1704616 (Refugee)

1704616 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 2383 (3 May 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1704616
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Fiji
MEMBER:Gabrielle Cullen
DATE:3 May 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.

Statement made on 03 May 2023 at 1:08pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Fiji – political opinion – opposition to the military government – assisting a journalist – assisting a former government – detention – physical assault – employment – delay in applying for protection – change of government in Fiji – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 424AA, 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 dependants.
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 20 February 2017 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The first named applicant (the applicant), a citizen of Fiji, claims to fear return from members of the Fijian government and military on the basis of involvement in expressing anti-government opinions by assisting a journalist, [Journalist A], to prepare his [column] and as his [Relative A], [named], who worked for the former [Official A, named], gave him documents to burn in 2006.
The applicant arrived in Australia [in] February 2015 on a [Visitor visa] and applied for the visa to which this decision relates on 29 August 2016.
The second named applicant, a citizen of Fiji, who arrived in Australia [in] June 2016, is the spouse of the applicant and has not made any claims to fear return in her own right but on the basis of being a member of the applicant’s family unit. At hearing it was confirmed she was not making any claims in her own right.
The third named applicant, a citizen of Fiji, who arrived in Australia [in] June 2016 is the minor child of the applicant and the second named applicant and has not made any claims to fear return in her own right but on the basis of being a member of the applicant’s family unit. At hearing it was confirmed she was not making any claims in her own right. However, in a post hearing email the applicant said he did not want to return to Fiji due to the better schools for his children in Australia and did not want the third named applicant and [other child], who is [relative age] and not part of this decision, to have the life he had, struggling to put food on the table.
The delegate refused to grant the visas on 20 February 2017 on the basis that the applicant would not face a real chance of serious harm or real risk of significant harm from the Fijian government were he to return to Fiji. The delegate noted that reports indicate that [a] 2016 article published in [Newspaper 1] resulted in [several] staff being charged in October 2016 with [offenses]. The delegate noted that [Journalist A] in the articles was alleged to have [targeted a specified] community. While the delegate accepted the applicant assisted [Journalist A] as a local volunteer gathering information between October 2014 until his departure, he did not accept he would be considered as a journalist as he had worked for [Business 1] for the three years before he departed Fiji. The delegate noted that while [Journalist A] was arrested in October 2016 in relation to an article, it was implausible that the applicant would be perceived to be involved in any way with the article which was published more than a year after the applicant left Fiji. The delegate referred to the DFAT Country Report for Fiji and found that that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution or face a real risk of significant harm as he is not a high-profile public figure, leader of an organisation which challenges the government’s authority or undermines its legitimacy, a leader or senior member of an opposition political party, an outspoken NGO member, human rights activist, trade union leader or journalist.
The applicant applied for review on 13 March 2017 and attached the decision of the Department.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 27 March 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The second named applicant also was present but chose not to give evidence at the hearing. The third named applicant did not attend. On one occasion at the hearing the applicant requested a Fijian interpreter which the Tribunal arranged. Prior to the interpreter being present by telephone, the applicant said that he now did not need an interpreter and had understood everything and was able to express himself. Notwithstanding, when the interpreter was present by telephone the applicant did on occasion utilise her to express himself. At the end of the hearing the applicant said he had been able to understand everything that was asked and had been able to express himself at the hearing.
The applicants were given until 3 April 2023 to comment or respond on the s 424AA matters raised and to add any further comment they wished.
The issues to be considered in this case are as follows:
·Is the applicant credible as to his claims?
·Does the applicant have a well-founded fear of persecution in relation to Fiji and meet the refugee protection provisions of the Act?
·Does the applicant meet the protection obligations under the complementary protection provisions of the Act?
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The relevant criteria for a protection visa are outlined in Attachment A.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The Tribunal has before it the Department’s file relating to the applicants. The Tribunal also has had regard to the material referred to in the delegate’s decision and other material available to it from a range of sources. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:
·The applicants’ protection visa applications dated 29 August 2016, and identity documents.
·Applicant’s statement dated 22 August 2016.
·Letter of support from [Journalist A] dated 16 August 2016.
·Letter from the applicant’s [Relative A] dated 14 March 2017.
·Oral evidence provided by the applicant at the Tribunal hearing held on 27 March 2023.
·Email from the applicant dated 31 March 2023.
·DFAT Country Information Report Fiji, 29 November 2022.
·Department of Immigration – PAM3 ‘Refugee and Humanitarian – Complementary Protection Guidelines’ and ‘Refugee and Humanitarian – Refugee Law Guidelines’.
For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
The applicant’s claims
The applicant claims in a statement attached to his protection visa application dated 29 August 2016 to fear harm on return to Fiji from the Fijian government and military on the basis of his involvement with [Journalist A] preparing his [columns] in their [newspaper]. He claims he was warned by his [Relative A] who was employed by [Agency 1] and he believes they are genuine. He claims [Journalist A] has been arrested for expressing public information in their [newspaper] and is awaiting an [official charge]. He claims for simply expressing his rights [Journalist A] can be sentenced to 10 years in prison by the Fijian government. He claims people who oppose the Fiji First government are tortured and abused and refers to the petition of Justice William Robert Marshall who speaks about the flaws in the current regime. He submits that there are spots outside Suva where people are taken and beaten up to confess their opinions against the government. He submits it is not easy to speak against the government and there is danger awaiting him if he returns to Fiji. He claims the military have followed up his involvement and [Journalist A] has told him to stay away from Fiji for his safety. He claims they have been through a number of coups and they have suppressed their rights and currently in Fiji all they experience is daily unjust policies of discrimination, nepotism, corruption and abuse of power by those in authority. He refers to the ILO Convention being shelved by the Bainimarama government and also the UN discrimination on the rights of Indigenous people.
The applicant also submitted a letter from [Journalist A] dated 16 August 2016 as follows:
To help clarify the situation he has gone through, I will try and put together the relevant sequence of events that has created the "real person" within this humble structure of a hard working man.
[The applicant] was [age] old when the first military coup which was carried out by Rabuka shook our small island nation. The family straightaway had to adapt to the difficulties that came with it. Through curfews, sanctions, etc., we began to face a new way of life which was totally based, little that we know of it then, on a culture of coup.
Then another coup took place in 2000 which again caused the ordinary people to struggle for survival. Then another military coup happened in 2006 which has brought with it torture and hunger to those of us who opposed it, and eventually bloodshed where arms were used. Sadly, [the applicant] was caught up on the opposing side due to the urge in him, to be useful to his hard working mother. That has categorized his family to be one of those that would be looking for survival in terms of employment as the military regime has its own choice of who was to be employed; under corruption and nepotism: And our genuine concern over that only brings danger with terror.
Then came in our stand to 'face the crowd or we will never be counted'. Hence, we have to mobilize our team of volunteers to gather ground information so we can inform the Taukei population what was truly happening in Fiji. [The applicant] was a very good and effective 'ground volunteer' who used to be one of those who briefed me on all that they could 'collect', to assist me in my column that reaches out to over 40,000 Taukei [readers]. Those releases commenced in late October 2014 immediately after the "rigged election", and continued up until [a specified time] when the Police took me in; took my files and my Laptop; produced me in Court but have yet to charge me.
According to Sections 17, 32 and others of this 2013 Constitution, we were supposed to enjoy freedom of choice, assembly, scientific research, publication, meetings, engagement of relevant work ethics, with government support, etc. But from their deceptive approach and draconian decrees, we are still very far away from the nearest 'beacon of hope' for such freedom.
Therefore, to save his life, [the applicant] must never come back to face these very crucial period of intimidating investigations. I tried to visit him lately but was told by her mother that he has already left for Australia [in] February 2015; after being warned by his '[Relative A]' to disappear immediately before the military lay hands on him: From a [social media] posting which he posted [in] January 2015, which was anti-government. To that, I was immediately relieved: It could be a hellish period of "intense suffering" for young people like him, if the Military or Police were able to lay hands on them, as typical in such situations here in Fiji. And his involvement with me is a real danger to his young and energetic life - if he ever returns to Fiji.
Therefore, I strongly recommend that [the applicant] is given a chance to work in Australia, and not to return to Fiji; our future is still "unclear" when it comes to discussing genuine and salient 'Taukei issues'. I wish him all the best in his future venture.
A letter was also submitted to the Tribunal on 1 August 2022 from the applicant’s [Relative A], dated 14 March 2017 residing in [Sydney], noting he, the [Relative A] was a member of [Agency 2] for 23 years and resigned [from a specified position] [in] March 2007. He claims he was [an assistant] to [Official A] during the military coup on 5 December 2006. He claims the applicant was aware of his role and when [Official A] fled [his office], he, the applicant’s [Relative A] stayed back to secure all the files. He claims he took some of the files to his residence in [location] where some were burnt and the rest were given to the applicant who was in [Town 1] and he was told to destroy them before the Fijian soldiers got hold of them. He claims this was because the Fijian military were trying to get hold of these files to trump up false allegations of corruption against [a government official].
At the Tribunal hearing held on 27 March 2023 the applicant reiterated his claim to fear harm on return to Fiji as he was an informant to [Journalist A] before he departed.
As to his family, he noted he also had [another child] born in Australia, [prior to the hearing].
When asked about his situation in Fiji, he said he had lived all his life in Fiji at [his address in Town 1] Fiji and lived there until he departed Fiji for Australia in February 2015. He said after he departed his wife continued to live at that address until she came to Australia in June 2016 and his mother and father continue to live in that home. As to his work in Fiji, he said he worked at [Business 1] until he departed for Australia in February 2015.
He said he came to Australia on a visitor visa to see his [Relative A] as something happened to him in Fiji. When asked what happened, he said his [Relative A] worked as [an assistant] for [Official A] and he came home one day and asked the applicant to burn some papers, which he did. He said the military under Bainimarama found out that his [Relative A] had burned the documents and they came and interrogated the applicant and took him to the military camp. He said they beat him and asked him many questions and that is the reason why he started to make his plan to come to Australia. He confirmed this happened soon after the coup in 2006. He confirmed he was beaten in 2006 by the military as they wanted the documents given to him by his [Relative A] that were burned. When asked what was in the documents, he said he did not know as when his [Relative A] gave him the documents his [Relative A] told him not to read them, just to burn them. He confirmed in 2006 he did not tell the military anything and he initially said he was released on the same day and then said after five days. He said since 2006 the military have been watching him and he said he was picked up again by the military on four occasions and taken to the military camp. He said on those occasions they asked him questions as to the documents . He said the first time was in 2006 and the other times were in 2006 as well. He said he has not been picked up by the military again since 2006.
The Tribunal asked him if that happened in 2006 what made him leave nine years later in 2015; he said he got involved with a journalist. He said he could not remember his name but later was able to name him as [Journalist A]. He said he informed the journalist as to what happened to him in the camp, and who has been taken to the camp and who has been beaten. As to what has happened to this journalist, he said he is still in Fiji. He said he does not know what has happened to him as he had not been in contact with him since 2015 before he left. When asked if he had been in contact with him while he has been living in Australia, he answered in the negative.
When asked what will happen to him on return to Fiji, he said there is a new government right now and he is not really sure. When asked if he now fears return, he said he thinks so. When asked from who he fears will harm him he said the military because of what he did. When asked what he means by ‘what he did’, he said because of burning the papers and as he was informing the journalist.
He said he had not been politically active or politically involved in either Fiji or Australia. He said he had never made any political posts on [social media] against any government.
When asked what happened in 2015 to make him depart, he said he remembered the journalist’s name and said it was [Journalist A]. He said [his] [Relative A] working in the military told him he heard them mentioning his name and his [Relative A] told him to go away from Fiji as soon as possible. He said after he left Fiji his father told him the military were coming around the house looking for him. When asked how soon after in February 2015, he said a week after he left the military came. He said they had not come again since that time.
When asked for how long he was an informer, he said about a year. When asked whether he knew what had happened to the journalist, he said he had not been in contact with him since he left Fiji.
The Tribunal asked him about the election in December 2022; he said Sitiveni Rabuka won and Bainimarama is gone. The Tribunal raised with him independent information that the new government is promoting freedom of information, free media and less power to the military to which the applicant agreed, but he said Bainimarama still has the power inside the military. The Tribunal noted that the information indicated that Bainimarama was recently ejected from parliament and he agreed that the military appeared to be supporting the new government of Rabuka.
The Tribunal asked then what he feared would happen to him on return to Fiji; he said he is still fearing about what happened to him before. The Tribunal again referred to the recent change in government in the December 2022 elections and asked what would happen and he said he is not sure but he thinks he will be safe, but he is not sure and he fears he may be taken to the military camp.
The Tribunal asked whether there is anything he wishes to say as to why he fears return, as to his claims or what he did in Fiji and he answered in the negative.
When an interpreter became available the applicant said he did not need one but the Tribunal advised that as there was one available she can be present in case he needed assistance.
The Tribunal noted it had asked him before about his claims and asked if there was anything he wanted to add about his claims. He said he knows there is a new government that is leading Fiji now but because of what happened to him in Fiji he is still scared. He said it is very difficult to explain what happened to him and he said he is not sure what information the Tribunal wants him to give. The Tribunal raised with him it wanted the details as to what happened to him in Fiji and why he fears return. He said he was taken out of his home forcibly and taken to the military camp and they punched him up at the camp. He said they took off all his clothes and wanted him to crawl and then they pulled him inside again and beat him up. He said they said that if he was going to spread the information he had been spreading around then they will come and beat him up again. He said this happened in 2006 and he said he was taken to the camp because they thought he had read the documents from [Official A] his [Relative A] had brought and burned. He said he did not read the documents and he confirmed they thought he had, but he had not. He confirmed he was taken four times to the camp in 2006 and he said he kept telling them he had not read the documents. He said after 2006 they stopped harassing him. The Tribunal raised a number of concerns as to this claim and his claim of fear of return which where relevant are outlined below.
He said he became involved with the journalist [Journalist A] for a year before he left and he stopped when he came to Australia. He said from 2014 to 2015 he was giving information to [Journalist A]. He again said that his [Relative A] had told him the military was aware he was giving information to that man and that is the reason he departed.

The Tribunal asked whether they wanted him in relation to what happened in 2006 as that appears to have resolved; he said they thought he had read the documents and he was lying and his [Relative A] warned him in 2015 they would do it again.
When asked about being an informant, he said the journalist came to him as he had heard what happened to him in the camp in 2006 and he wanted information from him. He said he told him what happened in the camp. He said they met five times. He said the journalist then wrote an article but only very general information. The Tribunal asked what happened to the journalist; he said he does not know. The Tribunal noted he said a week after he departed they came to his home and he confirmed they have not been since. He again said he had not been in contact with [Journalist A] since he departed Fiji, nor have any of [Journalist A’s] family.
It asked him whether he had put forward all of his claims for protection and he said he had. He said he had understood what has been said and he had been able to express himself.
The Tribunal raised with him concerns as to the credibility of his evidence, including inconsistencies and omissions in his evidence, including some via s 424AA, which where relevant are outlined below. It also raised with him as of concern his delay in applying for protection. When answering the concerns and particularly as to the country information relating to the change in government, he also added that he did not want to return due to the lack of work. The Tribunal questioned whether not wanting to return for this and economic reasons met the refugee and complementary protection criteria.
When asked whether he had anything to add, he referred to the economic pressures.
It also raised with him independent information as to the change in government in December 2022 and questioned whether he would face a real chance of serious harm or real risk of significant harm on return to Fiji for any of the reasons he claims.
He was given to 3 April 2023 to respond in writing to the s 424AA matters raised at hearing as he had requested.
On 31 March 2023 the applicant provided the following written response by email:
I am writing in response to the hearing held on the 27th of March, 2023. Since the new government have formed in Fiji late last year, I know that i'll be okay to return but since my family and I have resided here in Australia for more than 6 years and have both working, It would be difficult to return to Fiji and look for work. In returning to Fiji, we won't have a job and income to survive. My partner [named], worked as an [occupation 1] while I worked as [Employer 1] job in [Town 2]. My daughter attends school here and [the other child] was born here. The living standards and the schools are better here. It's better for my kids to attend school here because I don't want the life I went through in Fiji, the struggle to put food on the table, for my kids to experience.
I humbly seek, if there is a way that we can continue living here in Australia.
Assessment of claims
Is the applicant credible as to his claims?
On the basis of the applicants’ identity documents, including their passports and evidence provided at hearing, the Tribunal accepts that the applicants are nationals of Fiji. Therefore, for the purposes of s 36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal accepts that Fiji is the country of nationality, and for the purposes of s 36(2)(aa) of the Act, the Tribunal accepts that Fiji is the receiving country.
As to the applicant’s credibility, while the Tribunal has, as detailed below, significant concerns regarding aspects of the applicant’s claims and evidence, particularly those he claims led him to leave Fiji, which the Tribunal does not accept as true, and why he fears return, there are other aspects of his claimed basic circumstances which have remained consistent over time and which the Tribunal is satisfied are true.
Specifically, the Tribunal accepts that for economic reasons relating to employment and earning an income to survive he wishes to remain in Australia to provide for his family, as well as the better schooling and living standards in Australia for his family. It accepts his claims that he is aware of the change in government in Fiji in December 2022 and thinks he will be ok.
As to the applicant’s claims of fearing return under the previous regime for the reasons that follow the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is a credible witness regarding his claims as to burning documents of the [previous] government with his [Relative A] in 2006, being taken to the military camp and beaten in 2006 or being an informant to the journalist, [Journalist A] and being warned by his [Relative A] to leave Fiji in 2015. It is of the view he is not a credible witness that he feared return for these reasons before the change in government in December 2022 and continues to be concerned since then, or that he fled Fiji in fear in February 2015. It finds the applicant’s testimony inconsistent and a fabrication, for the reasons set out below. This leads the Tribunal to find that the applicant is not a witness of truth.
Firstly, despite claiming to fear return as a result of burning documents from the former [regime] together with his [Relative A] in 2006 and as a result of being taken to the military camp on four occasions and beaten in 2006, and being a reason he was sought out by the journalist, [Journalist A] in 2015 to be an informant, he did not refer to this in his signed statement outlining his claims attached to the application for a protection visa submitted to the Department. The first reference to the applicant burning documents is a letter from his [Relative A] dated 14 March 2017 but submitted for the first time to the Tribunal on 1 August 2022. The first time he refers to being beaten by the military in 2006 and it being one of the reasons why he fled Fiji was at the Tribunal hearing in 2023. When the concern was raised the applicant said he does not know why these claims were not included previously. He also said he was fearful if he placed it in his claims for protection that the Fijian military and authorities would find out. He said he was warned when the military beat him up in 2006. The Tribunal has considered his evidence as to why he did not refer to these claims in his application for the visa or before the Department but does not accept his reasons. The Tribunal is of the view that if he was prepared to make claims as to being an informant to a journalist in 2014/15 against the government, who was later arrested by the government, he would have also referred to these claims from 2006 if true and would not have because of concerns the authorities would find out. It does not accept his reasons for not including these claims in his application and is of the view, due to their significance, particularly being beaten and taken to the military camp on four occasions, that if this occurred or he feared return because of these events he would have raised it in his statement attached to his application for the visa. His lack of any reference to these claims to the Department, particularly in his statement attached to his application for the visa leads the Tribunal to find it is a fabrication and adds to the finding he is not a credible witness.
Further of concern, although not solely determinative is that the letter from his [Relative A] dated 14 March 2017 submitted in 2022 also does not refer to the applicant being taken to the military camp on four occasions and beaten in 2006. When the concern was raised the applicant said his [Relative A] had probably forgotten and his [Relative A] was not sure whether to include it or not. The Tribunal does not accept this reason and is of the view if the applicant was beaten and taken to the military camp in 2006 on four occasions for assisting his [Relative A] to burn documents related to the [administration] of the [former] government, considering the significance, he would have referred to it in his letter. This adds to the finding the applicant did not face the difficulties he claims in 2006 for the reason he claims. It adds to the finding he is not a credible witness.
The Tribunal views as inconsistent and undermining his claims that he fled in fear as he had been warned by his [Relative A] that the Fijian military were going to question him again or harm him as an informant to the journalist, [Journalist A] and as they knew him from 2006 when he burned the documents and was taken to the military camp, the following:
·His behavior in continuing to live in his home and work in his employment up until his departure [in] February 2015, as he stated at the beginning of the Tribunal hearing. This is particularly so as he said he applied for the visitor visa, which was granted on 23 December 2014,[1] after his [Relative A] told him the military suspected he was informing the journalist. When the concern was raised the applicant responded that he was not working and left a month before he departed. He also said he did not stay at home all of the time. He said he was not based at home but would go and sleep in relatives’ houses and was in his home most of the day. The Tribunal does not accept this response as it is inconsistent with his earlier evidence at hearing that he lived at home and worked in his regular employment up until the time he departed. The Tribunal is of the view if he was warned the military were mentioning his name and his [Relative A] had told him to leave Fiji that he would not remain living at his home for a further two months.
·His behaviour in continuing to remain in Fiji for approximately two months after his visa to enter Australia was granted. As raised with the applicant via the process outlined in s 424AA at hearing the evidence indicates his [Visitor visa] to enter Australia was granted on 23 December 2014 but he did not depart Fiji until [February] 2015. When the concern was raised with the applicant, he said it was because he comes from a poor family and did not have the money so he had to look around for money. The Tribunal has difficulty accepting this when he lived at home and was employed full time.
[1] As raised with him via s 424AA
These factors add to the finding he is not a credible witness as to the difficulties he faced in Fiji and that he departed [in] February 2015 in fear for the reasons he claims. It adds to the finding he is not a credible witness.
Further, it views his delay in applying for a protection visa as undermining his claim he fears return for the reasons he claims and faces the difficulties he claims as outlined above. The Tribunal is of the view if his fear of return is or was genuine and he is credible as to his claims, he would have applied sooner than on 29 August 2016, approximately 18 months after his arrival in Australia [in] February 2015. This is particularly so as his visitor visa ceased [in] May 2015 and he was in Australia unlawfully without a visa from this date until he applied for the protection visa on 29 August 2016. When the concern was raised the applicant said he arrived as a visitor and did not know about a protection visa. He said he spent time in Melbourne and then spoke to his [Relative A] in Sydney who told him about applying for a protection visa. He said he searched as to how to apply to stay and then his [Relative A] told him he could apply. The Tribunal asked whether he contacted the Department at any time as to his difficulties and how he could stay and he said he did not. The Tribunal does not accept his explanation and is of the view if he feared harm on return as he claims and faced the difficulties he claims he would have contacted the Department for information or done some research as to applying for protection and applied sooner than he did. This is particularly so as he was unlawful for over a year. His delay in applying leads the Tribunal to find he was and is not genuine as to fearing return because he had been warned by his [Relative A] that the Fijian military were going to question him again or harm him as an informant to a journalist and as they knew him from 2006 when he burned the documents and was taken to the military camp. It adds to the finding he is not a credible witness.
The Tribunal also views as undermining the applicant’s claim that he left Fiji as his [Relative A] told him that the Fijian military were going to question him again or harm him as an informant to a journalist, [Journalist A], when independent information, as outlined in the Department’s decision and raised with the applicant at hearing, indicates that the journalist in question did not face difficulty at or around that time. Rather, the evidence indicates that it was only as a result of an article written by [Journalist A], published in [Newspaper 1] in [2016], over a year after the applicant left and had ceased informing him, that resulted in [several] staff being charged in October 2016 with [offenses] against the [specified] community. The applicant’s evidence was that he ceased informing [Journalist A] when he departed in February 2015 and had not talked to him since. The Tribunal has difficulty accepting that the applicant as an informant to the journalist would be facing difficulty from the military prior to his departure in February 2015, and he said he was warned prior to December 2014 when he applied for the visitor visa when there is no evidence the journalist faced any difficulty until more than a year later and in relation to a different article. When the information was raised with the applicant he said he would respond in writing and was given a week to respond. He did not directly address this concern in his post hearing submission. This concern adds to the finding he did not depart for the reasons he claims and adds to the finding he is not a credible witness.
The Tribunal also views as undermining the applicant’s claim that he was an informant to the journalist, [Journalist A], his lack of knowledge about this journalist at hearing, particularly as he provided more detailed information in his statement attached to the application for the visa. When asked at hearing, he said he had not spoken with [Journalist A] since he departed Fiji in February 2015 and did not know what had happened to him. However, in contrast as outlined in his statement attached to his protection visa application he indicated that he was arrested for an article he wrote for [offenses]. At hearing he also did not know which newspaper [Journalist A] wrote for when asked saying it was [Newspaper 2], whereas the information as raised with him via s 424AA indicates he worked at the [Newspaper 1]. The applicant advised he would respond in writing but did not address this concern in his post-hearing letter. The Tribunal is of the view if he assisted the journalist, [Journalist A] as he claimed he would be able to provide more detail about what happened to him consistent with information provided with his statement attached to his application for the visa. This adds to the finding he was not an informant as claimed and adds to the finding he is not a credible witness.
The Tribunal also views as of concern the inconsistency in his evidence between that of the applicant and as outlined in the letter from [Journalist A]. In particular, at hearing the applicant indicated he had never made a [social media] political post, however, the submitted letter from [Journalist A] states he made an anti-government [social media] post [in] January 2015. When the concern was raised with the applicant, he did not address this. It adds to the finding he is not a credible witness.
Credibility summary
For all the above reasons, considered cumulatively, the Tribunal does not find the applicant to be a credible, truthful and reliable witness. The Tribunal is of the view that the applicant has fabricated claims and concocted evidence to achieve an immigration outcome. On the basis of the above cumulative credibility concerns, the Tribunal therefore does not accept that the applicant is a credible witness and cannot be satisfied on the evidence before it that the applicant is a truthful witness as to his claims.
In making these findings, the Tribunal has allowed for the possibility of discrepancies arising because of genuine lapses of memory, nervousness, and the manner in which responses can differ depending on the nature of and manner in which a question is asked. It is also sensitive to the various cultural differences that can impact on an applicant’s responses to questioning, as discussed in the Tribunal’s ‘Guidance on the Assessment of Credibility’. The Tribunal does not accept that any of these factors explain or excuse the concerns which, cumulatively, have led it to find that the applicant is not a reliable witness as to these claims.
In making these findings, the Tribunal accepts that some information has been consistent over time, including that he was an informant to a journalist in Fiji called [Journalist A] and fled Fiji as his [Relative A] advised him that the military were aware he was giving information to this journalist. However, the Tribunal considers that these are relatively easy matters to recall and that his consistency in these matters does not outweigh the significant credibility aspects outlined above and does not lead the Tribunal to change its view that the applicant is not a credible witness.
It follows it does not accept the applicant was ever asked to burn documents in 2006 by his [Relative A] which were from the [former government], and as a result he was forcibly taken to the military camp on four or any occasions, beaten, harassed, warned and mistreated with his clothes being taken off and being made to crawl.
It follows it does not accept he was ever an informant to the journalist [Journalist A] in 2014/15 and as a result was advised to flee Fiji by his [Relative A] as the military and authorities knew about it and he would be harmed. It follows it does not accept he was ever politically active or wrote an anti-government [social media] post in January 2015 or at any time.
Based on the applicant’s lack of credibility, it does not accept that he left Fiji to prevent himself from being harmed by the Fijian military and authorities and its officials for any of the reasons he claims.
It follows it does not accept that after he left Fiji, one week later or ever the military came to his home looking for him.
The Tribunal rejects the applicant’s claims of fear of harm in their entirety and does not accept at the time he departed Fiji in February 2015 that he was of interest to the authorities, military, or anyone else.
In making this finding, the Tribunal has considered the letter from [Journalist A] as outlined above. Of concern is that the letter refers to the applicant making a [social media] page post [in] January 2015 which was anti-government but at hearing the applicant indicated he had never made such a post. Therefore, due to this concern, as well as on the basis of the applicant’s lack of credibility generally and as to the difficulties he faced in Fiji as raised with the applicant at hearing, the Tribunal places no weight on this letter as evidence of the applicant’s claims and the difficulties he faced.
In making this finding it has also considered the letter from his [Relative A] dated 14 March 2017 but submitted for the first time to the Tribunal on 1 August 2022. Of concern is that it was submitted on 1 August 2022 but dated 14 March 2017 and does not refer to the applicant’s significant claims of being taken to the military camp as a result in 2006. On the basis of these concerns and on the basis of the applicant’s lack of credibility generally and as to the difficulties he faced in Fiji as raised with the applicant at hearing, the Tribunal places no weight on this letter as evidence of the applicant’s claims and the difficulties he faced.
Does the applicant have a well-founded fear of persecution in relation to Fiji and meet the refugee protection provisions of the Act and meet the protection obligations under the complementary protection provisions of the Act?

On the basis of the credibility findings above, and as it does not accept the applicant faced the harm or threats of harm he claims or he was of any interest to the Fijian government, military, or members of the former Bainimarama government for the reasons he claims, it follows the Tribunal does not accept that were the applicant to return to Fiji now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, he would face any of the difficulties he claims for the reasons he claims due to any of the difficulties he claimed he faced in Fiji prior to his departure. It follows it does not accept that were he to return he will be arrested, imprisoned, beaten, threatened, harassed, detained, killed for any of the reasons he claims relating to fear of the military.
The Tribunal has also considered the country information raised with the applicant at hearing indicating that Fiji First, led by Frank Bainimarama was defeated in Fiji’s 14 December 2022 election where Sitiveni Rabuka, leader of the People’s Alliance Party, was elected Prime Minister by the Parliament with support from the National Federation Party (NFP), and the Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA). Information indicates that the new government is working hard to weed out corruption, increase transparency, and ensure political appointees and community leaders are chosen on merit rather than their connections to elected officials.[2] Information indicates that people who were deported, threatened, or forced to leave Fiji for speaking out against the previous government are being granted permission to return, and they are doing so.[3] The new government has also indicated it is committed to allowing freedom of the press that will include review of the Media Act with information that the Fijian Cabinet has approved a bill to do just that.[4]
[2] Nancy Schneider, ‘Cautious Optimism for Fiji’s Coalition Government - Australian Institute of International Affairs - Australian Institute of International Affairs’, 8 March 2023
[3] Nancy Schneider, ‘Cautious Optimism for Fiji’s Coalition Government - Australian Institute of International Affairs - Australian Institute of International Affairs’, 8 March 2023
[4] Stephen Wright, ‘Fiji Appears set to repeal draconian media law’, Radio Free Asia, 29 March 2023 < Lice Movono, ‘Journalists celebrate after Fiji government announces plans to repeal controversial media act’, ABC Pacific, 30 March 2023 <
On the basis of the applicant’s post hearing email outlining that he thinks he will be ok if he returns to Fiji due to the change in government, independent country information outlined above as to the change in the Fijian government in December 2022 and its finding that he lacks credibility as to his claims, it follows the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of persecution involving serious harm were he to return to Fiji in the reasonably foreseeable future at the hands of the military, members of the former or current Fijian government due to being an informant to the journalist [Journalist A] in 2014/15 and /or because he assisted his [Relative A] to burn documents of the [former government] and/or as he was taken to the military camp on four occasions in 2006, beaten and mistreated, and/or as he made an anti-government political [social media] post; and/or as he is imputed to be in opposition to the Bainimarama government and its unjust policies of discrimination, nepotism, corruption and abuse of power; and/or as he supports democracy and the rights of Fijians under the ILO Convention and UN Rights for Indigenous People or for any of the reasons he claims.
Similarly, based on the applicant’s post-hearing email outlining that he thinks he will be ok if he returns to Fiji due to the change in government, independent country information outlined above as to the change in the Fijian government in December 2022 and its finding that he lacks credibility as to his claims the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk that he or his family will suffer significant harm on his return to Fiji at the hands of the military, members of the former or current Fijian government due to being an informant to the journalist [Journalist A] in 2014/15 and/or because he assisted his [Relative A] to burn documents of the [former government] and/or as he was taken to the military camp on four occasions in 2006, beaten and mistreated, and/or as he made an anti-government political [social media] post; and/or as he is imputed to be in opposition to the Bainimarama government and its unjust policies of discrimination, nepotism, corruption and abuse of power; and/or as he supports democracy and the rights of Fijians under the ILO Convention and UN Rights for Indigenous People or for any of the reasons he claims.
While the Tribunal has rejected the applicant fled Fiji in fear for the reasons he claims, it, however, accepts that he does not want to return to Fiji as it will be difficult to return and find work and earn an income to survive; the living standards and the schools are better in Australia; he does not want the life for his children struggling to put food on the table. The evidence indicates he has not claimed he fears return in these matters for one of the reasons set out in s 5J(1)(a) if he returned to Fiji in the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that difficult economic circumstances, including being unable to provide for his family and the schools not being as good, are for reasons of race, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s 36(2A): s 5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’ and ‘torture’ are further defined in s 5(1) of the Act. The Tribunal considers that the problems he claims to face upon return because of economic difficulties, low living standards and not as good schooling do not constitute significant harm under s 36(2B)(c) of the Act as the real risk is one faced by the population of Fiji generally and is not faced by the applicant personally.
The Tribunal therefore does not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Fiji, there is a real risk that he, his wife and his children will suffer significant harm as defined in s 36(2A).
Does the second and third named applicant have a well-founded fear of persecution in relation to Fiji and meet the refugee protection provisions of the Act and meet the protection obligations under the complementary protection provisions of the Act?
In a post hearing email, as outlined above, the applicant claimed on behalf of the second and third named applicants that it may be difficult to find work and earn an income to survive, the living standards and the schools are better in Australia and it may be difficult to put food on the table. The evidence indicates that these matters are not claimed to happen for one of the reasons set out in s 5J(1)(a) if they returned to Fiji in the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that difficult economic circumstances, including being unable to work and earn an income to survive, and the schools or living standards not being as good as in Australia, are for reasons of race, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s 36(2A): s 5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’ and ‘torture’ are further defined in s 5(1) of the Act. The Tribunal considers that the problems he claims the applicants will face upon return because of economic difficulties, lack of work, lack of income to survive, low living standards and not as good schooling as in Australia do not constitute significant harm under s 36(2B)(c) of the Act as the real risk is one faced by the population of Fiji generally and is not faced by the applicant personally.
The Tribunal therefore does not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the second and third named applicant and their [other child] being removed from Australia to Fiji, there is a real risk that he, his wife and his children will suffer significant harm as defined in s 36(2A).
Conclusions regarding the refugee protection
The Tribunal has considered whether the combination of each of the individual claims raised by the applicant would together create a real chance of him and his family being subjected to serious harm in Fiji in the reasonably foreseeable future. As the Tribunal has rejected the applicant’s claims in their entirety, the Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance the applicants would face serious harm for these reasons if they return in the reasonably foreseeable future.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal therefore is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Complementary protection
The Tribunal has also considered whether the applicant is eligible for complementary protection. The Tribunal has above rejected the credibility of the applicant’s claims in their entirety. The Tribunal therefore does not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Fiji, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm as defined in s 36(2A).
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 any of the criteria in s 36(2).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicants do 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 applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that any of the applicants satisfy s 36(2) of the Act 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 applicants do not satisfy the criteria in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.
Gabrielle Cullen
Member

ATTACHMENT A – 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 (Cth) (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 expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
ATTACHMENT B – 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.
…

[2023] AATA 2383

3 May 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction