1723444 (Refugee)

1723444 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 4020 (29 August 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER: 1723444

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Malaysia
MEMBER:Peter Katsambanis
DATE:29 August 2023
PLACE OF DECISION: Perth
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 29 August 2023 at 2:15pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – particular social group – victim of loan shark – physical assault – torture – violent messages – state protection – internal relocation – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5AAA, 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
Re Ruddock; Ex parte Applicant S154/2002 [2003] HCA 60
WAKK v MIMIA [2005] FCAFC 225
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 4 September 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 Malaysia, applied for the visa on 24 February 2017. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
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 issues in this case are whether there is a real chance that if the applicant returns to Malaysia she will be persecuted for one or more of the five reasons set out in s 5J(1)(a) for the purposes of s 36(2)(a) of the Act and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Malaysia, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm for the purposes of s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Protection Visa Application
In her protection visa application form the applicant claimed that she was born in [a named town], Malaysia on [date]. She stated that she was a Malaysian citizen of Chinese ethnicity, and she listed her religion as ‘Chinese’. She had never been married and had no children. Her parents and one [sibling] were living in Malaysia.
The applicant claimed that she arrived in Australia [in] December 2016 on her valid Malaysian passport and as the holder of a valid Australian visitor visa. She stated that she had not travelled outside Malaysia on any other occasion over the past 30 years.
The applicant stated that she had lived at the same residential address in Malaysia from [specified year] until she came to Australia. She claimed to have worked as a salesgirl selling [product 1] in Malaysia from 2000 until she came to Australia. She listed no education history or qualifications.
On her application form, the applicant claimed that she was seeking protection in Australia so that she did not have to return to Malaysia. She claimed that she had a friend named [Friend A] who was suffering financial problems and asked the applicant to help her. The friend owed a lot of debt and needed some money to settle down, so she begged the applicant for help. The applicant took this friend to a financier to borrow money without telling her family. The applicant guaranteed the loan for her friend. The friend borrowed around [amount] ringgits (or around AU$[amount]) from this financier who was called [Person A]. The financier trusted the applicant, which was why he loaned the money to her friend. A few months later, the financier rang asking the friend for payment and also asked the applicant to call her friend, but the friend could not be reached. The financier then asked the applicant to repay the money and started to torture and blackmail the applicant by sending his bodyguards. The applicant was worried that because of her, the rest of her family would suffer. She had no choice so she ran away from her home and came to Australia, where she could live without fear.
The applicant claimed that if she returned to Malaysia, the financier would keep on forcing her. She claimed that she had experienced harm in Malaysia in the past, being tortured and receiving violent messages. She did not seek help in Malaysia because the financier tortured her without telling anyone. She did not relocate within Malaysia to avoid harm because the bodyguards of the financier always kept an eye on her house.
The applicant claimed that if she returned to Malaysia now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, she feared that the financier would keep pressing her for payment. She claimed that the financier would blackmail her with the document that she signed for the guarantee and if she went to seek help from the police or other authorities, he would show them the letter that she had signed. She stated that she could not relocate elsewhere in Malaysia to escape the harm she feared because the financier and his people would always keep an eye out for her no matter where she moved to.
The applicant provided the Department with copies of her Malaysian passport and her Malaysian national identity card.
The delegate refused to grant the applicant a protection visa on 4 September 2017.
Application for Review
The applicant lodged an application for review with the Tribunal on 28 September 2017. The applicant also provided the Tribunal with a copy of the delegate’s decision record and a copy of the accompanying notification letter.
On 28 July 2023 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising her that it had considered all the material before it relating to her application, but it was unable to make a favourable decision on that information alone. The Tribunal invited the applicant to give oral evidence and present arguments at a hearing in Perth on 4 September 2023 at 9:30 am (WA time). In this correspondence, the applicant was also invited to provide a written submission and any supporting documentation to the Tribunal by 28 August 2023.
By email dated 28 August 2023, the applicant provided the Tribunal with a response to this invitation advising that she did not wish to participate in the scheduled hearing. The applicant also consented to the Tribunal proceeding to make a decision on the review without taking any further action to allow her to appear before it.
Accordingly, this matter has been determined on the basis of the evidence before the Tribunal in support of the applicant’s claims for protection.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
There is no issue as to identity or nationality. The applicant arrived in Australia on a valid Malaysian passport and as the holder of a valid Australian visitor visa. The Tribunal therefore accepts that the applicant is a national of Malaysia and has assessed her claims accordingly.
The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is ‘well-founded’ or that it is for the reason claimed. Similarly, that an applicant claims to face a real risk of significant harm does not establish that such a risk exists, or that the harm feared amounts to ‘significant harm’. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for him or her. It is the responsibility of the applicant to specify all particulars of the claim to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and to provide sufficient evidence to establish the claim. The Tribunal does not have any responsibility or obligation to specify, or assist in specifying any particulars of the claim, or to establish or assist in establishing the claim: s 5AAA. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant (MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70).
In her application for protection submitted to the Department, the applicant has claimed that she was the guarantor of a loan for around [amount] ringgits taken out by her friend, [Friend A], from a financier named [Person A]. She has claimed that [Friend A] subsequently went missing and did not repay the loan, so the financier sought repayment from the applicant on the basis that she was the guarantor of the loan. The applicant has claimed that the financier tortured, sent violent messages to her and blackmailed her with his bodyguards as he was seeking repayment of this loan. She has also claimed that she could not relocate in Malaysia to escape harm from the financier and his associates because the financier’s bodyguards were always keeping an eye on her house.
As noted above, section 5AAA of the Act clarifies that it is the responsibility of an applicant to specify all particulars of their claims to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and to provide sufficient evidence to establish the claim. Applying this section of the Act, the Tribunal does not have the responsibility or obligation to specify or assist in specifying particulars of the claim or to establish or assist in establishing a claim. This is consistent with the well-settled proposition that it is for an applicant to make their own case.[1]
[1] Re Ruddock; Ex parte ApplicantS154/2002 [2003] HCA 60 (Gleeson CJ, Gummow , Kirby, Callinan and Heydon JJ, 8 October 2003) at [57] and [1]; WAKK v MIMIA [2005] FCAFC 225 (Marshall, Mansfield and Siopis JJ, 1 November 2005) at [73].
The applicant’s claims about this loan and the events that occurred after her friend, [Friend A], allegedly did not repay the loan are vague and lacking in detail. The applicant has not provided the full name of her friend [Friend A] or the reasons why the friend was in financial trouble when she sought assistance from the applicant. The applicant has not provided the date or approximate date on which the loan from the financier was obtained with the applicant being guarantor. She has not provided any details about the location of the financier’s business or any documentation evidencing the loan or the guarantee, despite claiming that the financier would use documentation about the loan against her. The applicant has not provided any dates or approximate dates on which her friend stopped paying the loan or when her friend went missing or when the financier first sought repayment of the loan from the applicant. The applicant has not provided any details about the claimed torture, violent messages or blackmail from the financier or his bodyguards including details about when and where this torture took place, the nature and extent of the torture, any injuries that the applicant suffered from this torture or any treatment she needed to seek for any such injuries, the contents of the violent messages, when the messages were received, by what method the messages were received, the dates or approximate dates when the financier’s bodyguards blackmailed her or how they blackmailed her. The applicant has also not provided any details about how she knew that the financier’s bodyguards were keeping an eye on her house when she was in Malaysia.
The Tribunal’s letter of 28 July 2023 inviting the applicant to a Tribunal hearing put the applicant on notice that the Tribunal had considered all of the material before it in relation to her application but was unable to make a favourable decision on that information alone. However, the applicant elected not to attend the Tribunal hearing and did not submit any further information or evidence to the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal considers that the applicant has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to provide further information and evidence to the Tribunal to support her claims for protection but has chosen not to do so. As the applicant has had a reasonable opportunity to provide further information and evidence, the Tribunal has proceeded to make a decision on the evidence before it without seeking any further information from the applicant.
Based on the vague and undetailed evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was ever a guarantor for a loan taken out by her friend, [Friend A], from a financier called [Person A] or that the financier ever sought repayment of this loan from the applicant as claimed. Also, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was ever tortured by the financier or his associates as claimed, that she ever received violent messages as claimed, that she was ever blackmailed as claimed or that the financier’s bodyguards ever kept an eye on her house in Malaysia as claimed.
Accordingly, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the applicant was never a guarantor for a loan taken out by her friend, [Friend A], with a financier called [Person A], that the financier never sought repayment of this alleged loan from the applicant, that the applicant was never tortured by or received violent messages from the financier or his associates, that the applicant was never blackmailed by the financier’s bodyguards and that the financier’s bodyguards never kept an eye on the applicant’s house in Malaysia as claimed.
The applicant has claimed that if she returned to Malaysia now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, she fears harm from a financier named [Person A] because he would be seeking repayment from the applicant as guarantor for the unpaid loan of her friend, [Friend A]. However, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal has found that the applicant was never a guarantor for a loan taken out by her friend, [Friend A], with a financier named [Person A] and the Tribunal has also found that this financier never sought repayment of the alleged loan from the applicant in the past in Malaysia. Accordingly, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that if the applicant returned to Malaysia now or in the reasonably foreseeable future that there is a real chance that she would suffer serious harm amounting to persecution for reasons of a financier called [Person A] seeking repayment by the applicant of an unpaid loan taken out by her friend [Friend A] for which the applicant was a guarantor as claimed.
The applicant has not made any other claims that she fears harm in Malaysia for any other reason and no other claims arise on the facts before the Tribunal.
Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied, on the evidence before it, that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.
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 has considered whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Malaysia, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm as defined in Section 36(2A) of the Act.
As outlined above, based on the applicant’s vague and undetailed claims, the Tribunal has already found that the applicant was never a guarantor for a loan taken out by her friend, [Friend A], with a financier named [Person A] and the Tribunal has also found that this financier never sought repayment of the alleged loan from the applicant as claimed. Apart from these claims relating to this alleged loan guarantee, the applicant has not made any claims that he fears harm for any other reason in Malaysia and no other claims arise on the facts before the Tribunal.
Having considered all of the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm if she were to return to Malaysia.
Accordingly, 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).

There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that the applicant has any right to enter and reside in any other country apart from Malaysia. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not excluded from Australia’s protection obligations pursuant to s 36(3) of the Act.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Peter Katsambanis
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 4020

29 August 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice

Jurisdiction