1708549 (Refugee)
[2018] AATA 214
•9 January 2018
1708549 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 214 (9 January 2018)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER: 1708549
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Malaysia
MEMBER:Sean Baker
DATE:9 January 2018
PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Statement made on 09 January 2018 at 12:41pm
CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Malaysia – Imputed political opinion – Participant of PAS and Bersih rally – Fear of harm by authorities or UMNO supporters – Credibility concernsLEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5H, 5J, 5K-LA, 36, 65,499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2CASES
Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559
Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration [in] 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 [in] January 2017.
The applicant sought an adjournment in a letter dated [in] July 2017, his stated reasons were because he had moved to [Town 1, State 1 in Australia], and his nearest city would be [City 1], he had started a new job in [Town 1] and as casual staff he could not ask for the day off, that he was waiting for some documents from Malaysia and that he did not have savings and needed to save up and had engaged a lawyer and needed to pay them. He attached salary slips from his work. On 3 August the Tribunal responded noting that it was the applicant’s responsibility to advise the Tribunal of changes of address, and that the Tribunal hearing would proceed by video or telephone. A video haring was arranged at [a venue] and this was conveyed to the applicant. On 4 August 2017 he advised the Tribunal that he was unable to attend the hearing by video as he was working all day and was not able to apply for leave as a casual worker. The applicant was informed that the hearing would not be adjourned for this reason. On 7 August the applicant through a friend requested that the hearing be conducted by telephone. The Tribunal agreed to this and the hearing was conducted by telephone on 7 August 2017. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of a Malay – English interpreter.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).
Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and relevant country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The delegate refused the application on the basis that the applicant provided vague detail and no evidence in his protection visa application. The delegate noted the applicant was able to depart Malaysia without hindrance which suggested he was not of adverse interest to the authorities as claimed. Overall the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant had a political profile or is of adverse interest to the Malaysian authorities or anyone else in Malaysia and therefore that there was no real chance or real risk of harm. The applicant did not provide a copy of the delegate’s decision to the Tribunal.
In his application for protection the applicant claimed that he joined Bersih in his country. He thought that if he returned he would be found by police and will be arrested. He ticked that he had experienced harm in his country but did not specify the harm.
The issues in this review are whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for one or more of the five reasons set out in s.5J in Malaysia and, if not, whether 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 that they will suffer significant harm. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
The applicant lived in Kelantan prior to travelling to Australia. He worked most recently in Malaysia as [an occupation] servicing [goods] in [a government department]. He provided a copy of his Malaysian passport to the Department.
On the basis of the information on file and for the purposes of this review I accept that the applicant is a national of Malaysia, which is also his receiving country. I find on the evidence before me that the applicant does not have a right to enter and remain in any third country.
Credibility
In assessing the applicant’s credibility, the Tribunal notes that the mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish the genuineness of the asserted fear, that the fear is “well-founded” or that it is for the reason claimed. A fear of persecution is not “well-founded” if it is merely assumed or if it is mere speculation. 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, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for him. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant. (MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169 70.)
In determining whether an applicant is entitled to protection in Australia the Tribunal must first make findings of fact on the claims he or she has made. This may involve an assessment of the applicant's credibility and, in doing so, the Tribunal is aware of the need and importance of being sensitive to the difficulties asylum seekers often face. Accordingly, the Tribunal notes that the benefit of the doubt should be given to asylum seekers who are generally credible, but unable to substantiate all of their claims.
On the other hand, as stated previously, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any or all allegations made by an applicant. In addition, the Tribunal is not required to have rebutting evidence available to it before it can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been established. Nor is the Tribunal obliged to accept claims that are inconsistent with the independent evidence regarding the situation in the applicant's country of nationality (See Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451, per Beaumont J; Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347 at 348 per Heerey J and Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547).
I held a hearing in order to discuss concerns I had with the applicant’s claims. At hearing the applicant gave evidence about his claims that was materially inconsistent with country information and implausible. These concerns, which I raised with the applicant, led me to doubt his general credibility.
Concern – the ‘Bersih incident’
At hearing the applicant said that his father had told him to come to Australia as his father feared the applicant would be detained if he returned. He said this was because of the Bersih incident, and he clarified that it was the Bersih incident in Merdeka square and he attended it with his father in November 2016. I asked when in November 2016 and he said [in a date in] November 2016. I noted that he was in Australia on that date (he had earlier told me that he arrived in Australia [in] November 2016). He said he made a mistake on the Bersih incident; it had happened a few months before he came to Australia. I asked why then he had given me a very specific date. He said he did not know what to call the 5th month; he was not that good in English. I noted that we were using a Malay – English interpreter. He then said he is not good with dates.
I asked what happened at this rally and he said he had attended the Bersih campaign at Merdeka, his father had asked him to come along. He said it had been in May 2016, not November. He said there were many people there and the police had told them to go home but they did not. There were many incidents including a police car knocking one of the supporters down, and then they overturned the police car and they beat up the police men because he knocked one of them down. He said when they got home, there were many photos taken of him. Many people were detained but they were lucky, the authorities questioned these people and were forcing them to make admissions so his father asked him to go somewhere else, overseas.
I noted that he had been in Malaysia for [a number of] months after this incident, and asked if anything had happened to him in this time. He said nothing had happened but that after that incident many people told him to go away and after that incident many people were detained. He said he was worried that the authorities might recognise his father, who is [close to] [a politician] of the opposition PAS party.[1] I asked if his father was a member of any political party and the applicant said just a little, as he is close to this person, his father he said, was a member of PAS but he was not as he was not eligible to vote yet. He said he did not follow PAS he was merely following his father. He provided vague reasons about why he did not like the current government, relating to the cost of living. I asked him what the aims of Bersih were and he said seeking free and fair elections and they also touched on the economy in Malaysia.
[1][Source deleted].
I discussed with the applicant country information that the Bersih rallies were sequentially numbered. Bersih 4 rallies were held on 29 – 30 August 2015 in cities throughout Malaysia.[2] The Bersih 5 rally was held in 19 November 2016 in Kuala Lumpur and was peaceful.[3] I noted that there was not information that I had found that a Bersih rally was held between these rallies in May 2016 as he was claiming. The applicant responded that he could not remember as it was some time ago. I noted that there appeared to be a difficulty in his evidence as the only Bersih rally in 2016 appeared to have been on 19 November 2016. He said he had forgotten, he didn’t remember. He said it happened some time ago and he doesn’t know when it happened. I noted that his evidence caused me to have concerns over whether he had gone to any rally in May 2016 or at any other time. He said he could not remember if it had been 2016 or 2015 as he had many problems.
[2] Zahid, S., “Bersih declares fourth rally a success, claims half a million turnout” Malay Mail online, 31 August 2015, ABC News, Thousands march in 'Bersih' protests calling for Malaysian PM Najib Razak to step down” 19 November 2016, >
I noted that an additional concern was that on looking at news reports about both Bersih 4 and Bersih 5, the news reports appeared to indicate that these rallies had been peaceful with no reported clashes between protesters and police,[4] which seemed at odds with his evidence about what had happened at the rally, which further caused me doubt that he attended a rally as claimed. In response the applicant said that it was Bersih or whatever, his friends said it was PAS and it was the Bersih party, he said they went there in a convoy to create a disturbance. I noted that his evidence at the hearing appeared to be changing as I explained my concerns. He said because he didn’t know, he had forgotten, all he knew was that he followed his father and when this thing happened he asked the applicant to come over here.
[4] Star Online, “Cops keep a distance as rally proceeds smoothly”, 30 August 2015,I noted that he had claimed many photos had been taken of him at the rally. He said that that was what his father told him. I noted that it appeared odd then that he was able to work in the [government department] fixing [items] if he was worried that the authorities would recognise him from the photographs and detain him. He said he worked there before the incident. I noted that earlier he had said he had worked there the two months immediately before he came to Australia. He said it was for 2 months but some time ago.
The applicant then said that he was applying for his visa and when he applied he called his friend who said just put down that you partook in this Bersih rally. He said actually the truth is he doesn’t know anything about this, but in that in regards to the police looking for him his father did say this.
I noted that what he had told me caused me to doubt that he held any political opinion or had expressed a political opinion in the past or would do so in the future, and I may disbelieve that the police were or are looking for him. He said he feared if he returned to Malaysia he might be detained, forced to confess, and be beaten.
He said he also feared people who were dissatisfied with his father, members of other parties who told them not to interfere. I asked who these people were and he said he was with PAS and they were with UMNO. I noted that he had said before that he was not a member of UMNO as he was too young to vote. He said he was following his father, and other people were not happy.
I noted that I had doubts that he attended a rally and given the changes in his evidence over the course of the hearing I was also concerned with his general credibility. He said he needed to call his family to verify these things. I noted that he had been put on notice that the Tribunal had concerns with his claims and that the hearing was his opportunity to explain these things. He said he had forgotten and didn’t remember.
I noted that in his request for an adjournment he said he was seeking documents from Malaysia and I asked what these were. He said it was his friend who said that, the applicant said his friend used his email to write the request for an adjournment. I asked if there was any other information or documents he would like to provide to the Tribunal and he said he didn’t know, that all he had said to his friend was to ask his help to obtain a postponement, he didn’t know his friend would mention this document stuff. He confirmed there was no other information or documents he would like to provide.
I have carefully considered his evidence about his claimed attendance at the rally and what followed form that but I have arrived at the view that his evidence is wholly unconvincing, leading me to disbelieve that any of these things have occurred.
His evidence about the rally was implausible and inconsistent with the country information referred to above. His evidence shifted over time – in relation to the timing he gave a very specific (and correct) date for Bersih 5, but when it was pointed out that he was in Australia at that time he changed his evidence to say that it had been May 2016. When it was pointed out that there had not been a Bersih rally at that time he initially said it may have been earlier and then said it may have been a PAS rally not a Bersih rally and that he had been told to put down Bersih in his application by his friend.
The applicant’s evidence about the rally has changed dramatically and has been inconsistent with the country information to such an extent that I find I disbelieve that the applicant attended any rally whatsoever, at any time. It also leads me to doubt his general credibility – the applicant demonstrated a willingness to change his evidence when concerns were put to him, and admitted that he had included in his application what his friend told him to write. Given this I find that I can place no weight on his evidence as being truthful.
On the basis of these findings I find that I do not accept that the applicant has experienced any of the things he claims to have experienced, and has invented his claims in their entirety.
Specifically, on the basis of my credibility findings I do not accept that:
·The applicant had attended or had any involvement in a Bersih, PAS or any other rally in Malaysia, nor did the applicant throw stones, assist in overturning a police car, or had his photos taken at any rally;
·The applicant’s father is a friend of [a] member of PAS, nor that the applicant is a member of or associated with PAS or any other political party, nor is anyone from UMNO or any other party dissatisfied with his father or the applicant;
·The applicant’s father told him to leave Malaysia as the police were looking for him;
·The applicant has any political opinion, or would be imputed with one.
Does the applicant have a well-founded fear of persecution if he returns to Malaysia?
The applicant said if he returned to Malaysia he feared he would be harmed by the authorities or UMNO supporters or others who opposed his father. I have not accepted his claims in total as above. On the basis of the above findings I find that there is no real chance that the applicant will be harmed by the authorities, UMNO supporters or others who opposed his father or anyone else for reasons of his actual or imputed political opinion or for any other reason, on his return to Malaysia now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a). Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa).
Are there substantial grounds to believe that the applicant will suffer significant harm if he is returned to Malaysia?
In MIAC v SQRB[5] the Full Federal Court held that a ‘real risk’ test imposes the same test as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded’ fear’ in the Refugee Convention definition.
[5] MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33 (Landeer, Besanko, Gordon, Flick and Jagott JJ, 20 March 2013) per Lander and Gordon JJ at [246], Besanko and Jagott JJ at [297], Flick J at [342]
As detailed above, I have rejected his claims on the basis of my credibility concerns with his evidence. The applicant did not claim to fear harm on return to Malaysia for any reason other than those above. I have carefully considered his claims against the complementary protection criteria but given my credibility findings and my rejection of his claims in total it follows that I do not accept that there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm from any person or for any of the reasons set out above or for any other reason evident on the claims or material as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to Malaysia.
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.
Sean Baker
MemberATTACHMENT - 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.
…
ABC News, Thousands march in 'Bersih' protests calling for Malaysian PM Najib Razak to step down” 19 November 2016,Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Natural Justice
-
Standing
0
6
0