1721650 (Refugee)

1721650 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 2458 (30 June 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1721650
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Taiwan
MEMBER:Sean Baker
DATE:30 June 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 30 June 2023 at 3:16pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Taiwan – woman from third country married to Taiwanese man – societal and workplace discrimination and abuse by husband – divorced but holds Taiwanese citizenship through marriage – attacked in public by ex-husband – country information – state protection for victims of domestic violence and effective police force – employment and accommodation despite claimed discrimination – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 24 August 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of the Republic of China (Taiwan), applied for the visa on 10 May 2017. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not attend the interview and that the written material was not sufficient to establish the claims.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 13 June 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF Claims and evidence
The issue in this case is whether there is a real chance the applicant will face persecution in Taiwan or a real risk she will suffer significant harm if removed from Australia to Taiwan. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Nationality
The applicant was born in [Country]. She is a national of the Republic of China (Taiwan). She has presented a Republic of China (Taiwan) passport in her name. I find that Taiwan is her country of nationality and her receiving country.
Claims
The applicant was born and grew up in [Country]. In [Year] she married a Taiwanese national and migrated to Taiwan.
She lived in Taiwan for [Number] years but could not adapt. She was abused by her husband and mistreated by society in Taiwan.
Her husband had serious psychological problems and was physically and sexually abusive. She divorced him and all her documents including her passport were confiscated by him.
She sought help from the local government in Taiwan but was not given any help. In Taiwan, [people from Country], in particular [Country] women who marry a Taiwanese man, are discriminated against. They are not treated as Taiwanese people and their children are bullied at school. The government knows about this but does nothing. They are vulnerable and the Taiwanese are hostile to them.
Because [people from Country] are abused by Taiwanese society and the government does nothing to prevent this happening they lived in fear of their life and welfare.
The hearing
At the hearing the applicant told me that the friend who had helped her fill out her application had not told her about the interview with the Department. She also provided her new contact details, which she subsequently confirmed to the Tribunal. She also said that her friend had only written about her claims generally, he had not provided any detail.
She confirmed that she was a national of Taiwan, having acquired nationality through marriage in [Year]. She has a [Age] year old son still in Taiwan but she does not have contact with him. Her brother and sister live in [Country]. She confirmed that she was married to a Taiwanese national in [Year] and divorced in 2015.
She has worked in a variety of jobs in Taiwan and Australia, including [Work sectors].
The applicant detailed the history of family violence perpetrated against her by her husband, including serious physical and sexual violence. After a serious incident in August 2012, she ran away from the family home and applied for divorce. It took almost three years for the divorce process and in 2015 they terminated their relationship.
Both prior to and after the divorce her husband would continue to harass her by coming to her place of work whenever he could find out where it was and make a scene. She described several incidents where he had done this, and she had had to move jobs.
In the Autumn of 2016, she was shopping, and he showed up and tried to drag her away. She struggled and he hit her and eventually some bystanders came to her aid, three young men, and her ex-husband had a fight with them. Then they all went to the police station and the applicant went to the hospital.
She said that she eventually lost all her jobs and had no more friends as they all were wary of her because he would harass them. She was nervous and terrified whenever someone mentioned his name. eventually a colleague suggested that she leave Taiwan to avoid the situation. She believes she was suffering from depression. She travelled to Australia in 2017.
When asked if she had had any contact with her ex-husband since coming to Australia she said she had not, but she had heard from friends that he was still looking for her. She said that this had been during the Covid lockdown when he was checking if she would return to Taiwan. She confirmed that she had no contact with her son since 2012, her husband had had custody of their son when they divorced.
I asked the applicant if her husband had been charged when he tried to drag her away in 2016 and fought with the three young men. She claims that he was not because her husband had some connections and the police told him that if she reported her husband then her husband would file a case against the three young men who helped her. she also thought that if he were jailed for a short time, he would be even worse when he came out.
I asked if he had been charged when he had thrown paint and damaged her places of employment, she said her employers did not bother filing against him.
I asked what she feared on return, and she said she feared that her ex-husband would physically attack her again or she might suffer some other kind of life-threatening situation. She confirmed she only feared harm from her ex-husband. She did say however that she thought she had suffered discrimination as a [Country] wife/woman living in Taiwan, in employment and daily life. She said that this discrimination took the form of insulting and cliched comments from local people, and in her workplaces, they had assigned her work that was quite difficult and needed a lot of hard labour. She also claimed that there was some political discrimination from the current ruling party towards [Country] people. I noted that it appeared to me from the country information that the Taiwanese government understood the difference between the [Country] government and people from [Country]. She agreed and said that it was more racial discrimination than political discrimination.
She confirmed she had never had any difficulties with the authorities in Taiwan. She said that the authorities had not been able to protect her in the past. I asked if she had sought a protection order against her husband and she said that she had not as you needed a medical report. I noted that the country information I had read did not refer to needing a medical order to take out a protection order. She said she had explored this and had gone to the police station but they would not help her, they regarded it as an argument only. She confirmed this was while she was living with her husband.
I explored with her the attack of 2016. I noted that I found it very hard to understand why her husband would not have been charged, in relation to his treatment of her, but also his fighting with the three young men. She said she had not gone to the police station with them but afterwards had been told that if she pressed charges against her ex-husband, he would file charges against the three young men. She said she thought there was some discrimination against her as a [person from Country] wife as well. I noted that I was having trouble with the claim that a public attack against her, and against the three young men, would not have resulted in her ex-husband being charged. I noted that I found it hard to accept that she would have been pressured or threatened to drop charges against her ex-husband in the way she described, because this was an attack in public. She said she did not understand the laws, but this is what happened.
I explored with the applicant country information about the situation in Taiwan. I noted to her that according to information before me, State protection is available to victims of domestic violence, with the revised Domestic Violence Prevention Act passed in January 2015 broadening the scope of protections to cover victims such as intimate partners who do not live together and minors who witness domestic violence.[1] It appeared to me that she could access a civil protection order against her ex-husband.[2] The government has also established domestic violence prevention and victims support services delivered through the Domestic Violence Protection Center.[3] I noted that sexual harassment and gender violence are prevalent in Taiwanese society but that recent changes include June 2022 laws against harassment and stalking,[4] and reforms which appear to have led to increased rates of prosecution and conviction.[5] I noted that these observations were in the context of country information which indicates that the violent crime rate in Taiwan is amongst the lowest in the world and crime is generally low,[6] and that the police were assessed by those in Taiwan and external bodies to be effective.[7]
[1] ‘Taiwan - Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2015’, US Department of State, 13 April 2016, p.10.
[2] Protection for domestic violence victims and relief granted, ‘The Law on Domestic Violence and Its Practice in Taiwan’, Hsiao-wei Kuan, Ca' Foscari University of Venice, January 2021,
[4] 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2021: Taiwan', US Department of State, 11 April 2022, p.11; 'The Stalking and Harassment Prevention Law will go into Effect on June 1, 2022', Conventus Law, 1 February 2022; ‘National Police Agency establishes stalking and harassment response teams’, Focus Taiwan, 26 May 2022.
[5] 'Freedom in the World 2022 Taiwan', Freedom House, 9 June 2022, G3.
[6] ‘Taiwan Country Security Report’, Overseas Security Advisory Council, US Department of State, 15 October 2021.
[7] 'Freedom in the World 2022 Taiwan', Freedom House, 9 June 2022, F3; ‘Public Satisfaction with the Police is over 80% in 3 Consecutive Years Citizens Support Drug Enforcement, Fraud Prevention
I explained that I may infer from this information that the 2016 incident may not have occurred given that I was not sure I accepted that the police would have dealt with the matter in the way she claimed they had, and that even if I did accept that it had, the range of protections and the overall rate of crime in Taiwan might make me consider that the policing and protections in place might mean there was less than a real chance/real risk to her on return from her ex-husband, particularly given she had been in Australia for six years and the effluxion of time might generally reduce his interest in pursuing her.
The applicant said she had applied for a protection order prior to 2015 but had not been successful. She said that after the 2016 incident, her subconscious told her that even if he could have been jailed for one or two months, he would then be free. She said that the performance of the Taiwanese police was not as I had read, if the law was carried out in practice she would not have had a policeman asking her to drop the charges.
In relation to discrimination against [people from Country], I was prepared to accept that there may be some low-level societal discrimination but I did not accept on the country information I had read that there was official discrimination against [people from Country] or [Country] spouses.[8] I noted that the societal discrimination did not appear to have stopped her from finding work and accommodation. The applicant responded that there was societal discrimination, but it was not so serious. She was not concerned about her ability to find a job; she was concerned about her ex-husband and the discrimination was secondary.
[8] 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2021: Taiwan', US Department of State, 11 April 2022, p.12.
The applicant said that her major concern was that if by any chance she saw her husband again there was always a shadow in her mind that she would suffer again.
I clarified whether the applicant’s ex-husband had taken her passport as claimed in her written application. She said that she had been able to obtain a passport, on the second year of their marriage there was violence and she had moved her household registration and become independent, and once independent she had been eligible to apply for her own passport.
Consideration
I accept that the applicant was born in [Country] and married a Taiwanese man. I accept that she gained Taiwanese nationality on this basis. I accept that her ex-husband was violent, which led her to leave the relationship in 2012, and that she did not have any contact with her son after this time. I am willing to accept that her ex-husband may have harassed her at her workplaces for some time after their separation. I accept that they were divorced in 2015.
I do not accept her claim that she was attacked by her ex-husband in 2016 while she was shopping. I found her claim that her ex-husband was not charged or faced any sanction despite attacking her in a public place, and fighting with three young men who were there to be implausible. The country information indicates that at that time, after 2015, there were strengthened protections for domestic violence victims and an effective police force, and I do not accept that the police would have not charged her ex-husband for such a public and violent attack on her but also three young men. I do not accept that she would have been discriminated against as a [Country] woman or a [Country] spouse because the country information does not support official discrimination in this respect. I consider that the timing of the attack, a year after their formal divorce and some four years after she had separated from him, contributes to my concerns that this event happened.
This claim also did not fit with other, stronger aspects of her evidence. While I accept that family violence and coercive control can extend for many years beyond divorce and separation in general, I was not satisfied that that was the situation or relationship that the applicant described. Rather, she indicated that she had reasonably early in the marriage separated from her ex-husband and had a separate household registration and was able to gain nationality and a passport on that. She was able to be employed and support herself after the separation and divorce, and did not describe a pattern of her being forced or coerced to return to the relationship.
Having carefully considered her claims, in light of the country information and my reasoning above, I do not accept that this event occurred. Given this finding, I also do not accept her claim that her ex-husband asked about her while she was in Australia, during the COVID lockdown, thinking she may return to Taiwan.
I find that the applicant’s ex-husband may have harassed her at her workplaces for some time after their separation in 2012 and again after their divorce in 2015, but I do not accept that this continued in 2016 or 2017, or was the reason why she chose to leave Taiwan. I make these findings on the basis that I do not accept that he has harmed or pursued her since a little while after their divorce in 2015, some eight years ago.
Whilst I accept that there is some societal discrimination against [Country] women/spouses, as the applicant conceded, this had not affected her ability to gain employment or accommodation. I accept that she may have had comments made by people and she may have been given more menial and physically demanding jobs at her workplaces, but I do not accept that she has been denied employment or accommodation or otherwise been seriously discriminated against or harmed for these reasons. I do not accept that political parties discriminate against [Country] people, even if those political parties may disagree with the policies of the [Country political party/government].

I find that the applicant can return to Taiwan. I find that she does not face a real chance or a real risk of her ex-husband harming her on return. I make this finding on the basis of my reasoning and findings above. I find that she can find employment and accommodation. I find that she may suffer some societal discrimination on the basis of her status as a [Country] woman/former spouse, but that this will not lead to serious or significant harm and will not threaten her capacity to subsist. I do not accept that she will suffer any official discrimination, nor that she will suffer any other harm from anyone else on return.
I find that there is no real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm from her ex-husband, society, political parties or anyone else for reasons of her past relationship with her ex-husband, her status as a [Country] woman/former spouse or for any other reason now or in the reasonably foreseeable future on return to Taiwan.
The applicant did not make any further claims that she would be harmed on any other basis on return. On the basis of my findings above, I find that there is no real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm from her ex-husband, society, political parties or anyone else now or in the reasonably foreseeable future if removed from Australia to Taiwan.
Conclusions
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Sean Baker
Member

Attachment - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

pp.29-30.

and Various Measures by the Police’, Ministry of Interior ( Taiwan), 25 February 2022.

[2023] AATA 2458

30 June 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction