1721704 (Refugee) - [2023] AATA 4120

1721704 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 4120 (5 September 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Liu Chang (MARN: 1281423)
CASE NUMBER:  1721704
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Taiwan
MEMBER:Jessica Henderson
DATE:5 September 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 05 September 2023 at 3:50pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Taiwan – particular social group – victim of severe domestic violence – gang involvement – no longer in a relationship with the abuser – 'essential and significant reason for the harm’ – personal vitriol – state protection – refugee nexus reason – internal relocation – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
SZATV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 18
SZFDV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 51
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 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 is a citizen of Taiwan, applied for the visa on 21 August 2015. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that there had been no opportunity to interview the applicant and the written evidence was not sufficient to support her claims.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 4 April 2023 and again on 19 April 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
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…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading 1721704 (Refugee)

Details

AGLC: 1721704 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 4120
Case: [2023] AATA 4120
Decision Date: 5 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant sought review of a decision to refuse her protection visa application. The applicant claimed she had suffered violence from her boyfriend, a gang member, and feared further harm, including from his gang members, if returned to Taiwan. She also asserted that Taiwanese police would not offer protection, deeming the matter a private domestic issue.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether she had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason or faced a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Taiwan. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), including the definitions of "refugee," "well-founded fear of persecution," and "significant harm," as well as the availability of state protection and the possibility of internal relocation.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims and the evidence presented, noting the lack of detail and evidence in her initial application to the Department. The Tribunal also noted a significant delay in the processing of the review application and the applicant's failure to provide updated information when requested. Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the protection visa. The applicant did not establish that she was a refugee or that she faced a real risk of significant harm upon return to Taiwan, nor did she demonstrate that she could not reasonably relocate within Taiwan or access state protection. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had not applied on the basis of being a family member of a protection visa holder.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

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 applicant’s claims for protection as put to the Department were accurately summarised by the delegate in the following terms:a.The applicant suffered from violence from her boyfriend, who is a gang member. He is an alcoholic and violent. He was violent towards her. She could not stand the pain so she escaped from Taiwan to Australia.b.If the applicant returns to Taiwan her boyfriend will try to look for her everywhere. Her family will live in danger. He will send his gang members to catch and hurt her.c.She tried to report it to the police however they claimed it was a private domestic matter. They will not protect her.d.The applicant has tried to hide in her friend’s home. He could easily find her, and her friend was hurt by him. The Department invited the applicant to an interview scheduled on 24 August 2017. The applicant did not attend. The delegate’s decision to refuse the application appears to have turned on the lack of detail and evidence in support of the applicant’s claims.Tribunal proceedings The applicant sought review of the delegate’s decision to this Tribunal on 14 September 2017. There was a significant delay in constituting the matter. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 24 November 2022 and invited her to provide updated information about herself and her application. An applicant information form was attached to the letter. The letter was sent by way of the applicant’s agent. The applicant was invited to provide the updated information by no later than 8 December 2022. The letter included a warning that if the Tribunal did not receive the requested information or a request for extension before 8 December 2022 then the Tribunal might make a decision without taking any further action to obtain information. The Tribunal did not receive a response to the invitation to provide information. The matter was listed for hearing before the Tribunal on 4 April 2023. The applicant attended the hearing without her agent. The Tribunal asked the applicant why she had not completed the applicant information form that was sent to her in November 2022. The applicant said that her agent had not told her about it and had not sent it on to her. It became apparent at the outset of the hearing that the Tribunal did not have the complete file from the Department in its electronic record. The matter was adjourned for fourteen days to allow time for the Tribunal to obtain, review and consider the content of the hard copy Department file and to allow the applicant time to consider whether there was further evidence or submissions that she wanted to provide to the Tribunal in advance of the hearing.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The applicant has not applied for a protection visa 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. The applicant’s evidence is that her partner was able to reside in Australia on a protection visa, but it appears to have been granted at a time that precludes her inclusion on it as a family member. DECISION The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.Jessica HendersonMemberATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 19585 (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 familyFor 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 familyFor 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.…

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

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 applicant’s claims for protection as put to the Department were accurately summarised by the delegate in the following terms:a.The applicant suffered from violence from her boyfriend, who is a gang member. He is an alcoholic and violent. He was violent towards her. She could not stand the pain so she escaped from Taiwan to Australia.b.If the applicant returns to Taiwan her boyfriend will try to look for her everywhere. Her family will live in danger. He will send his gang members to catch and hurt her.c.She tried to report it to the police however they claimed it was a private domestic matter. They will not protect her.d.The applicant has tried to hide in her friend’s home. He could easily find her, and her friend was hurt by him. The Department invited the applicant to an interview scheduled on 24 August 2017. The applicant did not attend. The delegate’s decision to refuse the application appears to have turned on the lack of detail and evidence in support of the applicant’s claims.Tribunal proceedings The applicant sought review of the delegate’s decision to this Tribunal on 14 September 2017. There was a significant delay in constituting the matter. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 24 November 2022 and invited her to provide updated information about herself and her application. An applicant information form was attached to the letter. The letter was sent by way of the applicant’s agent. The applicant was invited to provide the updated information by no later than 8 December 2022. The letter included a warning that if the Tribunal did not receive the requested information or a request for extension before 8 December 2022 then the Tribunal might make a decision without taking any further action to obtain information.