marriage to her former husband has ended in divorce and she is now a divorced woman. It does not indicate that there is any threat to the applicant from her family or that she will suffer any persecution due to the fact that she is a divorced woman or that there is a real risk she would suffer significant harm from any actions from any member of her family.
The Tribunal has considered the circumstances the applicant would face in India, and in particular in Punjab, as a single divorced woman.
The applicant left her home in 2009 and commenced studying in Chandigarh. This was a year before the death of her father. She remained living in Chandigarh until she travelled to Australia. Over that period, she completed a Master’s degree and obtained various [jobs]. For most of the time the applicant was living in Chandigarh she was living by herself as a single woman.
The fact that the applicant has previously lived in Chandigarh as a single woman by herself in rented accommodation does not support the claim that she would face a real risk of significant harm if she returned to India and was required to live as a single divorced woman by herself and find employment. It does not support a finding that there is a real chance of any persecution because she was living as a single divorced woman in India.
The applicant has two sisters, one who is older and one who is younger, who are single and living by themselves in Chandigarh. There is no evidence which would indicate that the applicant’s sisters have any difficulties in living in Chandigarh as single women. Both her sisters are working. There is no evidence to indicate they are suffering any discrimination or that there is a denial of their capacity to subsist as single women living in Chandigarh.
As indicated above, the applicant has shown herself to be a resilient and resourceful individual both in Australia and in India. She has achieved academic success in India and obtained employment of a high standard. She has been able to obtain appropriate accommodation as a single woman both in Australia and in India. There is nothing to indicate that she would not be able to obtain employment and accommodation as a divorced single woman if she returned to live in India.
The applicant at the hearing before the Tribunal indicated that the only fear she had of returning to India is the shame of being a divorced woman. She claimed that it was not fair that her husband had ended their relationship and that she was the person who suffers from that.
Although the Tribunal does not accept that there should be any shame for being divorced or being party to a failed relationship, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant may consider that being a divorced woman is cause for shame. The Tribunal accepts that her family may also consider the fact that she is a divorced woman brings a degree of shame on their family. The Tribunal accepts that some unenlightened members of the Indian community may agree that being a divorced woman is a shameful thing. The Tribunal does not accept, however, that any shame felt by the applicant or any member of her family or any other member of the Indian community leads to a conclusion that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution as a single divorced woman or for any reason or that there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm in India 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).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criteria 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.
…

[2021] AATA 516

1 February 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice