1721704 (Refugee)

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 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).
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 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.
After the hearing on 4 April 2023 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant’s agent in relation to the applicant’s review. The letter attached an invitation for the applicant to attend a further hearing on 19 April 2023, and expressly included the following passage directed to the applicant’s agent:
You should provide a written submission setting out all claims made and maintained by the applicant by 12 April 2023. The submission should be accompanied by a signed declaration from the applicant that the submission has been read and explained to them and that it accurately and completely presents their claims.
If you are proposing that a witness give evidence at the hearing, a witness statement setting out the witness's evidence should be provided to us by 12 April 2023. Where a witness is unable to adopt or sign a witness statement, particulars of the evidence the witness is expected to address and how it is relevant to the case should be provided by this date.
The same passage was included in the letter addressed to the applicant.
No submissions or evidence was received by the Tribunal and the applicant’s agent once again did not attend the hearing on 19 April 2023.
Applicant’s evidence at the two hearings
Domestic violence claim
The applicant’s evidence was that she had not completed the application for a protection visa because at the time of the application she did not speak any English. She said that she told her ‘friend’ what to write in the application and trusted that they had written what she asked them to. She says that she told her ‘friend’ that she had a boyfriend in Taiwan who was not stable emotionally. He used drugs and alcohol and abused her whilst under their influence. She said that he was okay when he was clean and not using drugs.
The Tribunal asked her whether she had reported the abuse to the police and she said that she had thought about it. Then she had told her family about the abuse. When her boyfriend found out that she had told her family he threatened her family. He went to their houses and expressly threatened them to their faces. She says that he still lingers around her family home.
The applicant said that her former boyfriend’s threats have substance to her family because he is known to have a gang background and has a lot of power. The Tribunal asked the applicant how it was known that he had a gang background and she said it was quite obvious – he has lots of gang people following him. That is not, in the Tribunal’s view, sufficient evidence to establish that the boyfriend has gang involvement, much less an ability to command gang members to do his bidding.
The applicant’s story was otherwise in many respects credible and detailed. She set out the circumstances of meeting her boyfriend, of their initial good days together, and then his decline into drugs and alcoholism. She described in emotional terms the first time she had been a victim of physical violence. Her hands visibly shook as she described a conversation in which her boyfriend had become increasingly agitated and then punched her with a closed fist, with no warning. She recalled being shocked and scared, and his quick threat that if she told anyone then he would hurt her family.
The Tribunal observed scarring on the applicant’s neck and she said that it was caused by her former boyfriend and that she has similar scars all over her body.
The applicant described how her friends had found out that she was a long term victim of abuse, and made plans for her to join them on a working holiday to Australia. She didn’t tell her boyfriend she was leaving. When he found that she had gone she has been told that he looked for her at her parents’ home and made verbal threats against them.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s account of her former relationship is accurate, and that she has been a victim of domestic violence. However, the Tribunal has serious doubts about the applicant’s claim that her former partner was involved in a gang or gangs and that he exercises extensive control and influence over gang members.
In any event, the applicant’s evidence is that it has been ten years since she left her former boyfriend. The domestic violence claim is now historic. The applicant says that there has been no physical harm to her family whilst she’s been in Australia. There has been some damage to their property and some verbal abuse, but that is the extent of the harm that has so far flowed from her separation from her boyfriend. There is no indication of any gang or mafia retaliation against her or her family.
Arrival in Australia and application for protection
The applicant’s first arrival in Australia was [in] March 2012, and that she spent a year in Australia on that occasion. She left Australia briefly [in] May 2013 and returned [in] June 2013. She did not apply for a protection visa until 21 August 2015.
The applicant says that she didn’t know that she might be eligible for a protection visa on the basis of domestic violence for some time after her arrival in Australia. She says that she found out immediately prior to making the application, and that if she had known about it earlier then she would have applied for it earlier.
The Tribunal has no difficulty accepting that an individual victim of domestic violence might not think to make an application for a protection visa on refugee or complementary protection grounds. However, the Tribunal has difficulty accepting that the applicant lived in Australia for a total of three years without reasonably concluding that a threat from a gang or the Taiwanese mafia would potentially support a protection visa application.
Current circumstances
The applicant is now married to a man from Hong Kong who is residing in Australia on a protection visa. She says that she is not sure of the basis for his application. They have two children already ([age] and [age] years of age respectively), and were, at the date of the hearings, expecting their third. The applicant was demonstrably pregnant when she appeared before the Tribunal and confirmed that she was expecting another child with a due date of [date]. She was anticipating a caesarean birth, although one had not yet been scheduled at the date of the hearings.
Although the applicant described her current partner as her ‘husband’ she said that they were not married but were in a de facto relationship.
The applicant said that she didn’t think her former boyfriend would know that she had three children. The Tribunal suggested to her that if she returned to Taiwan with a husband and three children under the age of [age] her former boyfriend might not have any interest in pursuing or punishing her. She said that he was such crazy person that he might harm her husband or children.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if she knew anything about her ex-boyfriend’s former girlfriends and she said that he had some and that she thought they had broken up and moved on in an ordinary way. However, it was clear from her evidence that his decline into drug use commenced during her relationship with him and nothing can be drawn from his prior conduct.
The applicant thought that it was possible that if her former boyfriend is still using drugs then he might kill her children in a fit of anger against her.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she could move to a different part of Taiwan. She said that she would lose what little contact that she has with her family because if she was calling or using Facetime from within Taiwan she thought her former boyfriend would be able to track her because of his gang involvement.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is genuinely afraid to return to her former home, but does not accept that she is afraid to return to another part of Taiwan.
Is the applicant a member of a particular social group for the purpose of the Refugee criteria?
The applicant is a victim of severe domestic violence. She is no longer in a relationship with her abuser and has never had any legal or contractual tie to her abuser. She is not a current or former legal spouse of an abusive man.
The Tribunal is prepared to accept that the scars, both physical and mental, left by an abusive lover are an immutable characteristic which distinguishes a class of people from the rest of society. Victims of domestic violence are a particular social group for the purpose of the legislation.
Is there a real chance of harm to the applicant as a result of her membership of that social group?
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant genuinely fears harm at the hands of her former boyfriend if she returns to Taiwan. The Tribunal accepts that if her former boyfriend is still using drugs he may pose a risk to her. However, the predicted actions of the applicant’s former partner are criminal activities of an individual because of his personal vitriol against her. The essential and significant reason for the harm is not the membership of a particular social group; it is founded in a personal relationship. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the risk is motivated by a refugee nexus reason on the part of the applicant’s boyfriend.
The only evidence before the Tribunal that there would be discriminatory withholding of state protection for a refugee nexus reason is the evidence of the applicant that she would not be able to obtain police protection from her former boyfriend. There are two issues with that evidence. First, it has changed over time. Initially the applicant’s claim was that she had told the police and they said that they could not help her because it was a private matter. She subsequently told the Tribunal that she had thought about approaching the police but decided against it. The second, and larger, issue is that the circumstances of any future abuse are fundamentally different from the past abuse. The applicant was previously a young woman in a domestic relationship with her abuser. The applicant will be returning to Taiwan after more than ten years’ absence a more mature and experienced woman with a spouse and three children under [age]. The situation she will be in is very different to the one that she left. She has not been in a relationship with her former boyfriend for a decade. There is no basis for finding that there is a real chance that the police will treat a threat of violence by him against her or her family as a private domestic matter given these changed circumstances.
The Tribunal finds that there would not be discriminatory withholding of state protection from the applicant.
Finding on refugee criteria
The Tribunal finds that the persecution feared by the applicant does not arise for a refugee nexus reason.
The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Complementary protection criteria
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 accepts that there are substantial grounds for believing that returning to her hometown in Taiwan presents a real risk of significant harm to the applicant at the hands of her former boyfriend. As a former abuser he might inflict cruel or degrading treatment on her upon first meeting her and at a time when there is no immediately available protection for her.
However, under s 36(2B)(a) of the Act, there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country if the Tribunal is satisfied that it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm. The Tribunal draws guidance from the judgments of the High Court in SZATV v MIAC and SZFDV v MIAC which held that whether relocation is reasonable, in the sense of ‘practicable’, must depend upon the particular circumstances of the applicant and the impact upon that person of relocation within his or her country: SZATV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 18 and SZFDV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 51, per Gummow, Hayne & Crennan JJ, Callinan J agreeing.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a good reason for not wanting to relocate to another part of Taiwan. There is no evidence other than the applicant’s speculation that her former boyfriend has the means to track her location from telephone calls or Facetime messages made to her family from within Taiwan. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant would have less contact with her family if she relocated to another part of Taiwan than she has with them from Australia.

The Tribunal is satisfied that it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to another part of Taiwan.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
Member of the same family unit
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 Henderson
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.
…

[2023] AATA 4120

5 September 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Remedies

Standing