1705167 (Refugee)

1705167 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 6920 (16 July 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1705167
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   China
MEMBER:W Frost
DATE:16 July 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Canberra
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 16 July 2019 at 11:02am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – fear of harm from local ‘thug’ over business – threats and attacks – complaint to local government, arrest and detention – claim that thug bribed government for protection – credibility – inconsistent evidence – lack of corroborating evidence – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1), 5J(1), 36(2), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), 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 decision relates to an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 27 February 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant, who claims to be a citizen of China, a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Act).
On 22 September 2016, the applicant was granted a visitor (subclass 600) visa.
On 9 October 2016, the applicant arrived in Australia on the visitor (subclass 600) visa.
On 11 November 2016, the applicant applied for a protection visa.
On 27 February 2017, the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection refused to grant the protection visa on the basis that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Act and is not a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations and who holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
On 18 March 2017, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the delegate’s decision to refuse to grant him a protection visa.
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 (Regulations). An applicant for a protection visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c) of the Act. 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) of the Act 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) of the Act.
Under s.5J(1) of the Act, 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 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) of the Act, 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). This is 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 – 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.
TRIBUNAL HEARING
On 13 June 2019, the applicant appeared before the Tribunal to give evidence and present his arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Chinese (Mandarin) and English languages. The applicant’s migration agent also attended the hearing.
Applications
The applicant confirmed that: his application for a protection visa was completed with the assistance of his migration agent; the application was translated back to him; and the application was correct and no changes or additions were required to be made to the application.
Statements
The applicant confirmed that the one-page written statement titled Statement he signed and provided to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (Department) with his protection visa application was correct, having been translated by his migration agent from an original document in the Chinese language written by the applicant, and he did not wish to add or change anything in that statement (First Statement).
The applicant further confirmed that the subsequent two-page statement also titled Statement he signed and provided to the Tribunal with his review application was correct, having been translated by his migration agent from an original document in the Chinese language written by the applicant, and he did not wish to add or change anything in that statement (Statement to the Tribunal).
The Statement to the Tribunal builds upon the contents of the First Statement by adding some further detail, such as the date the applicant claimed to have been detained in 2014, the price of the [produce] and the date he asked a friend to apply for a visa for him to travel to Australia.
Personal details
The applicant confirmed his date of birth, which corresponded to that contained in the photocopy of the passport provided to the Tribunal, being a copy of the original issued by the Chinese Government. This photocopy also matched that contained in the Department’s file. In this regard, the Tribunal is satisfied, for the purpose of this decision, that the applicant is a Chinese national. China is therefore the receiving country for the purpose of assessing the applicant’s claims for protection.
The applicant asserted that he is married, with [children], and that they all live at the same property with his parents.
The applicant stated that he is from [Village], [Town], Rugao City, Jiangsu Province in China. This accords with the address recorded in the protection visa application documentation in the Department’s file, including the First Statement.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicant should be granted a protection visa to remain in Australia because he has a well-founded fear of being persecuted in China for one or more of the five reasons set out in the definition of ‘refugee’ in s.5H and s.5J of the Act and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
[Produce] business
The applicant claimed that he worked with his father in various businesses following graduation from middle high school. However, their main and most successful business over many years since his graduation was in relation to selling [produce] (scientific name [deleted], also known as [popular name]).
The applicant confirmed that there was no company or business as such; he and his father merely had land and ‘we grow the [produce] and do our business’. When asked about the business, the applicant said that ‘I plant the [produce] and when they grow up I sell them’. As a result of this assertion, the Tribunal took the applicant to Statement to the Tribunal, in which he said:
For [produce], we did not have a fixed office, we travel around to visit the [produce] suppliers then according to the sizes and types to offer the prices.
The Tribunal noted that his Statement to the Tribunal indicated that he bought the [produce], then on-sold them, rather than actually planting and growing the [produce]. The applicant said ‘Yes, we buy [produce]’. The Tribunal asked the applicant to confirm that the business did not plant the [produce] and grow them as he had previously stated and the applicant said ‘No’.
Issue with local ‘thug’
The applicant stated that a man called [Mr A], with ‘huge power’ in the applicant’s village, tried to stop their [produce] business. When asked for information about the basis for this person’s power, the applicant said ‘he is like a hooligan, a thug in our village’.
According to the applicant, his father stopped the business when the applicant went to Australia because ‘we do the business well and someone, a young man, do harm to us, prosecute us’. When asked how this occurred, the applicant said ‘he tried to use the GPS [Global Positioning System] to tracking our business and do harm to our business’. The Tribunal understands the applicant’s claim to have been ‘prosecuted’ to mean that he and his father were allegedly persecuted by [Mr A]. When asked what happened to the business, the applicant said ‘he buy all of our business’. When asked how this harmed his business, the applicant said ‘he tried to stop me from doing this business and he let other people to beat me’. The applicant contended that [Mr A] effectively destroyed the [produce] business because he ‘bought the sole right from our suppliers, which cut off our income resource totally’.
The applicant claimed that he tried to negotiate with [Mr A], but he was threatened and ‘beaten up’ by [Mr A]. The applicant said he tried to report it to the local government but he ‘was arrested [by the police] and kept in detention for a several days’. The applicant ‘thought they were together’. That is, the applicant contended that the government protected [Mr A] because ‘he give money to the government’.
Detention
In his Statement to the Tribunal, the applicant referred to one period of detention for ‘4/5 days’ commencing [in] October 2014. However, at the hearing, the applicant referred to two periods of detention in separate years. When asked about whether he had sought any action from the government in relation to the claimed actions of [Mr A], the applicant said ‘I tried to report it but was kept in detention for several days’ in approximately July 2016.
As a result of this assertion about the period of detention, the Tribunal took the applicant to his Statement to the Tribunal, which says as follows:
[In] October 2014, after fruitless complaining to the up-level government, I was detained for 4/5 days.
The applicant said the claimed 2016 detention was his second period of detention; the claimed 2014 detention in his Statement to the Tribunal being the first.
Upon a request from the Tribunal for the applicant to confirm his claim that he had been detained twice, he said ‘Yes’. When asked to confirm the dates, the applicant stated at the hearing, and contrary to his Statement to the Tribunal, that:
(a)the first period of detention was for 2 days in 2014 after he was ‘beaten up’ by [Mr A]; and
(b)the second period of detention was for 5 days in July 2016 after he went to the home of [Mr A] and ‘tried to argue with him’. He claimed to be beaten up and tried to report this to the government but he was arrested by the government. When asked what happened while he was detained for 4 or 5 days, the applicant said ‘nothing special’. When asked about his detention arrangements, he claimed that he was detained with ‘two to three people’. He then said he was released ‘for no reason, I was kept for 2 or 3 days, 2 days, and I was released.’ The Tribunal asked whether the detention was for 2 or 3 days or 5 days. The applicant then said it was for 5 days.
According to the applicant, his father stopped the [produce] business when the applicant left for Australia. The applicant said he left China because [Mr A] ‘wouldn’t let me do anything in that village and around that village’. When asked whether he had sought employment elsewhere in China, the applicant said he had, but he ‘could not do other jobs’ because of his skills being limited to the [produce] business.
The applicant claimed that [Mr A] harmed and persecuted he and his father; tried to stop the applicant from conducting his business; beat up, and arranged for others to beat up, the applicant; and effectively destroyed the applicant’s business by buying out suppliers thereby cutting off his income. The applicant also claimed that he would not be protected by the government because it had been bribed by [Mr A].
FINDINGS
The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s abovementioned claims or that these events occurred. Although the Tribunal accepts that the applicant ran a [produce] business with his father, based on the information provided by the applicant, and the lack of any corroborating evidence, the Tribunal finds that the loss of that business did not occur as a result of the abovementioned actions of [Mr A] as claimed by the applicant. From the applicant’s evidence it appears that the [produce] business was unstructured, unsophisticated and was therefore vulnerable to competition. The applicant’s business did not have a company name. The applicant and his father bought the [produce] from suppliers and on-sold them, but they did not have contractual arrangements in place for any of these transactions. Accordingly, for these reasons, while the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s business suffered as a result of competition from [Mr A], the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant or his father were ever physically harmed by [Mr A] or the authorities, and the Tribunal also finds that the conduct of [Mr A] in relation to the applicant’s business does not involve serious harm to the applicant or his father as required by s.5J(4)(b) of the Act.
INCONSISTENCIES
The Tribunal noted that, in considering the applicant’s claims, it has regard to his written statements and his evidence at hearing in order to assess his credibility. The Tribunal stated that there appeared to be some inconsistencies between the applicant’s statements and what he told the Tribunal at hearing. The Tribunal put these apparent inconsistencies to the applicant and asked him to comment on them.
[Produce] business model
First, the Tribunal noted the difference between his Statement to the Tribunal and his evidence at hearing regarding the [produce] business model. That is, in his Statement to the Tribunal, the applicant said that he purchased the [produce] and on-sold them. However, in evidence before the Tribunal, the applicant said that he planted the [produce] before selling them. The applicant said ‘No, I didn’t say that’ in reference to the planting of the [produce]. The applicant continued, ‘there might be some misunderstanding. What I mean is that I buy [produce] from others and then I sell it to others’. The Tribunal accepts that there was a misunderstanding about the [produce] business model and that the applicant and his father purchased [produce] and on-sold them; they did not plant and grow the [produce] themselves.
Detention
Second, the Tribunal noted the difference between his Statement to the Tribunal and his evidence at hearing regarding his claimed detention in China. That is, the Statement to the Tribunal only refers to one period of detention, being in 2014, for a period of 4 to 5 days. Whereas at hearing, the applicant said he was detained twice; once in 2014 for a period of 2 days and a second time in July 2016 for around 5 days. The applicant said ‘maybe I’m a little bit confused’ and that ‘I don’t think the first time was that serious, so I didn’t write it down’. The Tribunal pointed out that the first period of detention was in 2014 for a period of 4 to 5 days according to the Statement to the Tribunal. The applicant replied that ‘maybe I made a mistake’.
The Tribunal asked whether the applicant was detained on two occasions. The applicant now said that he was detained twice, with the first time in 2014 being for 4 to 5 days and the second time in 2016 being for a period of 2 days. Earlier, the applicant said he was detained in 2014 for 2 days and in 2016 for around 5 days. That is, the applicant claimed the periods of detention were actually in reverse order to what he had stated earlier in the hearing. The Tribunal again pointed out the difference to the applicant and he said ‘maybe I was a little bit nervous and made a mistake’.
When questioned further as to how the applicant considered this first period of detention in 2014 not to be ‘that serious’ when he was purportedly detained for 4 to 5 days, the applicant said ‘because the first time I wasn’t beaten up’. However, the applicant’s claim that he was not ‘beaten up’ in 2014 contradicted his earlier statement at the hearing that the first period of detention in 2014 was after he was ‘beaten up’ by [Mr A].
The applicant’s evidence about his claimed detention in China was vague and inconsistent, including contradictory statements during the hearing about the length of each of these periods of detention. To this end, the applicant’s evidence shifted during the hearing and it appeared that he was not recalling events that had in fact occurred. The applicant could not recall any substantial detail of his detention, except that ‘nothing special’ happened and during one period he was kept with ‘two to three people’. The applicant’s claims at hearing in relation to his detention contained significant internal inconsistencies regarding their number and duration and he was unable to provide any real detail about his detention. The Tribunal also does not accept that the applicant’s changing evidence at hearing was the result of nerves as was claimed when these inconsistencies were pointed out to the applicant because this claim was only relied upon after multiple opportunities to clarify his story. Moreover, the applicant was calm and composed at hearing and confirmed he understood the interpretation of the Tribunal’s questions regarding all of his claims. The applicant’s claims regarding his detention did not have the ring of truth to it given the abovementioned issues. Additionally, the applicant did not provide any corroborating evidence about his claimed detention for the Tribunal to consider. As a result, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was detained at all in China.
Additionally, during the hearing, the applicant initially confirmed that there have been no threats made to his family since he has been in Australia. However, the applicant subsequently claimed that, while he had been in Australia, his wife had been told that ‘they wouldn’t let me to go back to China’ and that [Mr A] would ‘do harm to my children and also do physical harm to them’. The applicant did not expand on his late (and changed) claim and did not provide any corroborating evidence that he would not be allowed to return to China by [Mr A] or that [Mr A] would harm his family. As a result, and because of the applicant’s inconsistent, vague and shifting claims, the Tribunal does not accept that [Mr A] has made threats against the applicant or his family, including that he would be precluded from returning to China by [Mr A]. Because the Tribunal has found that the applicant did not experience any previous harm as claimed, the Tribunal also rejects the applicant’s claims to fear of future harm in China.

The Tribunal asked whether the applicant had put forward all of the information he wanted the Tribunal to consider in relation to the application for a protections visa. The applicant confirmed that he had nothing further to add.
The Tribunal also asked the applicants’ migration agent whether she wanted to add anything. The migration agent declined.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively and it is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution.
The Tribunal concludes that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal has also 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).
Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations because he is a refugee or that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
W Frost
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.
…

[2019] AATA 6920

16 July 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction