1706232 (Refugee)

1706232 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 3910 (25 February 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1706232
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Malaysia
MEMBER:Joseph Lindsay
DATE:25 February 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 25 February 2019 at 4:20pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – economic reasons – custody battle with ex-wife – no convention related claims – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65, 499
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 dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 23 March 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Malaysia, applied for the visa on 12 December 2016.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).
Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and relevant country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Protection claims
The applicant’s handwritten claims were contained her 866 Form stated as follows:
Q88: I am seeking protection in Australia so that I do not have to return to:
A. Malaysia.
Q89: Why did you leave that country?
A. I leaved Malaysia because of the political and economic status of my country become worst and down. Our country currency decrease dramatically. The price more higher and its not parallel to our basic salary. I become unaffordable.
Q90: What do you think will happen to you if you return to that country(s)?
A. [blank]
Q91: Did you experience harm in that country(s)?
A. [blank]
Q92: Did you seek help within the country(s) after the harm?
A. [blank]
Q93: Did you move or try to move to another part of that country(s) to seek safety?
A. [blank]
Q94: Do you think you will be harmed or mistreated if you return to that country(s)?
A. [blank]
Q95: Do you think the authorities of that country(s) can and will protect you if you go back?
A. [blank]
Q96. Do you think you will be able to relocate within that country(s)?
A. [blank]
The Hearing
At the hearing on 15 February 2018, the Tribunal spoke to the applicant. The applicant was not represented. The applicant was assisted by an interpreter.
The applicant indicated his current partner wrote his application on his behalf. He claimed that what was written reflected his claims. The Tribunal put to the applicant that he had not put much information about his claims, to which he confirmed that he did not put much information.
When the Tribunal asked the applicant the reason why he left Malaysia, he said:
Because I could not make a living there.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he was claiming that he came to Australia for economic reasons, to which he said:
Yes.
The Tribunal asked the applicant would happen if he went back to Malaysia, to which he said:
I can’t work.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he had experienced harm in Malaysia, to which he said:
Yes, I’ve been tricked in terms of my salary.
The Tribunal asked the applicant what sort of work he did, and he indicated he was [an occupation] and that the pay was not constant or regular. He claimed he was poorly educated and that he did not finish form [number].
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he sought help after the harm in Malaysia, to which he indicated he spoke to his boss but it ended up in an altercation.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if moved or tried to another part of Malaysia to seek safety, he indicated that he did. He indicated he moved to Australia.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he thought he would be harmed or mistreated if he returned to Malaysia, to which he said:
Definitely, because I have a [child] there.
The applicant indicated that he was having a custody battle with his ex-wife over the child and he did not want to surrender the child – that was in addition to his economic situation.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he thought the Malaysian authorities can and will protect him if he went back and he indicated no.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he thought he would be able to relocate within Malaysia, to which he said:
I love this country – this is beautiful.
The applicant said he loved Australia and that he wanted to bring his mother and father to Australia.
Country information
The Tribunal notes the relevant country information from the 2016 DFAT Country Information Report – Malaysia, that states:
2.7 Malaysia is classified by the World Bank as an upper middle-income, export-oriented economy. In 2015 its GDP growth was five per cent and per capita GDP was over USD11, 000. Since independence, Malaysia has transformed from a commodity-based economy, focused on rubber and tin, to a leading producer of electronic parts and electrical products and exporter of palm oil, oil and gas. Manufactured goods made up 76 per cent of Malaysia’s exports in 2012. Malaysia is ASEAN’s largest energy exporter and the government’s largest revenue source comes from the state-owned oil company Petronas. The 2015-2016 drop in oil price has negatively affected government revenues. Economic growth in 2016 is predicted to be 4 to 5 per cent.
2.8 Vision 2020 is Malaysia’s plan to reach developed-economy status by 2020. Despite the introduction of a number of reforms aimed at liberalising the economy, particularly in the services sector, Malaysia continues to prioritise the economic advancement of the bumiputera.
2.9 Malaysia’s economic growth has led to a significant reduction in poverty with the share of households living below the national poverty line (USD8.50 per day in 2012) falling from over 50 per cent in the 1960s to 0.28 per cent in 2016. Poverty rates were 0.8 per cent for ethnic Malay, 0.1 per cent for ethnic Chinese and 0.6 per cent for ethnic Indians, based on the most recent available statistics per ethnic background, collected in 2014. The rural poverty rate of 1.6 per cent in 2014 was higher than that of urban areas (0.3 per cent in 2014). The UNDP’s Human Development Index ranked Malaysia 62 out of 188 countries in 2015, placing it in the ‘high human development’ category.
2.10 Malaysia was ranked 54 out of 168 countries and territories in Transparency International’s 2015 Corruption Perception Index. However, during 2015, the government investment fund, 1 Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), was at the centre of claims that Prime Minister Najib Razak, also Chairman of the 1MDB Advisory Board, had misappropriated significant funds through complex financial transactions involving 1MDB and its subsidiaries. Malaysia’s Attorney-General cleared Najib of any criminal liability but international investigations into the corruption claims are still underway.
…
2.15 In December 2015, the Malaysian Department of Statistics reported a labour force participation rate of 67.8 per cent and an unemployment rate of 3.3 per cent. The most recent national survey (2014) reported that the male labour force participation rate was 80.4 per cent and the female participation rate was 53.6 per cent. Malaysia’s female participation rate was the lowest in Southeast Asia. Urban-based females in Malaysia had a higher rate of participation (48.5 per cent), compared to their counterparts in the rural areas (41.2 per cent). In early 2014, the Government introduced policies to ensure equal pay for equal work and programs to promote full and equal participation by women. 58 per cent of the Malaysian labour force has secondary level education, 13.2 per cent has primary level education and 2.6 per cent have no formal education, based on the most recent available statistics published in 2010.
The Tribunal notes the relevant country information from the 2018 DFAT Country Information Report – Malaysia, is broadly similar that states:
2.7 The World Bank classifies Malaysia as an upper middle-income, export-oriented economy. In 2017 its real GDP growth was 5.4 per cent and per capita GDP was USD9,660. Since independence, Malaysia has transformed from a commodity-based economy, focused predominantly on rubber and tin, to a leading producer of electronic parts and electrical products, oil and natural gas, and a variety of other manufactured products. It is the world’s second largest producer and exporter of palm oil. Manufactured goods comprised 82.2 per cent of Malaysia’s exports in 2016. Malaysia is ASEAN’s largest energy exporter and income from oil and gas provides the government’s largest single revenue source. The drop in oil price in 2015 and 2016 negatively affected government revenues, but the rebound in oil process in 2017 has seen revenues pick up again. The World Bank forecasts economic growth of 5.2 per cent for 2018.
2.8 Malaysia’s economic performance over many decades has led to a significant reduction in poverty, with the share of households living below the national poverty line (USD8.50 per day in 2012) falling from over 50 per cent in the 1960s to less than 1 per cent in 2017. According to Malaysian government estimates, poverty rates were 0.5 per cent for ethnic Malay, 0.1 per cent for Chinese Malaysians and 0.1 per cent for ethnic Indians. The rural poverty rate of 1 per cent in 2016 was higher than that of urban areas (0.2 per cent in 2016). The UNDP’s Human Development Index ranked Malaysia 59 out of 188 countries in 2015, placing it in the ‘high human development’ category.
2.9 Notwithstanding the introduction of a number of reforms aimed at liberalising the economy, particularly in the services sector, the government continues to prioritise the economic advancement of the bumiputera.
2.10 National Transformation 2050 is Malaysia’s plan for the period of 2020 to 2050. The plan aims to transform Malaysia into one of the top countries in the world in economic development, citizen well-being and innovation.
2.11 Transparency International’s 2017 Corruption Perceptions Index ranks Malaysia 62 out of 180 countries and territories. In 2015, the government investment fund, 1 Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), was at the centre of claims that Prime Minister Najib Razak, also Chairman of the 1MDB Advisory Board, had misappropriated significant funds through complex financial transactions involving 1MDB and its subsidiaries. In July 2015, the Prime Minister removed the Attorney General, Abdul Gani, who had been leading an investigation into 1MDB. Malaysia’s current Attorney-General cleared Najib of any criminal liability but international investigations into the corruption claims are still underway.
…..
2.16 In July 2017, the Malaysian Department of Statistics reported a labour force participation rate of 67.7 per cent and an unemployment rate of 3.5 per cent. In 2016, the male labour force participation rate was 80.2 per cent and the female participation rate was 54.3 per cent. In early 2014, the government introduced policies to ensure equal pay for equal work and programs to promote full and equal participation by women. Fifty-eight per cent of the Malaysian labour force has secondary level education, 13.2 per cent has primary level education and 2.6 per cent has no formal education.
ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE AND CLAIMS
Identity
The applicant [was] born on [date] and he is a citizen of Malaysia.
Receiving country
The Tribunal has found that the applicant is a citizen of Malaysia and accordingly the Tribunal finds that Malaysia is his receiving country.
Protection in another country
The applicant has indicated that he does not have a current right to enter and reside in a country other than Malaysia. There is no information to suggest that the applicant has a right to enter and reside in another country other than Malaysia. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a current right to enter and reside in a country other than Malaysia and, accordingly, the Tribunal finds that s.36(3) of the Act does not apply to the applicant.
Assessment of Evidence and Findings
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has come to Australia to work. However, despite questioning from the Tribunal, the applicant provided no specific evidence in relation to his claim of economic hardship.
The Tribunal accepts the country information and it appears that there are good economic conditions in Malaysia, with good economic growth and high labour force participation with a forward looking government plan to transform Malaysia into one of the top countries in the world in economic development, citizen well-being and innovation. The Tribunal places high weight on the country information.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that suggests that the applicant may be subjected to a real risk of serious harm or significant harm if he returned to Malaysia. There is no identifiable indication that the applicant would face significant economic hardship that threatens his capacity to subsist if he returned to Malaysia. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant would face a real risk of serious harm or significant harm if he returned to Malaysia in the foreseeable future in this respect.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was concerned about his child and the associated custody issues. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s concerns in respect to his child amount to either a real risk of serious harm or significant harm to himself. He is not being persecuted by anyone in Malaysia.
Refugee criterion assessment – s.36(2)(a)
The Tribunal considered whether the applicant feared persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion in accordance with s 5J(1)(a) of the Act.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds that:
a.the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion;
b.the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that, if the applicant is returned to Malaysia, the applicant would be persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion;
c.the Tribunal is not satisfied there is a real chance of persecution that relates to all areas of Malaysia;
d.the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution;
e.the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a refugee in accordance with s. 5H(1) of the Act;
f.the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as outlined in s. 36(2)(a) of the Act.
Complementary Protection Criterion Assessment – s36(2)(aa)
The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant meets the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal has considered whether it has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Malaysia, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm.
The mere fact that an applicant claims to face a real risk of significant harm does not establish that such a risk exists, or that the harm feared amounts to 'significant harm'. It remains for that the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all the statutory elements are made out. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision making, the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant himself or herself.
The Tribunal is aware of the importance of adopting a reasonable approach in the finding of the decision maker is not required to make the applicant's case for him or her. Nor is Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant.
In respect of the Tribunal’s consideration as to whether complementary protection applies to the applicant, the Tribunal accepts and adopts the findings above.
For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal finds that the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Malaysia there is a real risk of significant harm, including the applicant will suffer harm by way of being arbitrarily deprived of their life; the death penalty will be carried out on them; they will be subjected to torture; they will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or they will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment, as required by s36(2)(aa).
Conclusions

For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Joseph Lindsay
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 3910

25 February 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction