1723545 (Refugee)

1723545 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 4363 (4 October 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1723545
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Malaysia
MEMBER:Jessica Henderson
DATE:4 October 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 04 October 2023 at 1:44pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection visa – Malaysia – claim was purely economic – loan shark – debt – gambling addiction – applicant could relocate to an area of Malaysia where he is not known – delay in applying for protection in Australia – applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution –credibility concerns – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 423, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other 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 is a citizen of Malaysia who applied for the visa on 18 July 2017. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the claim was purely economic and economic issues affect the country population generally.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 1 September 2023 and again on 4 October 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearings were conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Cantonese 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 the applicant meets either the refugee or complementary protection criteria. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Original claims
The applicant’s claims for protection and supporting evidence were correctly summarised by the delegate in the below terms;
a.The applicant claims that he left Malaysia because of a “political issue and economic issue.”
b.The applicant claims that if he returns to Malaysia he will not have a job and cannot support himself or his family.
c.The applicant claims that his friend suggested that he come to Australia.
d.The applicant claims that he did not seek protection from the Malaysian authorities because Malaysia has “bad economy and political issue.”
The first hearing
The applicant told the Tribunal at the first hearing that the reason he was afraid to return to Malaysia because he had gambled and owed loan sharks a lot of money. He said that he had never met the person who had filled out his visa application form for him, and that he didn’t know how to apply for protection himself.
The Tribunal adjourned the first hearing for fourteen days to allow the applicant an opportunity to provide a detailed statement about his claims for protection together with any supporting evidence he was able to gather.
Post hearing submissions
On 11 September 2023 the Tribunal received an email from the applicant in the following terms:
I was approached by a group of loan sharks; I cannot remember exactly how many people approached me neither how much the exact debt was. I estimate between 100 to 200 thousand ringgit. I had a habit of gambling before, and this is what accumulated the debt.
Around six to seven people were threatening and following me everywhere I went. They damaged my house and spray-painted it with red colour paint. My whole family was terrified and had to run away out from the house out of fear the attackers would come into the house and harm them, as they had harmed me. The loan sharks would find and approach my family and threaten them and cause harm to find out information as to where I was, when they found me they would badly harm me and none of my family members would have contact with me or talk to me out of fear. To the point I had no other possible opportunity but to move to Australia. Due to all the regret and trauma ever since that incident I have not gambled, and never will I gamble again. I have already lived within Australia for 10 years and have lived a very comfortable and peaceful life without fear. If I was to go back to Malaysia I would have no money to pay back the debt due to the interest that has piled up and I fear for my life. I also do not have any place to go over there as all my family members have abandoned me. The loan sharks will most definitely hunt me down and harm me, even worse kill me for not repaying the debt. There is no place within Malaysia I can go where they would not find me.
Second hearing
The Tribunal asked the applicant about his emailed statement during the second hearing, and the applicant said that he had dictated it to a friend, who wrote it in English for him. The Tribunal read the applicant’s email aloud, and it was interpreted for the applicant in Cantonese. The applicant confirmed that it was a correct statement, and that there was nothing he wished to change.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about his gambling problems. The applicant said that he had gambled in the casino, where he primarily played baccarat, and that he had also played poker with a group of people at home. He sometimes won, but when he lost he had to borrow money to pay what he owed and then he would borrow more money to keep gambling with. He was clear that he had stopped since coming to Australia.
The applicant said that he had found the details of various illegal money lenders through friends and also by picking up their business cards and calling the number on them. He said that he had borrowed money from six or seven different lenders but that they were all connected and knew about each other. He borrowed a total of about MYR100,000 principle, which attracted 5% interest for each payment instalment. He didn’t know the present total that he owed. He was already deeply in debt in 2012 when he was attacked by moneylenders, and he has not made any payments since arriving in Australia.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about the attack in 2012. He said that he was working in his usual job in construction engaging in [work] when the car pulled up and a group of men got out. They asked him to pay his loan and then beat him up when he was unable to give them money.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about the family he described in his email. He said this was his mother, his older brother and his two younger sisters. He said that he lived with them when the attacks by the illegal lenders occurred but that he moved out. He said his family also moved out of their house but that they moved back into it when the applicant came to Australia. The Tribunal asked where these family members were now, and the applicant said that his older brother was still in Malaysia, working[and] approaching retirement. His sisters are also in Malaysia; the older one is married and the younger works in a [workplace]. None of them have been bothered by debt collectors while the applicant has been in Australia – the applicant says this is because they do not have contact with him and have told the loan sharks that he’s in Australia and they have cut off relations with him.
The applicant says that he did not tell the police about the attacks on him, because the loan sharks would make more trouble for him and harm him more badly. He says that there are many such attacks in Malaysia and the police would only drop it even if he did report it. The Tribunal asked him if he knew anyone who had made a report to the police and he said no – most people threatened by loan sharks don’t report it.
Country information
The Tribunal referred the applicant to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Report for Malaysia dated 29 June 2021, which includes the following information:
3.114 The MCA’s Public Services and Complaints Department (PSCD) plays an intermediary role between loan sharks and Chinese Malaysian victims of loan sharks who are unable to repay their loans, and reportedly receives an average of 500 to 600 complaints regarding loan sharks each year. According to local media, the MCA reported that 16 cases of people owing loan sharks over MYR2.11 million (AUD670,000) had arisen in the first 19 days of January 2019 alone. Local media also reported that, in 2020, the PSCD received 140 complaints from victims who said illegal money lenders went after their families to try and extort them for payment. In 2015, the PSCD reported over 70 per cent of borrowers were Chinese Malaysian. Sources report the MCA can negotiate loan repayment settlements with repayment rates negotiated down to match the government rate.
3.115 The Malaysian Muslim Consumers Association (PPIM), which provides services predominantly for the Malay community has an established call centre that helps to educate (chiefly Malay) people on the dangers of borrowing from loan sharks and suggests alternatives, as well as helping victims to settle their debts. The PPIM maintains a Malay language website (ahlong.ppim.org.my) where people can report loan shark cases, and which also lists details of prior cases. Sources provide vastly differing views on the reasons individuals engage illegal moneylenders. Some claim that up to 80 per cent of borrowers are supporting gambling activities and other debts. Others claim borrowers are public servants trying to cover daily expenses such as children’s education, or businesses excluded from mainstream finance due to insufficient documentation, bankruptcy or a poor credit history.
3.116 The Moneylenders Act (1951; amended 2003 and 2011) gives police considerable investigative powers against alleged loan sharks. Police can visit, enter, inspect or search premises without a warrant, and seize moveable properties and business documents to assist with investigations against alleged loan sharks. Individuals involved in illegal moneylending activities in Malaysia can be convicted under Section 5(2) of the Moneylenders Act, which carries a fine of between MYR250,000 and MYR1 million (AUD80,000 – AUD320,000), or a jail term of up to five years, or both. Police have made several recent high-profile arrests and investigations of syndicates. In June 2020, police in Selangor arrested 18 people believed to be involved in loan shark activities. The arrests were part of a larger operation by police, tagged ‘Ops Vulture,’ which involved raids in five locations, culminating in 29 arrests between January and June 2020. In September 2019, the RMP arrested 21 people in Johor allegedly involved in syndicates illegally loaning money. In January 2019, the RMP arrested 13 suspects allegedly involved in a syndicate providing fraudulent loan applications resulting in total bank losses of MYR10.35 million (AUD3.28 million).
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he had approached anyone to try and help him negotiate with the loan sharks to repay the principle over time, and he said that he had not known about this.
The Tribunal drew the applicant’s attention to recent high-profile arrests by police and the applicant said he didn’t know what was happening in Malaysia because he had been gone for 10 years.
The Tribunal asked the applicant what he thought would happen to him if he returned to Malaysia and he said that first he would be unable to find a job at his age, and second the loan sharks would find him and kill him. He said that they had ‘their ways’ to find people, and that they would find him even if he went to a different state. The Tribunal asked him how he knew that and he said that he had tried it; he had moved to a different state twice to avoid the loan sharks and each time they found him and beat him up. He was unable to pay them much money on either occasion.
Refugee criteria
If the applicant’s evidence is taken at its highest, he does not meet the refugee criteria. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that his circumstances were affected by race, religion, nationality or political opinion. The harm that he fears arises because of a gambling addiction and a resultant unpaid debt. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the gambling was beyond the applicant’s choice or control; his evidence is that he gave it up when he came to Australia. Neither a proclivity to gambling nor a resultant debt is an immutable characteristic for the purpose of establishing a particular social group.
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).
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 applicant arrived in Australia on a tourist visa on [date] August 2013. He did not make a protection visa application until 18 July 2017. No reasonable explanation for the delay has been provided by the applicant.
Having delayed in seeking the protection visa, the applicant did not mention his gambling or his fear of loan sharks in the initial application. Section 423A of the Act provides for circumstances in which the Tribunal is required to draw an adverse inference about new claims or evidence. If an applicant raises a claim or presents evidence that was not raised or presented before the primary decision was made, then the Tribunal is to draw an inference unfavourable to the credibility of that claim or evidence, if it is satisfied that the applicant does not have a reasonable explanation why the claim was not made or evidence not presented before the primary decision was made.
The applicant says that the person who filled out his application for him didn’t ask him for a reason why he wanted to stay in Australia. He just asked the applicant if he wanted to stay in Australia legally and the applicant said yes. That is not a reasonable explanation why the matter of the gambling and the threat from loan sharks was not made prior to the first hearing of the matter before the Tribunal.
In any event, there is no evidence to support the applicant’s claims as currently pressed, aside from the applicant’s unsatisfactory account. His account of approaching debt collectors is vague, his claims to have been ‘beaten up’ lack detail, and he does not volunteer a cohesive chronological narrative. The applicant was unable or unwilling to descend into the level of detail required for the Tribunal to assess his credibility, and the changing tense in which he spoke made it difficult for the Tribunal to follow whether he was recounting something that had actually happened to him, or something that he thought might happen in the future.
The Tribunal does accept that the applicant has borrowed money from illegal lenders, and that he has on one occasion been beaten up by men sent to instil fear in him. That happened ten years ago, and the country information suggests that the attitude of the Malaysian authorities has significantly shifted in the time that the applicant has been in Australia.
Section 5AAA of the Act makes clear that it is the applicant’s responsibility to specify all particulars of a 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 the applicant in specifying, any particulars of his claims. Nor does the Tribunal have any responsibility or obligation to establish, or assist in establishing, the claim.
In the absence of any corroborating evidence, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has been beaten up on multiple occasions. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not wish to return to Malaysia because he does not want to repay the money that he borrowed to pay his gambling debts and is enjoying his fresh start in Australia. With respect, avoidance of a debt which was incurred because the applicant couldn’t resist the temptation to gamble is not grounds for protection pursuant to the complementary protection criteria.
There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where 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: s 36(2B) of the Act.
The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s evidence that the loan sharks have followed him around Malaysia as he relocated between different states, which was lacking in detail and was volunteered late in the hearing in response to the Tribunal pushing the applicant to explain why he thought relocation would not protect him. The Tribunal finds that the applicant could relocate to an area of Malaysia where he is not known and avoid even being pressed for repayment of his debt.

The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
Membership of a family unit
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.
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 4363

4 October 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Statutory Construction

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice