1721110 (Refugee)

1721110 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 294 (19 January 2018)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1721110
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Ukraine
MEMBER:Linda Symons
DATE:19 January 2018
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.
Statement made on 19 January 2018 at 5:28pm

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Ukraine – Political opinion – Supporter of the central government in Kiev and its political views – Particular social group – Russian speakers from Donbass – Fears harm from separatists – Unwilling to relocate – Fear of military reservist service – Contradictory and inconsistent evidence – Credibility concerns
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H(1)(a), 5H(1)(b), 5J(1)-(6), 5K-LA, 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c), 36(2A) and (2B), 189(1), 424AA, 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] September 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 Ukraine, first arrived in Australia [in] July 2013 as the holder of a [temporary] visa. He departed Australia [in] November 2013 and returned [in] January 2014. His [temporary] visa expired [in] May 2017 and he thereafter remained in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen. [In] July 2017, he was detained under s.189(1) of the Act and transferred to [a] Detention Facility.
The applicant applied to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the Department) for a Protection visa [in] August 2017. His associated application for a Bridging visa was refused by the Department [in] August 2017. He was subsequently granted a Bridging visa [in] October 2017.
The delegate refused to grant the Protection visa [in] September 2017 on the basis that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. On 8 September 2017, he applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 27 October 2017 to give evidence and present arguments. He was assisted by an interpreter in the Russian and English languages.
The issues that arise on review are whether Australia has protection obligations to the applicant under the refugee criterion or under the complementary protection criterion.
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 AND FINDINGS
Applicant’s claims
The applicant’s claims in his application for a Protection visa filed [in] August 2017 are summarised as follows:
·He left Ukraine in 2014 just as the war began in his hometown of Donetsk.
·After the war began his home was visited by Russian rebels many times. They demanded that he join them to fight for independence from Ukraine. He was threatened that if he did not do so he would be physically harmed or put in gaol. His family was threatened with physical harm if he did not join them.
·If he returns to Ukraine he expects that he will be visited by Russian rebels again and asked to fight with them. If he refuses to do so, he will most likely be put in gaol and physically harmed. The Russian rebels have been known to force people to fight and kill for them. He does not wish to do so.
·His parents have lost their pension because of the war and depend on him to send them money. If he returns to Ukraine his parents will no longer have his income and could starve to death.
·He did not and cannot relocate to another part of Ukraine because people from Donetsk are considered to be Russian supporters and he would be victimised and discriminated against. Another reason why he did not relocate is because of employment opportunities.
·Donetsk is a lawless war zone and if he returns there, there are no authorities who could protect him.
The applicant has provided to the Department a copy of his Ukraine passport and a copy of the UNHCR Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine – 16 February 2017 to 15 May 2017.
The applicant attended an interview with the Department [in] August 2017. During that interview, he made the following new claims:
·He is a native Russian speaker. He does not possess advanced Ukrainian language skills but can understand the language.
·His internal Ukrainian passport had his Donetsk residence stamp which was proof of his residency registration. It was taken by uniformed rebels before his departure for Australia in 2014. The rebels attempted to force him to join their armed group.
·He retained his Ukrainian travel passport which allowed him to leave the country and travel internationally.
·He provided an address in [Town 1], Khmelnitsky region in western Ukraine as his place of residence in his visa application because it was his [relative]’s house. He was officially registered at this address to preserve his property rights to his [relative]’s house. This registration and his visa application preceded the breakout of war in eastern Ukraine. His [relative] subsequently sold the house. He moved to Donetsk which became his new registered place of residence.
·His parents, [sibling], ex-wife and [child] continue to reside in [a city] in the Donetsk region in territory occupied by separatist forces. He maintains regular telephone contact with his family.
·He worked as [an Occupation 1] in Donetsk. In Australia, he first worked [in a certain workplace] but was sacked from that job due to his inadequate English language skills. He then returned to Donetsk for two months. On his return to Australia, he moved to [City 1] where he worked unlawfully as an [Occupation 2].
·Whilst in Donetsk, [in] January 2014, he received a visit from armed rebels who took his internal passport and ordered him to report to a makeshift ‘military Commisariat’ which was a recruitment centre for the Donetsk People’s Republic. He did not respond to this order and returned to Australia. The rebels return to his home in Donbass and speak to his parents every 3 to 4 months to check if he has reappeared.
·He did not seek to change his immigration status or apply for another visa in Australia because he feared being detained and deported. He has been waiting for the conflict in Ukraine to end in the hope that he can return safely but it is getting worse.
·If he returns to Donetsk, he will face either enforced conscription by separatists or trial by their Military Court on charges of draft evasion because he left Donetsk at the time of an armed conflict and ignored their call-up order. He would reject conscription as he does not share the separatists’ political agenda and does not want to fight against fellow Ukrainians. He is therefore likely to be imprisoned and tortured. He supports the central government in Kiev and its political views. He wants Donetsk to remain a Ukrainian city rather than become a part of the separatist State or be absorbed by Russia.
·He cannot return to any other place in Ukraine including [Town 1] because he cannot obtain residency registration at an alternative location which is mandatory in Ukraine. He cannot re-register his residency in [Town 1] because the property that was associated with his registration has now been sold and is occupied by someone else.
·He served as a [rank] in [the] Ukrainian army in the 1990s. He does not know if he is a registered member of the Ukrainian military reserve. He may be called up as a military reservist by the Ukrainian authorities. He does not consider this to be persecution. He does not have any conscientious objection to military service in the Ukrainian army. However, he is concerned that if he is called up for military service he will not be able to financially assist his parents and they may starve to death.
·His parents depend on him financially. They fear moving out of their home because of ongoing hostilities and because, being Russian speakers from Donbass, they fear discrimination in Ukraine because they will be implied with supporting separatism and harbouring pro-Russian sentiments. They have no other source of income. He can only help them if he has a reasonable job which he will not be able to get if he returns to Ukraine. Unemployment is rampant and wages are very low in Ukraine.
The delegate found that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.
The applicant has provided to the Tribunal a copy of the Department’s Decision Record dated [in] September 2017.
Receiving country
The applicant claims to be a citizen of Ukraine and has provided copies of his Ukrainian passport to the Department and the Tribunal. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is a citizen of Ukraine. The Tribunal finds that Ukraine is the applicant’s receiving country for the purpose of assessing his claims.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant is outside his country of nationality. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that he has a right to enter and reside in any country other than his country of nationality.
Assessment of claims
The applicant gave evidence that his application for a Protection visa was prepared by [a] detainee at the detention centre based on information he provided him. He stated that the information he provided was true and correct and that he is satisfied that his visa application is accurate and complete. He stated that there have been no changes in his circumstances since he filed his visa application.
During the hearing, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant his background, his family, his education, his employment, where he lived in Ukraine, his reasons for coming to Australia and why he fears returning to Ukraine. The Tribunal found aspects of his evidence to be contradictory and inconsistent with country information. He made new claims throughout the process. The Tribunal formed the view that he is not a reliable or credible witness for the following reasons.
In his application for a Protection visa, the applicant claimed that, after the war began, Russian rebels visited his home many times and demanded that he joined them to fight for independence for Ukraine. He claimed that he was threatened that if he did not do so he would be physically harmed and put in gaol. He claimed that, if he returns to Ukraine, the Russian rebels will again visit him and asking to fight for them and if he refuses to do so he would most likely be put in jail or physically harmed.
The applicant has filed with the Tribunal a copy of the Department’s Decision Record dated [in] September 2017 which indicates that during his interview with the Department [in] August 2017 he provided a different version of these claims. He gave evidence that on one occasion ([in] January 2014) he received a visit from armed rebels who confiscated his internal passport and ordered him to report to a recruitment centre for the Donetsk People’s Republic. He stated that he did not respond to this order and returned to Australia. He stated that the rebels visit his home and speak to his parents every 3 to 4 months to check if he has returned.
The Tribunal discussed these claims with the applicant during the hearing. He gave evidence that on or about [date] January 2014 people in military uniform went to his home and identified themselves as being from the People’s Republic of Donetsk. He stated that they asked him for identification and when he showed them his internal passport they confiscated it. He stated that they told him that he needed to report to a training camp within a week for military training. He stated that he told them that he would do so. He stated that he and his parents then decided that he should leave for Australia and he left Ukraine [in] January 2014 to return to Australia. He stated that when he did not report at the training camp the rebels went to his home and told his parents that they were going to have a problem because of him. He stated that they visit his home every 3 to 4 months and ask about him. When asked when they last visited, he stated that he had spoken to his parents on the previous Sunday and his mother told him that they last visited 4 or 5 months ago.
The applicant’s claims in relation to the rebels from the People’s Republic of Donetsk are not consistent with the country information. Firstly, in his visa application he claimed that after the war began his home was visited by Russian rebels many times. The country information indicates that the political unrest/conflict in Donetsk did not begin until March/April 2014.[1] [2] Therefore, the rebels could not have visited his home [in] January 2014 as the war had not begun in Donetsk at that time. Secondly, the country information indicates that the People’s Republic of Donetsk was not proclaimed until 7 April 2014 which is several months after he returned to Australia in January 2014.[3] Therefore, members of the People’s Republic of Donetsk’s military could not have gone to his home [in] January 2014 as the People’s Republic of Donetsk did not exist at that time.
[1] DIBP Ukraine Situation Report, 2 April 2014.
[2] UNHCR Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine – 16 February 2017 to 15 May 2017.
[3] Ukraine crisis: Protesters declare Donetsk ‘republic’, BBC News,7 April 2014. (>
When the Tribunal raised this as an issue with the applicant, he responded that the country information referred to was correct. He stated that the People’s Republic of Donetsk was not in existence at the time he was in Ukraine. He stated that gangs were already on the rise and were mobilising people. He stated that they unofficially went from house to house recruiting people. The crisis in Ukraine has been extensively reported in the media. However, the Tribunal is unable to find any country information that indicates that rebels were going door-to-door unofficially recruiting people in January 2014. On the contrary, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees published a Report in September 2015 which indicates that, as at September 2015, there had not been any reports of a general mobilization of men in the non- government controlled areas. It indicates that in mid-August 2015 members of the local population (mainly men with former military backgrounds) started to receive notices with requests to attend the military commissariat for registration only. It indicates that, according to information obtained through monitoring in non-government controlled areas, the mobilization is currently on a voluntary basis.[4] This raises further doubts about the veracity of the applicant’s claims.
[4] UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). ‘International Protection Considerations Related to the Developments in Ukraine – Update III,’ dated 24 September 2015. Available at:
The applicant’s evidence is that his brother (who was born in [year]) and his parents live in the Donetsk region that is occupied by separatist forces. He has not made any claims that the rebels have recruited or attempted to recruit his brother into their army. The Tribunal would expect that, if the rebels have been recruiting men into their army and are so persistent that they visit his home every 3 to 4 months, they would have attempted to recruit his brother into their army at some time over the last 3 years. When the Tribunal raised this as an issue, he responded that his brother cannot fight in the army as he has [medical condition]. When asked how the rebels would know that he has [medical condition], he responded that his brother has a Medical Certificate. He stated that when they attempted to recruit him it was not for a war but for training.
The Tribunal does not accept this explanation. The Tribunal finds it implausible that the rebels would be aware of the medical history of each person they attempt to recruit. The applicant did not claim that he was questioned about his medical history before being told to report for training. Further, his brother would not have been able to provide them with a Medical Certificate until such time as they attempted to recruit him. Therefore, having a Medical Certificate would not have prevented the rebels from attempting to recruit him. This raises further doubts about the veracity of the applicant’s claims.

The applicant’s conduct is not consistent with his claims that, if he returns to Ukraine, he will be visited by Russian rebels again, asked to fight with them and will be put in jail and physically harmed if he refuses to do so. He has filed with the Tribunal a copy of the Department’s Decision Record dated [in] September 2017 which indicates that he returned to Australia [in] January 2014. He was the holder of a [temporary] visa at that time. This visa expired [in] May 2017. He thereafter remained in Australia unlawfully. During that time, he put himself at risk of being deported to Ukraine. [In] July 2017, he reported to a [Police] Station in response to a missing person message, was detained and transfer to [a] Detention Facility. It was only then that he applied for a Protection visa [in] August 2017. This was more than 3½ years after he returned to Australia from Ukraine.
The Tribunal raised this as an issue with the applicant and noted that his conduct raised concerns in relation to the credibility of his claims. He responded that he was aware that he was on a temporary visa. He stated that he was afraid to report to the Department because people told him he could be deported. He stated that he was concerned for his safety and afraid if he returned to Ukraine. He stated that he was hoping that things would get sorted out in Ukraine and he could return of his own free will. The Tribunal noted that this did not explain why he did not seek immigration advice from a migration agent. He responded that he was afraid he would be arrested immediately. The Tribunal does not accept this explanation.
Having considered the above, the Tribunal does not accept that Russian rebels went to the applicant’s home [in] January 2014, confiscated his internal passport, ordered him to report to a training camp, that he left for Australia to avoid reporting for training and all his claims that flow from that.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims in his visa application that Donetsk is a lawless war zone and if he returns there, there are no authorities who could protect him. He claimed that he cannot relocate to another part of Ukraine because people from Donetsk are considered to be Russian supporters and he would be victimised and discriminated against. He claimed that another reason why he did not relocate is because of employment opportunities. He has filed with the Tribunal a copy of the Department’s Decision Record dated [in] September 2017 which indicates that during his interview with the Department [in] August 2017 he made new claims including that he is a native Russian speaker and does not possess advanced Ukrainian language skills but can understand the language.
During his interview with the Department [in] August 2017, the applicant also claimed that he does not support the separatists’ political agenda and does not wish to fight for their cause. He claimed that he supports the central government in Kiev and their political views and wants Donetsk to remain a Ukrainian city rather than become part of a separate State or be absorbed by Russia. He claimed that he cannot return to any other place in the Ukraine, including [Town 1], because he cannot obtain residency registration, which is mandatory in Ukraine, at an alternative location. He claimed that he cannot re-register his residence in [Town 1] because the property that was associated with it has been sold and is now occupied by someone else.
The applicant has filed with the Department a copy of the UNHCR Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine – 16 February 2017 to 15 May 2017. It indicates in part as follows:
During the reporting period, the conflict entered its fourth year and the risk of a significant escalation remains high. Since it broke out in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of eastern Ukraine in April 2014, the conflict has been exacerbated by the inflow of foreign fighters and supply of ammunition and heavy weaponry, reportedly from the Russian Federation. Daily ceasefire violations recorded by the special monitoring mission of the organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) demonstrated the routine use of heavy weaponry and that indiscriminate shelling continued to take a heavy toll on civilian lives, property and critical infrastructure, including those supplying water, electricity and gas, and health and educational facilities. Despite efforts to peacefully resolve the conflict, the parties continued to fail to implement their commitments made under the Minsk agreement, notably a full and immediate ceasefire, and the withdrawal of heavy weapons from the contact line.[5]
[5] UNHCR Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine – 16 February 2017 to 15 May 2017.
In view of the above, the Tribunal is satisfied that if the applicant were to return to Donetsk he may be at risk of serious harm because of the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine. This Report also indicates that freedom of movement between the government controlled areas and the area controlled by armed groups from the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic is restricted. It states in part the following:
Restrictions on the freedom of movement at the contact line had a wider impact on the population due to a sharp rise in the number of people crossing it in March. The increase was caused by a new government requirement that Internally Displaced Persons (IDP’s) entitled to pensions and social payments renew their bank registration at locations in government-controlled territory. Long queues at entry – exit checkpoints expose civilians, particularly the most vulnerable such as pensioners, persons with disabilities and women, to degrading conditions for protracted periods and to the risk of injury or death from shelling. Restrictions on freedom of movement in some villages located near the contact line impeded the enjoyment of social and economic rights, including the rights to social protection, to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, and to housing, land and property. Access to some of these villages were so restrictive that IDP’s who had fled them earlier due to the conflict were unable to return, reunite with families, check on their property, or farm their land.[6]
[6] Ibid.
A Fact Finding Mission conducted by the Austrian Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum reported in part the following:
In 2016, most sources agreed that freedom of movement between non- government-controlled areas and government-controlled areas has become more difficult since January 2015 and the implementation of the Temporary Order on Movement by the government of Ukraine, which requires anyone to obtain a pass to cross the line of contact toward government-controlled areas. Entry permits are issued by the counter-terrorist operation and by Security Service of Ukraine, an institution that enjoys “great power” and which, according to UNHCR, was “often in penetrable for civilians” and “difficult to negotiate with”. Since July 2015, however, UNHCR asserts that with the introduction of an electronic processing system, the pass system has improved.[7]
[7] “Fact Finding Mission Report Ukraine”, French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless persons, 1 May 2017, CISEDB50AD5062.
In view of the above, it is highly unlikely that the applicant would be allowed to travel to Donetsk let alone live and work there. In these circumstances, the likelihood of him being forced to fight for the rebel’s cause is remote.
The applicant’s claims in relation to being unable to relocate within Ukraine and register his residency are not consistent with the country information. The country information indicates that the Ukrainian government passed laws on freedom of movement and free choice of place of residence in the Ukraine and that these laws came into force on 15 January 2004. They are guaranteed under the Ukrainian Constitution. He is therefore able relocate to another area in Ukraine. However, there is a requirement that he register his place of residence. The Law of Ukraine on Freedom of Movement and Free Choice of Place of Residence in Ukraine states, in part, that:
The citizen of Ukraine, as well as the foreigner or stateless person who stay in                    Ukraine legally shall register his/her place of residence during ten days after   arrival at the new place of residence. In order to register the person shall   submit:
           •          written application;
           •          passport document;
           •          receipt of state duty payment or the document about exemption
  from it;
           •          two copies of strike off the register form.
It shall be prohibited to demand other documents in order to register the place   of residence. Application of the person about registration of place of residence                shall be the only ground for the registration of place of residence of the   person.[8] Sic.
[8] “The Law of Ukraine on Freedom of Movement and Free Choice of Place of Residence in Ukraine”, Laws of Ukraine website, 11 December 2003. CISA125423510.
The Tribunal has not accepted that the applicant’s internal passport was confiscated by Russian rebels. In view of the above, there is no legal impediment to the applicant relocating to another part of the Ukraine and he should not have any difficulty registering his new place of residence.
During his interview with the Department [in] August 2017, the applicant made a new claim that he is a native Russian speaker and does not possess advanced Ukrainian language skills but can understand the language. This is not consistent with his earlier evidence to the Department. The records of the Department indicate that he was detained [in] July 2017 and was interviewed by an officer from the Department on that date. During that interview, he stated that he speaks the Ukrainian language and that they now speak Russian in Donetsk. He claimed that he was afraid to return to Donetsk because he speaks Ukrainian.
The Tribunal put this information to the applicant, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act, and noted that it raised concerns for the Tribunal that he had changed his evidence to enhance his prospects of obtaining a Protection visa. He responded that when he was speaking to the officer from the Department [in] July 2017 she asked him whether he spoke English. He stated that he answered yes but stated that his English was poor. He stated that she responded that in her opinion his English was alright and he should be able to understand her. He stated that he thinks he might have misinterpreted her question or fail to understand which language she needed. He stated that he thinks he may have mixed it up. The Tribunal does not accept this explanation for the following reasons.
Firstly, in his application for a Protection visa, the applicant stated that he can speak, read and write Russian, can read and write Ukrainian and can speak English. His evidence is that he was born in [Town 1] in the Khmelnytskyi Province in north western Ukraine and went to university [in] north central Ukraine. The country information indicates that Russian is an official language in the south-east of Ukraine and is not an official language in either [Town 1] or Kiev.[9] In these circumstances, the Tribunal does not accept that he is unable to speak Ukrainian.
[9] DIBP Ukraine Situation Report, 2 April 2014.
Secondly, in his application for a Protection visa, the applicant stated that he attended school in Donetsk between [years], lived in Donetsk from [birth] to [date] January 2014 and worked in Donetsk between 2002 and 2013. This is not consistent with his evidence to the Tribunal that he lived and worked in the [Country 1] from 2005 to 2007 and lived and worked in Australia from July 2013 to November 2013. It is also not consistent with the information he provided the Department in his application for a [temporary] visa. In that application, he stated that his residential address and his postal address were in [Town 1] as at [date] April 2013. He provided his telephone number which had a telephone prefix for [Town 1].
The applicant provided the Department with a Curriculum Vitae (CV) in support of his application for a [temporary] visa which indicated that he resided in [Town 1] until April 2005 when he went to the [Country 1] for work. It indicates that he went to school in [Town 1] between [years] and worked there from August 2003 to April 2005. The Tribunal put this information to him, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act, and noted that the inconsistencies in his evidence raised concerns about his credibility and the veracity of his claims. He responded that a friend of his, who was living in Australia, helped him with his application for a [temporary] visa. He stated that he provided his friend with the information to fill out the application form. He stated that his friend asked him for his registered address and he provided the address in [Town 1] as he was registered at his [relative]’s address. He stated that he provided the telephone number for his registered address. He stated that in the Ukraine people do not live at their registered address.
The Tribunal informed him that the application for the [temporary] visa did not ask for his registered address, asked for his place of residence and he stated that he resided in [Town 1]. The Tribunal noted that he also gave [Town 1] as his postal address. He responded that his friend prepared the visa application. When the Tribunal reminded him of his earlier evidence that he was satisfied that the information in his [temporary] visa application was accurate, he responded that he answered the questions his friend asked him and did not fill out the form himself. The Tribunal informed him, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act, that he stated in his CV that he went to school in [Town 1] and attended a [different] school in [Town 1]. He responded that there must have been a mistake on his CV. The Tribunal does not accept that both his CV and his application for a [temporary] visa were inaccurate.
The Tribunal is of the view that the applicant is most likely bilingual. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not accept that he will not be able to speak and work in the Ukrainian language in a location in Ukraine other than eastern Ukraine. The country information indicates that “language is absolutely no issue. According to representatives of the International Organization for Migration, Russian speakers are not harassed in Ukraine in any way.”[10] In view of this country information, the Tribunal does not accept that the fact that he speaks Russian would put him at risk of being victimised and discriminated against or perceived to be a supporter of Russia.
[10] “Fact Finding Mission Report Ukraine”, French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless persons,1 May 2017, CISEDB50AD5062.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s parents, his brother and [child] live in Donetsk. The Tribunal has considered whether he would be perceived as being from Donetsk and be at risk of serious harm or significant harm for this reason if he lives outside eastern Ukraine. In view of the fact that he was born in [Town 1], went to school there, attended university in Kiev and lived and worked in [Town 1], the Tribunal doubts that he would be perceived to be from Donetsk and a Russian supporter. However, even if he is perceived to be from Donetsk, the country information indicates the following:
IDPs from Crimea mostly settled in Ukraine’s western provinces; those from eastern Ukraine mostly stayed in the eastern areas of the country, close to home so to say. Most of them live with family members or friends. Solidarity among Ukrainians was quite strong in the beginning, but resentment has since grown in some areas….
The available information on the attitude of local residents towards IDPs is contradictory. In some cases they claim to have neutral or friendly attitudes towards IDPs, expressing compassion and understanding of the difficult situation in which IDPs have found themselves and declaring readiness to provide help. On the other hand, there is evidence of discrimination and prejudice against IDPs, as well as negative stereotyping and the existence of hidden and potential social conflicts. The nearer people live to the conflict zone, the higher is their understanding for IDPs. We were told by various interlocutors that the attitude towards IDPs is basically positive but gradually changing.
In view of the above country information, the Tribunal is not satisfied that, even if the applicant were to face some discrimination and prejudice, it would amount to serious harm or significant harm.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims that his parents have lost their pension because of the war, depend on him to send them money and if he returns to Ukraine his parents will no longer have his income and could starve to death. The country information indicates that in 2014 the Ukrainian government issued a decree restricting the right to pensions and social benefits of citizens of Ukraine residing in designated “area of anti-terrorist operation” in eastern Ukraine. It indicates that, in order to access social benefits and pensions, residents in non-government controlled areas have to move to government controlled areas and register as IDPs.[11]
[11] Norwegian Refugee Council, "Right to pension in the context of armed conflict: international experience and solutions for Ukraine", Norwegian Refugee Council, 12 December 2017, CISEDB50AD8095.
In view of this country information, the Tribunal accepts that, if the applicant’s parents have chosen not to leave Donetsk, move to a government controlled area and register as IDPs, they may have lost access to their pensions. The applicant’s evidence is that his [temporary] visa required him to work [in a certain workplace] but after he was sacked from that job because of his inadequate English language skills he moved to [City 1] and worked unlawfully as [an Occupation 2]. The evidence is that [in] July 2017 he was detained as an unlawful non-citizen and transferred to [a] Detention Facility. [In] October 2017, he was granted a Bridging visa that was subject to a number of conditions including a ‘no work’ condition. His evidence is that he has not been working in Australia since he was detained [in] July 2017 and that his brother has been supporting his parents.
Accordingly, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s parents depend on him to send them money and if he returns to Ukraine his parents will no longer have his income and could starve to death.
During the hearing, the applicant claimed several times that if he returned to the Ukraine and could not get a good job he would not be able to financially support his parents and they would starve to death. This is inconsistent with his evidence that he has not been working since [date] July 2017 and his brother is supporting his parents. The Tribunal raised this issue as an issue and noted that this could lead it to the conclusion that he applied for a Protection visa so that he could live in Australia, work here and financially support his parents and not because he is in need of protection. He responded that if he returns to Ukraine and is unable to find a job he and his family would suffer. He stated that he was referring to any job and not a good job.
The Tribunal noted that the prospects for employment in Ukraine may not be as good as in Australia but this is a situation that affects everyone in Ukraine and not just him. The Tribunal noted that he is a university graduate, is multilingual, has work experience in Ukraine as well as in the [Country 1] and Australia and that his prospects of obtaining employment are greater than most Ukrainians. He responded that he did not agree. He stated that he is not afraid of returning to Ukraine because of the difficult economic situation but because of his originals, he will not be able to get a job and is afraid for his life. He stated that a person who is insane could approach him, say a relative was killed because of him and he could be killed. In view of the above findings, the Tribunal does not accept that he would not be able to obtain employment because of his origins. The Tribunal finds that the prospect of an insane person accusing him of being responsible for the death of a relative and killing him is remote.

During the hearing, the applicant made a new claim that he is a conscientious objector to military service. His evidence is that he undertook military service in Ukraine in the 1990s for a period of 18 months. He stated that he was required to be a reservist for a while after he left the army. He stated that if he returns to Ukraine he could be mobilized into the army. He stated that people like him are the first to be mobilized into the army because of his previous military experience. He stated that he objects to fighting in the army as he cannot kill people. He stated that the Ukrainian army is shooting at the rebels. He stated that “big guns” are being used. He stated that there are civilian casualties including children. When asked whether he refused to undertake military service when he was drafted in the 1990s, he responded no. He said it was during peace time.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant the fact that the law in relation to compulsory service is a law of general application and that there is no indication that he will be treated any differently to other men. He agreed. He stated that he will be required to fight against his own hometown. When asked why he has a problem fighting against the rebels in Donetsk, he responded that he cannot fight against his hometown and there are a lot of peaceful civilians there.
The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal is not consistent with his evidence to the Department. He has filed with the Tribunal a copy of the Department’s Decision Record dated [in] September 2017 which indicates that during his interview with the Department [in] August 2017 he stated that he served as a [rank] in the [Ukrainian] army in the 1990s. He stated that he does not know if he is a registered member of the Ukrainian military reserve. He stated that he may be called up as a military reservist by the Ukrainian authorities. He stated that he does not consider this to be persecution. He stated that he does not have any conscientious objection to military service in the Ukrainian army but is concerned that if he is called up for military service he will not be able to financially assist his parents and they may starve to death.
When the Tribunal raised these inconsistencies in his evidence as an issue with the applicant, he responded that he thinks that during the interview with the Department he did not say everything and may have missed something. He stated that he was called and then interviewed and did not know about it. The Tribunal does not accept this explanation as the issue of his mobilization into the Ukrainian arm was discussed during his interview with the Department and the Tribunal would expect him to have raised his objections to this at that time if it was an issue for him. The only concern he raised was that he would not be able to financially assist his parents if he was in the army.
The country information indicates that military service is compulsory in Ukraine for males aged between 20 and 27 years and that the service obligation is for 18 months.[12] It indicates that compulsory military service was scrapped in 2013 and reintroduced in May 2014 following the deteriorating security situation in eastern Ukraine.[13] It indicates that, as the conflict in eastern Ukraine intensified, the Ukrainian government instituted military mobilization in order to bring additional qualified personnel into the army.[14] It indicates that the Law of Ukraine on Military Duty and Military Service (1992) provides for exemptions from conscription and for conscientious objection to military service on religious grounds.[15]
[12] CIA World Factbook, Military service age and obligation, Ukraine. (
[13] BBC. ‘Ukraine reinstates conscription as crisis deepens,’ 2 May 2014. (
[14] UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). International Protection Considerations Related to the Developments in Ukraine – Update II, 15 January 2015. Para 19-21. (
[15] UK Home Office, Country Information and Guidance, Ukraine: Military service, version 2.0, September 2016.
In this case, the applicant does not claim to object to military service on religious grounds. The Tribunal does not accept that he has conscientious objections to military service. The Tribunal accepts that, whilst he supports the central government in Kiev and its political views and wants Donetsk to remain a Ukrainian city rather than become a part of the separatist State or be absorbed by Russia, he prefers to live and work in Australia and not have to serve in the Ukrainian army. The Tribunal accepts that he is concerned that he will not be able to financially support his parents if he is in the Ukrainian army.
The Tribunal has had regard to the UNHCR Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine – 16 February 2017 to 15 May 2017 provided by the applicant to the Department.
In assessing the applicant’s credibility, the Tribunal has had regard to the Tribunal’s Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility and the case law. The Tribunal has also had regard to the Department’s policy guidelines and country information assessments prepared by the Department and by DFAT expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
Findings
Having considered all the applicant's claims and all the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not a witness of truth. The Tribunal finds that he embellished some of his claims and fabricated others for the purpose of obtaining a Protection visa.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was born on [date] at [Town 1] in Ukraine. The Tribunal accepts that he went to school in [Town 1] and attended university at Kiev. The Tribunal accepts that he undertook military service from November 1995 to June 1997. The Tribunal accepts that he worked in [Town 1] from 2003 to April 2005. The Tribunal accepts that he lived and worked in the [Country 1] from May 2005 to June 2007. The Tribunal accepts that he lived and worked in Donetsk when he returned to Ukraine from the [Country 1] before returning to live and work in [Town 1]. The Tribunal finds that he was living and working in [Town 1] in 2013 at the time he applied for a [temporary] visa to come to Australia.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant first came to Australia [in] July 2013 as the holder of a [temporary] visa. The Tribunal accepts that he was sacked from his employment [in a certain workplace] in Australia because of his inadequate English language skills. The Tribunal accepts that he departed Australia [in] November 2013 and returned [in] January 2014. The Tribunal accepts that he thereafter worked in [City 1] unlawfully as an [Occupation 2]. The Tribunal accepts that he may have visited his family in Donetsk prior to leaving for Australia in July 2013 and when he returned to Ukraine in November 2013.
The Tribunal does not accept that Russian rebels/armed rebels/people in military uniform went to the applicant’s home [in] January 2014, confiscated his internal passport, ordered him to report to a training camp and that he left for Australia to avoid reporting for training. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept any of his claims that flow from this.
In view of the above country information, the Tribunal is of the view that it is highly unlikely that the applicant would be allowed to travel to Donetsk or any other non-government controlled area in eastern Ukraine, whilst there is conflict in that area, let alone live and work there. In these circumstances, the likelihood of him being forced to fight for the rebel’s cause is remote.
In view of the above country information, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is unable to move his place of residence in Ukraine and register his new place of residence or re-register his residence in [Town 1] because the property that was associated with his registration has now been sold and is occupied by someone else. However, the Tribunal accepts that he may have difficulty entering, residing in and registering his residence in a non-government controlled area in the conflict zone in eastern Ukraine. The Tribunal does not accept that he cannot relocate because of employment opportunities.
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant does not possess advanced Ukrainian language skills but can understand the language in view of the fact that he attended university in Kiev which is not in an area in Ukraine where Russia is an official language. In view of the country information above, the Tribunal does not accept that he cannot speak and work in the Ukrainian language in a location in Ukraine other than eastern Ukraine. The Tribunal does not accept that the fact that he speaks Russian would put him at risk of being victimised and discriminated against or perceived to be a supporter of Russia.
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant cannot relocate to another part of Ukraine because people from Donetsk are considered to be Russian supporters and he would be victimised and discriminated against. In view of the above country information, the Tribunal is of the view that, in the unlikely event of him suffering from discrimination and/or prejudice, it would not amount to serious harm or significant harm. The Tribunal does not accept that he is unable to live in any location in Ukraine, other than in the eastern Ukraine, because of employment opportunities.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s parents may have lost access to their pensions because of the conflict in eastern Ukraine. The Tribunal accepts that his brother has been supporting them financially since [date] July 2017. The Tribunal does not accept that they depend on the applicant to send them money. The Tribunal does not accept that if he returns to Ukraine his parents will no longer have his income and could starve to death.
The Tribunal accepts that, in view of the current economic situation in Ukraine, the applicant may have some difficulty obtaining employment. However, this is a problem faced by all Ukrainians and is not specific to him. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that he would be refused employment for any reason in s.5J(1)(a) of the Act.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant supports the central government in Kiev and its political views and wants Donetsk to remain a Ukrainian city rather than become a part of the separatist State or be absorbed by Russia. The Tribunal accepts that he does not wish to serve in the Ukrainian army and would prefer to live and work in Australia. The Tribunal does not accept that he has a conscientious objection to military service. The Tribunal accepts that he is concerned that if he is in the Ukrainian army he will not be able to support his parents.
In this case, the applicant does not claim to object to military service on religious grounds. The Tribunal does not accept that he has conscientious objections to military service. The Tribunal accepts that, whilst he supports the central government in Kiev and its political views and wants Donetsk to remain a Ukrainian city rather than become a part of the separatist State or be absorbed by Russia, he prefers to live and work in Australia and not have to serve in the Ukrainian army. The Tribunal accepts that he is concerned that he will not be able to financially support his parents if he is in the Ukrainian army. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance or a real risk that he will be required to perform acts contrary to international law if he is mobilized into the Ukrainian army on his return to Ukraine.
The Law of Ukraine on Military Duty and Military Service (1992) is a law of general application. It is appropriate and adapted to achieving a legitimate objective. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that it is being implemented or enforced in a discriminatory manner or that its impact on the applicant would be discriminatory for any reason under s.5J(1)(a) of the Act.
In view of the above findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is at risk of serious harm or significant harm for any of the reasons claimed if he returns to Ukraine now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Does Australia have protection obligations to the applicant under the refugee criterion?
Having considered all of the applicant's claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence and in view of the findings above, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance that he will suffer serious harm for any reason set out in s.5J(1)(a) of the Act if he returns to Ukraine now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution and is not a refugee as defined in s.5H of the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that he does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act.
Does Australia have protection obligations to the applicant under the complementary protection criterion?
The Tribunal has considered the applicant's claims under complementary protection.
In view of the above findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm for any of the reasons claimed if he returns to Ukraine now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Having considered all of the applicant's claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk that he will be arbitrarily deprived of life, the death penalty will be carried out on him, he will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or he will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment if he returns to Ukraine now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Ukraine, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm as defined in s.36(2A) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(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 s.36(2)(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.

Linda Symons

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.
…

[2018] AATA 294

19 January 2018

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction