1717059 (Refugee)

1717059 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 1503 (18 May 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1717059
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Pakistan
MEMBER:Catherine Carney-Orsborn
DATE:18 May 2022
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 18 May 2022 at 12:52pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Pakistan – followed and abducted by Tehrik-i-Taliban (TTP) – pressured to join TTP – fled home country then returned – detained and tortured by police – did not attend hearing – insufficient details regarding claims – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 426A, 441A, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
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 and Border Protection on 10 July 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Pakistan, applied for the visa on 6 October 2016. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant was not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as outlined in s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) 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 s36(2)(b) and s36(2)(c) of the Act.
On the 20 April 2022 the Tribunal wrote to the review applicant advising that it had considered all the material it had about the application but could not make a favourable decision on that information alone. The Tribunal invited the review applicant to give evidence and present arguments at a hearing on 10 May 2022. The invitation stated that if they did not attend the hearing, the Tribunal may make a decision on the case without further notice. The Tribunal also sent them SMS reminders about the hearing 5 business days and one business day before the scheduled hearing.
The applicant did not appear before the Tribunal on the day and at the time and place of the scheduled hearing. Having reviewed the Tribunal file, the Tribunal is satisfied that the review applicant was properly invited to a hearing in accordance with s 441A(5), the invitation has not been returned to sender, and that two separate SMS reminders were also sent to the review applicant about the hearing. In these circumstances, and pursuant to s 426A of the Act, the Tribunal has decided to make its decision on the review without taking any further action to enable the applicant to appear before it.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
The Tribunal has before it the Department and the Tribunal files. The Department file contains the application forms, copy of the applicant’s travel document, copy of English translation of the applicant’s national id card, copies of news articles from 2013, 2014, and 2016 regarding gunned attacks in the Karachi area and of Taliban’s operations, and a copy of the delegate’s decision.
The Tribunal file contains copy of the application form, a copy of the delegate’s decision.
No further information or evidence was provided.
The applicant claimed in his application for protection visa that he would be handed over to the TTP (Tehk--Taliban Pakistan) or Pakistani police if returned to his home country to be taken to the FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Area) permanently. He fears that the TTP in Karachi or Sindh, would abduct him.
The following information is provided in the application forms. The applicant is from Karachi city in the Sindh province in Pakistan. He is a Sunni Muslim and Urdu speaker. He is the eldest of the siblings in the family and expected to take over his father’s business.
The applicant claimed that he was followed by the TTP when he was studying at [a] University and this led him to fleeing Pakistan before completion of his degree. The applicant lived and studied in [Country 1] between 2006 and 2010.
In 2008, the applicant returned to Pakistan to fulfil his duties of managing his father’s business. The applicant claimed that he was abducted by the TTP then, and so he fled to [Country 1] once more.
In 2010, the applicant’s father informed him that it was then safe for the applicant to return to Pakistan and so he did. The applicant claimed that the was arrested, detained, and tortured for two months by police. Police officers told the applicant then that they had to follow TTP’s orders otherwise their own families would be killed.
The applicant claimed that by this point in time the war between USA and TTP had continued and that the TTP was expanding to all parts of Pakistan.
Because the applicant had studied overseas, police told him that he would be handed over to the TTP. The TTP later attended the place where he was kept and told him that they wanted him to work for them in the FATA. The TTP wanted the applicant to assist them in purchasing arms, assist in their drug trade, and take control of finance transactions 'between Pakistan, Afghanistan and other Arab countries'. The applicant agreed to do so but managed to leave Pakistan before he was handed over to the TTP.
On [date] June 2013, the applicant arrived in Australia holding a student visa. The applicant was confident that he would be able to apply for permanent residency after the completion of his studies. The applicant had no intentions to apply for a protection visa.
During the applicant’s time in Australia, one of his brothers fled Pakistan to avoid being arrested after being branded a TPP militant. Because of their interest in the applicant’s brother the police stopped asking the applicant's family about his whereabouts.
The applicant’s father thought, after some time, that it was safe for the applicant to return to Pakistan because the TTP militants were being controlled by the Rangers and the army. So, the applicant’s father told the applicant to return to Pakistan to manage the business and to marry a girl he had found for him.
In August 2015, the applicant returned to Pakistan to marry [a named person]. News of his return spread through his neighbourhood. Four days before the wedding ceremony, the Mullah officiating the ceremony sought to speak with the applicant in private. He told the applicant that after his wedding he would have to move to the FATA to fulfil his promise to work for the TTP. The applicant was told he would not be able to depart Pakistan because police would intercept him at the airport. If he disobeyed the orders, he would be sent to Afghanistan to serve in the Pakistani army.
The applicant claimed that after the Mullah left, he and his father spoke with his betrothed. They agreed to postpone the wedding, to continue with the wedding arrangements to keep appearances, and that the applicant’s betrothed would accompany the applicant to the airport so that he could depart without police suspecting he was planning to flee the country. The applicant claimed that his betrothed was supportive of his decision.
In Australia, the applicant got depressed while having to continue with his studies. He received encouragement from his father and betrothed, that he should complete his studies and attain residency.
Because of his depression, the applicant did not realise the time of his visa validity was until 10 August 2016. The applicant then contacted the Department who advised the applicant that he had only six days to leave the country and that he could apply for a new student visa offshore. However, the applicant did not want to return to Pakistan. After his family urged him, the applicant applied for a protection visa on 6 October 2016.
The applicant claimed that he feared for his life, that the TTP have their own intelligence officers who have information about anyone in Pakistan. The police work for TTP. The applicant claimed that he could not leave Karachi because locals would inform the TTP or police of his whereabouts. The TTP and the Pakistani government have negotiated peace in the country and so government cannot control the TTP. Police is bribed by the TTP and cannot protect citizens. The army does not protect citizens either, and the rangers only control protests and riots.
The Department invited the applicant to a protection visa interview. The interview took place on 12 April 2017.
At the Department’s protection visa interview, the applicant stated, among other claims, that he used to catch the bus with members or followers of the TTP regularly on his way to the university. These friends expected him to one day join the group. They would tell the applicant about how the TTP operate because they worked for the TTP. The applicant said that one friend [Mr A] oversaw recruiting for the TTP, that he insisted that the applicant joined the group. The applicant expressed disinterest.
The applicant said at the interview that his friend [Mr A] started harassing him sometime in 2006 so he joined the TTP. And that is when he decided to flee to [Country 1].
The applicant said that in 2012 he was abducted when he was at a marketplace. He was taken to a mud house by the TTP or police and warned that he had to fulfil his promise to work for the TTP at the FATA. He claims he was tortured by police.
The applicant said at the interview that one of his brothers was in Australia in a relationship with [a foreign] woman and seeking residency.
Nationality
The applicant claims to be a citizen of Pakistan and has provided to the Department a copy of his Pakistan passport and National Identity Card. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a citizen of Pakistan. The Tribunal finds that Pakistan is his receiving country for the purpose of assessing his claims for protection. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant has the right to enter and reside in any other country for the purposes of the Act.
Does the applicant have a well-founded fear of persecution?
The mere fact that a person claims a fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is well founded. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of 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 in as much detail as is necessary to enable the Tribunal to establish the relevant facts. The Tribunal is not required to make the applicant's case for him. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all of 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 this case the applicant has made several claims in his written visa application and oral evidence to the delegate. He attended the interview with the delegate, as recorded in the delegate’s decision record, provided to the Tribunal by the applicant. However, the delegate recorded that there were inconsistencies in his evidence and did not accept that the applicant’s claims were plausible and formed the view he was not in genuine fear of returning to Pakistan. The delegate was not satisfied he was at risk from the Tehrik-i-Taliban (TTP), that he has close contact with the TTP, was sought by them or at risk of harm from the TTP.
The Tribunal wished to discuss these concerns with the applicant at the hearing, but he did not attend. The Tribunal has been unable to obtain further details about his claims, or to test their veracity. Had he attended the hearing it would have asked him further questions about each of his claims, and why he now fears returning to Pakistan.
On the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant was or will continue to be targeted by the TTP in Pakistan. The Tribunal is not satisfied that he was forced to work for the TTP or on his return would be forced to work for the TTP. The Tribunal is not satisfied he has friends who are affiliated with the TTP and who would target him. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant would be forced to assist the TTP to purchase arms and other illegal activities.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the police in Pakistan will not protect him due to their affiliation with the TTP. The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence provided that the applicant was arrested and detained by police. The Tribunal is not satisfied he will be forced to work in the Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA).
On the basis of these findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has suffered any harm incurred by the authorities acting on behalf of the TTP. Nor is it satisfied he fears his life will be damaged by the authorities acting with the TTP if he returns to Pakistan.
The Tribunal has considered all of the material before it. It is of the view that the applicant has merely made written and oral assertions to the delegate to fear harm in Pakistan. The Tribunal is not satisfied there is any reliable evidence to suggest the applicant has any reason to fear harm if he returns to Pakistan. It is not satisfied he or any member of his family will participate in any activity or any other conduct that will result in his detention or in harm. The evidence before the Tribunal is not sufficiently detailed and persuasive for the Tribunal to be satisfied the applicant, or any member of his family, has been or will be involved in any political activity, involvement with a terrorist organisation or any other conduct, that would result in the applicant being harmed and denied protection by the authorities in Pakistan. It is not satisfied the applicant fears harm as a member of a particular social group in Pakistan because of his profile as having studied overseas or for any other reason.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political beliefs, being a member of a particular social group or for any other reason set out in the Act, or that there is a real chance that he would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of Pakistan. Therefore, he does not meet the definition of refugee. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a) of the Act.
Does the applicant meet the complementary protection criteria?
As the Tribunal has found that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act, it has considered whether he may nevertheless meet the criterion for the grant of a protection visa under the complementary protection criterion.
As indicated above, the applicant has failed to provide sufficient details regarding his claims. As the applicant failed to attend his hearing, the Tribunal has been unable to obtain further information about his claims, or to test their veracity. In view of the above findings and on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant suffered harm in Pakistan or that there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm if he returns to Pakistan.
On the evidence before it, 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 Pakistan, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
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.
Catherine Carney-Orsborn
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.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2022] AATA 1503

18 May 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice

Appeal