1703888 (Refugee)

1703888 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 2009 (23 October 2017)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1703888
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Taiwan
MEMBER:Christopher Smolicz
DATE:23 October 2017
PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Statement made on 23 October 2017 at 1:56pm

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Taiwan – Social group – Gambling debt – Fear of gang members and loan sharks – Credibility Issues
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5h-LA, 36, 65, 424AA, 438, 440, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration [in] 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 Taiwan, applied for the visa [in] December 2015.
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 themself of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).
Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and relevant country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the refugee criteria or comes within Australia’s complementary protection obligations because he fears harm from loan sharks (money lenders) in Taiwan.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Background
The applicant is [age] years old. He declared that he was a Taiwanese citizen. He travelled to Australia on a passport issued by the Republic of China. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a right to enter and reside in a country other than their country of citizenship, namely Taiwan.
The applicant first arrived in Australia [in] January 2014 as the holder of a [temporary] visa. The visa was valid until [January] 2015.
[In] December 2014 the applicant departed and returned to Taiwan. He returned to Australia [in] January 2015. He applied for the protection visa [in] December 2015.
Summary of substantive claims
The applicant provided the following evidence is support of his claim for protection.
The applicant declared that he came to Australia to make money to pay back loan sharks (money lenders). He claims he was allured by ambiguous terms of interest from loan sharks. He does not think he will be able to pay back high interest which is compounding the loans. He claims he had no choice but to borrow further loans from other creditors to pay the creditors who became aggressive and violent. He came to Australia on a temporary measure to make money. He now realises it is not possible to repay the loan because of the “rollover interest.”
He claims the creditors and debt collectors have often come to his parents and made “bloody and violent threats” to his parents. His family would face “violent harassment when they refused to answer questioning.”
He claims that he was assaulted, harassed and subjected to false imprisonment and death threats by the creditors and debt collectors. They told him that they would be able to get him anywhere in Taiwan.
He claims the authorities will not be able to protect him. He claims that the creditors have been part of the Taiwan underworld for many years and the government has not been able to eradicate them.
Hearing
The Tribunal questioned asked the applicant if he had completed the claim form. The applicant said he had assistance from agent who was from [another country]. He said that he signed the form and the agent typed the claims based on the information he had provided to him. The Tribunal notes that according to the claim form he claims to have completed the form with no assistance. The applicant maintained that he gave written instructions to the agent and signed the forms.
The Tribunal questioned the applicant why he applied for protection visa. The Tribunal found the applicant’s evidence vague and lacking in detail and had to prompt the applicant to expand on his claims.
The applicant said that he was involved in gambling on the outcome of [sport] games. He said that the first day he won $[amount] TWD (about $[amount] AUD). The next day he lost $[amount] TWD (about $[amount] AUD). He claims he accrued a total loss of $[amount] TWD (about $[amount] AUD). The gangster leader came to him and demanded he pay $[amount] TWD. He claims it was in March 2012. He did have loan agreement with the money lender but did not keep a copy.
He claims in July 2013 he was beaten by the money lenders. The Tribunal had to prompt the applicant to obtain information relating to the incident. After further questioning he said he was on his way shopping and the money lenders bumped into him. They injured his face and body. He did not get any medical treatment. He did not go to the police. He was scared and went to a friend’s house.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he could provide further detail of the incident. The applicant said that he was with a friend at night and they were going to play [sport]. The Tribunal told the applicant it was concerned that he previously said he was out shopping when he was assaulted.
The applicant said he returned to Taiwan in December - January 2015. He thought it would be safe. The money lenders found him when he was in a restaurant. They knew he was in Australia making money and demand he repay the debt. He ran away. He did not go to the police. The Tribunal asked the applicant how many people were threatening him. The applicant said he could not answer the question because it was a bad experience which he did not want to recall.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant country information that confirms that the Taiwanese authorities, including the police and judiciary are reasonably effective in combating criminal activity and protecting civilians from criminal harm. The Tribunal noted that the police have taken action against money lenders in Taiwan. The Tribunal told the applicant it found it surprising that he would not go to the police for help but would spend money traveling to Australia to escape.
The applicant said there were two times he was threatened in Taiwan. He did not tell his family and they did not know that he had problems with the money lenders and was in debt.
The Tribunal told the applicant that his evidence appeared to be inconsistent with his written claims. For example in his written claims he said he was subjected to false imprisonment and that his debt collectors have often come to his parents and made bloody and violent threats to his parents.
The applicant said that agent told him to exaggerate is claims because it would improve his chance of getting the visa. The Tribunal told the applicant that it was concerned about his evidence. The Tribunal noted that he signed his claim form and declared that was true and correct. The Tribunal asked he applicant to confirm what part of his claims was false. The applicant did not answer the question.
Adverse Information
The Tribunal explained to the applicant at the hearing that it had information before it which was subject to a certificate issued by the Department under s.438 of the Act. According to the certificate disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest because it was given in confidence. The Tribunal told the applicant that it finds the information is relevant to the assessment of his claims and it would disclose the information to him for his comment and response. The Tribunal directed at the hearing under s. 440 of the Act that the information contained in folio 9 of the Tribunal’s file Ref. No. 17038888 and information contained in the departmental website dated [in] July 2017, TRIM reference [number] must not be published or otherwise disclosed to any person, except as required by law. The Tribunal handed the applicant a written copy of the direction.
Using the procedure in s.424AA of the Act the Tribunal put to the applicant that the department had received information [in] July 2017 which is relevant in assessing his claims. In particular the Department was told that he and his girlfriend lodged protection visa applications so that they could stay longer in Australia. They have now stayed [a number of] years in Australia. It was claimed that Taiwan is a peaceful place to live and the applicant does not need any protection from the Australian government. It was claimed that the applicant is telling other [people] how they can succeed to stay in Australia by using the 866 visa and they will get permanent residence in the future. The Department was told that the applicant has made a lot of [people] change to the 866 visa. The informant advised that they were absolutely disgusted with what the applicant has done because the visa [866] should be used for people who need protection and the applicant and his girlfriend should not entice other [people] to do unlawful things. The Tribunal explained the relevance and consequences of the information an invited the applicant to comment and respond to the information.
The applicant did not ask for any time before responding to the information. He said he had nothing to say in response to the information.
At the conclusion of the hearing the applicant maintained that he did not tell others to apply for a protection visa.
Country Information
The Tribunal has had regard to the following country information prepared by the Department’s Country of Origin Information Service Section (COISS) in assessing the applicant’s claims:[1]
[1] DIBP, Common Claims Republic of China (Taiwan) COISS effective from 1 June 2017 CRF00C22F72
Police force
Operating within a low-crime environment, the National Police Administration (NPA) of the Ministry of Interior is effective and well-regarded. The NPA’s main missions are to carry out police and law enforcement in Taiwan, maintain public order, uphold the safety of its citizens and society, prevent hazards and to promote the welfare of its citizens. In 2016, an independent survey showed rising levels of confidence in citizen satisfaction with the police, reaching over 73% that year. There were criticisms that the police had used undue force to remove student protesters from the Executive Yuan in 2014 and a subsequent occupation of the Ministry of Education in 2015 was more restrained. The constitution prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention and this is generally observed.
Crime
Taiwan has a low crime rate and one of the lowest violent crime rates worldwide. There is extensive CCTV coverage throughout Taiwan, which plays a significant role in deterring the majority of criminal activity, as the overall crime rate is 1.3 per cent, and overall violent crime in Taiwan is at a worldwide low of just 0.01 per cent. In the first 11 months of 2016 about 70 per cent of nearly 7,000 economic crime cases involved the infringement of intellectual property rights (IPRs).
….
Loan sharks
Major operations against criminal gangs involved in loan shark and other associated activities are carried out. Violations of domestic financial rules, such as loan shark ring operations or underground economic activity, totalled 947 cases or 19 per cent of total economic crimes from January to August 2016, causing a loss of NT$6.3 billion, or 36.5 per cent of total losses from economic crimes. In May 2015 four police officers along with other suspects alleged to have been involved in supporting a major loan shark were summoned. A large raid was carried out in December 2015 with 142 suspects detained. Twenty people in a New Taipei gang were arrested in August 2016 and bats, firearms and bullets were confiscated.
Judicial system
Some corruption remains in the judicial system although trials are considered to be fair. The judiciary is independent and trials are generally fair. There is an independent and impartial judiciary for civil matters. There is some corruption in the system, although authorities have made efforts to eliminate corruption and reduce political influence in the judiciary. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty and have the right to an attorney.
The USDOS Taiwan Human Rights Report for 2016[2] states that the National Police Administration (NPA) of the Ministry of the Interior has administrative jurisdiction over all police units. Civilian authorities maintained effective control over NPA and authorities had effective mechanisms to investigate and punish abuse and corruption. The law provides criminal penalties for corruption by officials and authorities generally implemented the law effectively.
[2] "Taiwan - Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2015", US Department of State, 13 April 2016, OGD95BE926327
The Tribunal has had regard to media reports which confirm that the NPA have carried out national wide operations on “loan sharking”. The NPA referred victims /debtors to telephone numbers when faced by gangsters who use violence to recover money.[3]
[3] Taiwan Quick Take: Cops bust loan sharks Taipei Times 15 August 2006
The independent evidence indicates that the debt collectors are prohibited from harassing or harming persons in relation to debts, and there is an independent agency which assists people who have been the victims of debt collectors.[4]
[4] The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau enforces the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in Taiwan states that debt collectors many not “harass oppress or abuse you” and “a debt collector is not allowed to discuss a debt with anyone else”. A victim can report problems to the state Attorney General’s Office, the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Taiwan News 2015, ‘In Debt and Afraid: Dealing with Debt Collectors’, 26 March.
Having considered the information and the applicant’s profile the Tribunal finds there is no evidence to indicate that the State would be unable to or unwilling to protect the applicant in his particular situation.
Does the applicant have a well-founded fear of persecution for one of five grounds in s.5J(1)(a)?
As indicated above, the applicant has essentially claimed that as a result of gambling debts gang members have been seeking to harm him, and if he returns to Taiwan he will be harmed by creditors and debt collectors.
Having considered all of the evidence, the Tribunal does not accept any of the applicant’s claims. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is a credible witness and considers that he has manufactured the entirety of his claims regarding his experiences in Taiwan and his reasons for seeking Australia’s protection.
The Tribunal’s consideration of the evidence and its reasons for reaching these conclusions follows.
The Tribunal found the applicant’s evidence at the hearing vague, inconsistent and lacking in credibility. When asked to recount his personal experiences the applicant had to be prompted by the Tribunal and was not forthcoming in his evidence. When questioned about inconsistencies between his written claims and oral evidence, the applicant admitted that he fabricated aspects of his written claims to improve his chance of obtaining the visa. Having heard the applicant’s evidence the Tribunal finds that the applicant colluded with the person who he described as his agent, and manufactured all of the claims in support of his application.
In assessing the credibility of the applicant’s claims the Tribunal is also concerned about the delay in him lodging his protection visa application and the fact the applicant would return to Taiwan in January 2015 in circumstances where he claims to fear persecution. The Tribunal would have expected the applicant to lodge the visa at the first available opportunity if he travelled to Australia on a temporary visa escaping persecution.
The Tribunal has had regard to the anonymous information presented to the Department [in] July 2017. The Tribunal notes that the Department was unable follow up the information and obtained a statement to confirm the source of the information. In the circumstances the Tribunal has placed limited weight on the information.
In conclusion, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant borrowed any money from ‘underground’ money lenders (loan sharks) in Taiwan. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claim that he was harassed and threatened by loan sharks/gangsters due to his outstanding loans/debts. The Tribunal finds that the applicant manufactured these claims. As a consequence the Tribunal does not accept the applicant will be harmed by loan sharks and/or criminal gangs if he returns to Taiwan in the reasonably foreseeable future.

The Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm if he returns to Taiwan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal finds, therefore, that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution.
Complementary Protection
The Tribunal has also considered the applicant’s claims, having regard to the Complementary Protection provisions. The Tribunal has not accepted any of the applicant’s claims regarding his experiences in Taiwan or his reasons for leaving Taiwan. For the same reasons as those set out above, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was harmed by creditors or debt collectors or that there is a real risk that he will be subject to harm from creditors, debt collectors or any other persons upon his return to Taiwan.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Taiwan that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm, including arbitrary deprivation of life, torture, the death penalty, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or degrading treatment or punishment.
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 criterion in s.36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Christopher Smolicz
Member

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

[2017] AATA 2009

23 October 2017

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Remedies

Standing