1717843 (Refugee)

1717843 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 2393 (7 November 2017)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1717843
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Malaysia
MEMBER:Tania Flood
DATE:7 November 2017
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 07 November 2017 at 3:33pm
CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Malaysia – Ethnicity – Indian – Religion – Muslim – Victim of racial discrimination – Social group – Victim of verbal threats by loan sharks – Fear of loan sharks
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5H-LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other 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] August 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] May 2017. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that there is no information to support the applicant will be targeted on return to Malaysia for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a) of the Act and because in the event it is required he could obtain protection from the Malaysian authorities such that there would not be a real risk he will suffer significant harm.
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 issue in this case is whether there is a real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm on return to Malaysia for reason of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, or alternatively, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to Malaysia there is a real risk he will suffer significant harm.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Summary of claims
In his application for a Protection visa the applicant claims:
He has a very serious business debt. He borrowed money from a loan shark to develop a business but he could not pay back the debt because the interest charged is extremely “throat cutting”. Even though he serviced the interest payments the amount keeps increasing.
He decided to leave Malaysia to protect himself and to look for a better paid job so that he could pay back the debt.
Before he left Malaysia he received verbal death threats many times.
If he returns to Malaysia he and his family might become the victims of violent attacks from the loan shark.
In a written submission to the Tribunal the applicant claims the following:
He is an Indian Muslim, a minority in Malaysia. They don’t have a voice in Malaysia.
Members of his community are mainly involved in small scale business. Various government soft loans are not available to his community. The Malay people are very racist and don’t want their business opportunities taken away.
The fastest, easiest cash option is via illegal money lenders and this is the avenue he followed to start his business. Initially the business went well but declined when the GST came into effect in Malaysia. The prices of commodities went up and his profit margin decreased.
He was unable to service his loan and the loan sharks threaten and bully borrowers to make them pay. Even though the authorities have taken action against loan sharks not many have been charged because it’s easy to bribe and settle issues outside the official channels. Finally he decided to move his family to a safer place.
In these unstable economic times and because of the corruption in Malaysia it is very difficult to find a job especially for people like him without paper qualifications. The only skill he has is [in Occupation 1].
Tribunal hearing
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 18 October 2017. By way of background the applicant testified that he was [born] in Kedah, Malaysia. He said he is an Indian Muslim citizen of Malaysia whose parents were born in India but came to Malaysia about [number] years ago. Prior to departing Malaysia the applicant stated he was living in Kuala Lumpur with his mother, wife and [child]. His family remain in Kuala Lumpur but at a different address. He also has [siblings] in Malaysia. He is in contact with his family and they are fine.
The applicant testified that he completed high school before beginning work as [an Occupation 1] in different [workplaces]. Since arriving in Australia he has worked as [another occupation] and in [another workplace]. He is currently earing approximately $[amount] per week.
The applicant testified that he completed his application for a protection visa himself and that everything included in the application is true and correct.
The applicant testified that he left Malaysia because he had a loan with a bank and another loan with a loan shark which he couldn’t repay. He said that there is also racial discrimination in Malaysia and he was forced to send his [child] to a Chinese school because that is better than a Malay school.
The applicant stated that he started a [business] with his wife and employed three other persons. He said his father became sick and he spent a lot of time taking him to appointments and caring for him and couldn’t focus fully on his business. He said his wife was left to run the business and it didn’t prosper. He said the business was also affected by the introduction of the GST.
The applicant stated that the bank loan of [amount] RM was to buy a house and that he has been continuing to service that loan from his earnings in Australia. He said while he could get a bank loan to buy a property he could not get a loan from the bank to start his business. He said that if he defaulted on the housing loan the bank has the surety of repossessing the house.
The applicant stated that he borrowed [amount] RM from a loan shark in June 2016. He said he was required to repay [amount] RM per day. He said he used the money to buy equipment for his [business].
The applicant stated that he borrowed the money from a [lender]. He does not know the name of the lender and he has no documentation to prove he took out the loan. He said this is because it is an illegal activity in Malaysia.
The applicant testified that he managed to make repayments to the loan shark for eight months but later stopped when he was forced to close down the business. He said the loan shark demanded payment but he could not pay. He said they harassed him and started disturbing him at his house. He said they threw paint at his house. In May 2017 he moved to another location and the loan shark did not come to that address.
The applicant testified that he last made a repayment in March 2017. He said he has not been earning enough money in Australia to make any repayments. He said that there is [amount] RM remaining on the loan.
The applicant testified that he was only verbally threatened by the loan shark in Malaysia. When asked if he reported the matter to the police the applicant said he could not. He said that his family are safe because the loan shark does not know where they are living.
When asked to elaborate on the claimed racial discrimination referred to in his submission the applicant stated that he is from a minority ethnic group in Malaysia. When asked how the racial discrimination he claims has impacted on his life he said that Muslim Indians don’t have a quota for accessing University and he couldn’t afford to go to University. He said that his community do not have a voice in Parliament. He said his niece has [a] degree but cannot find a job. He said that he has received inadequate medical care when he was misdiagnosed. His mother has never been given a Malaysian passport and cannot leave the country. He explained that Muslim Indians have a lower social status than other Indians. He said he is not received in the Indian community and neither in the Malay community.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
Country of reference
At the Tribunal hearing the applicant produced his Malaysian passport which confirms his claimed identity and nationality. In the absence of any information to the contrary the Tribunal accepts the applicant is a national of Malaysia and has assessed his claims against Malaysia.
Loan shark
At the hearing the applicant delivered his evidence without embellishment and consistently with his written claims. He also produced evidence of his business registration. Based on his evidence the Tribunal is prepared to accept he commenced a [business] in Kuala Lumpur using funds obtained through a loan shark. The Tribunal accepts the explanation given by the applicant as to why he was able to secure a bank loan to purchase a property but not to commence his business venture. The Tribunal accepts the applicant remains indebted to the loan shark for an amount of approximately [amount] RM.
The Tribunal also accepts the applicant’s business fell into economic hardship when his focus was directed elsewhere and that he was forced to close it down when it failed to make a profit. The Tribunal finds it plausible he was harassed and threatened by the loan shark to honour his repayments. The Tribunal accepts the applicant moved his family to a different premises in Kuala Lumpur in order to avoid them being harassed by the loan shark.
The Tribunal finds it significant that at the hearing the applicant stated that his family have not been approached by the loan shark since relocating to new premises and this is because the loan shark does not know where they are. The Tribunal put it to the applicant at hearing that it therefore appears he would be safe in an area unknown to the loan shark. The applicant responded that this might be possible but claimed it would not be easy for him to get a job and that he needs a good position to provide for his [child].
The Tribunal considers the fact that the applicant’s family have not been approached by the loan shark since relocating indicates the loan shark is either not sufficiently motivated to recover the debt or without the resources to locate persons when they move to unknown locations. The Tribunal finds it particularly significant that the applicant’s family have not been located by the loan shark despite remaining in the same city. In the circumstances the Tribunal finds there is only a remote possibility the loan shark would be able to find the applicant throughout Malaysia. The Tribunal is satisfied that there is not a real chance the applicant will face serious harm at the hands of the loan shark in all areas of the country. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for this reason.
Economic hardship
Based on his oral evidence the Tribunal accepts the applicant has a housing loan which he has managed to continue servicing since coming to Australia. The Tribunal accepts the applicant will need to continue doing so on return to Malaysia if he wants to avoid foreclosing on the loan.
When discussing the option of relocation with the applicant the Tribunal pointed out that the available country information indicates that the Malaysian economy appears to be relatively stable and recording a relatively low unemployment rate. Specifically, the Tribunal has had regard to the World Bank’s reporting (April 2017) which classifies Malaysia as an upper middle-income economy. While Malaysia was hit by the Global Financial Crisis in 2009 it has recovered rapidly posting growth rates averaging 5.7% since 2010. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s (DFAT), Country Information Report, Malaysia (19 July 2016) also states that Malaysia’s economic growth has led to a significant reduction in poverty with the share of households living below the poverty line falling from 50% in the 1960s to 0.28% in 2016. In December 2015 the Malaysian Department of Statistics reported a labour force participation rate of 67.8% and an unemployment rate of 3.3%.
Based on his evidence the applicant has worked for different [workplaces] in Malaysia as [Occupation 1] despite claiming racial discrimination in Malaysia. In view of his prior work experience and the above reporting on the state of the economy the Tribunal is of the view he would be able to find employment on return to Malaysia. When this was put to the applicant at hearing he responded that it will nevertheless not be easy to start again. The Tribunal has some sympathy with the applicant’s response but is not persuaded, that a person with his skills and experience and proven ability to move to another country and secure employment, will not be able to find employment in the current economic climate in Malaysia. The Tribunal considers the applicant will be able to find employment on return with which he can support himself and continue to service his home loan. The Tribunal is satisfied that any economic hardship the applicant might encounter on return to Malaysia will not amount to serious harm as explained in s.5J(5) of the Act or significant harm as defined in s.36(2A) and s.5(1) of the Act.
Racial discrimination
At the hearing the applicant emphasised that Muslim Indians are particularly discriminated against. He claimed that they are not accepted by the Malays or other Indians because they are Muslim. In discussing this at hearing the Tribunal put it to the applicant that being a Muslim in Malaysia is unlikely to put him at risk of any harm given the state religion is Islam and he agreed that in terms of religion he is well received.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the Malaysian Constitution gives ethnic Malays and other indigenous groups collectively known as bumiputera special status and that government regulations and policies ensure preferential programs to boost the economic position of bumiputera. The Tribunal also put it to the applicant that DFAT assesses that while Indian Malaysians may experience some low level discrimination accessing state tertiary education and civil service employment they do not generally experience discrimination and violence on a day-to-day basis. Relevantly, the Tribunal noted that DFAT’s country information report of 19 July 2016 states that Indian Malaysians reportedly constitute the third largest ethnic group in the country and that there are no laws or constitutional provisions that directly discriminate against Indian Malaysians. Most Indian Malaysians form part of the working classes but according to 2010 official figures they also represent a high proportion of professionals including 38% of the entire medical workforce. Access to primary and secondary education is high however access to state-based tertiary education remains low. The predominant use of the Malay language can be a major barrier to Indian employment in the civil service. In 2015 an Indian Malaysian was appointed as Chief of Police in Kuala Lumpur. Indian Malaysians freely participate in political life. The Malaysian Indian Congress is part of the ruling BN coalition. There are several members of parliament of ethnic Indian origin and three serving ministers in the current government as well as the current President of the Senate.
In response to the above the applicant responded that what is written in the reports does not reflect the reality of the situation in Malaysia. He added that the situation for Muslim Indians is worse than other Indians. The Tribunal accepts that DFATs report does not distinguish between Muslim and Hindu Indians and there is no other information before the Tribunal in respect of this. However, even if the applicant is to be believed the Tribunal considers his past experiences in Malaysia do not support his claims. For instance, the Tribunal put it to the applicant at hearing that he was educated to secondary level in Malaysia, was able to find work and access a housing loan and to register a business in Malaysia. While the applicant maintained his claim that there is a big difference between what is reported and day to day reality the Tribunal has nevertheless placed weight on the information contained in the DFAT report. Given his personal experiences, and DFAT’s assessment of the situation for persons of Indian ethnicity more broadly the Tribunal is satisfied that any low level discrimination the applicant may encounter on return to Malaysia, either from the state, Malays or Hindu Indians on account of his ethnicity will not be of a kind which could amount to serious or significant harm. The Tribunal finds there is not a real chance or a real risk the applicant will suffer serious or significant harm on return to Malaysia for reason of him being a Muslim Indian Malaysian.
CONCLUSIONS

Having considered the claims individually and cumulatively the Tribunal finds there is not a real chance the applicant would face serious harm for reason of race, religion, political opinion or any other reason if he returns to Malaysia now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that the applicant is a person is respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a) of the Act.
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal notes that the provisions provide that there is taken not to be a real risk of significant harm if 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. As noted in the above findings the Tribunal is of the view that the applicant will not be at risk of harm from the loan shark throughout all of Malaysia. As to whether it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate within Malaysia, the Tribunal notes the applicant has prior experience with different employers working as [an Occupation 1] [which] it considers will assist him to find employment in a new location. Furthermore, the Tribunal considers the applicant has demonstrated his ability to relocate to an unknown area by travelling to Australia and securing employment and accommodation in an unfamiliar environment. While the Tribunal agrees that starting again in a different part of the country will not be without some challenges, for the reasons given the Tribunal considers it would be reasonable for him to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk of him suffering any significant harm. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Malaysia, that there is a real risk he will suffer significant harm for the reasons claimed or for any other reason. Therefore the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
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) or (aa) of the Act.
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) of the Act on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2) of the Act.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Tania Flood
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.
…

[2017] AATA 2393

7 November 2017

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Remedies

Standing