1724439 (Refugee)

[2023] AATA 1118

1724439 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 1118 (10 February 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1724439

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Nepal

MEMBER:L. Symons

DATE:10 February 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 10 February 2023 at 10:12am

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – Protection visa – Nepal – applicant failed to attend a hearing – political profile – member of the Communist Party of Nepal – claims are made in the most general terms – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 91, 499

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

CASES
MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559
Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155

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

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 14 September 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Nepal, arrived in Australia on [date] February 2017 as the holder of a subclass 600 Visitor visa that was valid until  [May] 2017. On 10 May 2017, he applied to the Department of Immigration (the Department) for a Protection visa. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that she was not satisfied that he was a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. On 9 October 2017, he lodged an application for review with the Tribunal.  

3. On 25 October 2022, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and informed him that it had considered the material before it but was unable to make a favourable decision on this information alone. The Tribunal invited him to appear before it on 24 January 2023 to give evidence and present arguments.

4. On 23 January 2023, the Tribunal received an email from the applicant requesting a postponement of the hearing until 31 January 2023 as a relative had died [and] he was in mourning. On 23 January 2023, the Tribunal wrote to him, informed him that his request for a postponement of the hearing had been granted and that he would be advised of the date for the postponed hearing.

5. On 23 January 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and invited him to appear before the Tribunal on 9 February 2023 at 9.00am to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in his case. The letter indicated that if he did not appear at the scheduled hearing the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking any further action to allow or enable him to appear before it or may dismiss his application for review without any further consideration of the application or the information before it. This letter was sent to him by email on 23 January 2023 to the email address he provided the Tribunal. The email was not returned to the Tribunal undelivered. He did not respond to the hearing invitation.

6. On 2 February 2022 and 8 February 2022, the Tribunal sent the applicant SMS messages to his mobile telephone number reminding him of the hearing date and providing him with a telephone number to contact the Tribunal if he had any questions. He did not contact the Tribunal.

7. The applicant did not attend the hearing scheduled on 9 February 2023 at 9.00am. An officer of the Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant by telephone at 9.09am on the mobile telephone number he provided the Tribunal but there was no response. He did not contact the Tribunal to explain his non-attendance at the hearing or to seek a postponement of the hearing.

8. The applicant also did not attend an interview with the Department on 13 September 2017 in relation to his application for a Protection visa. However, he did attend an interview with the Department for the purpose of providing his biometrics. In these circumstances, the Tribunal will proceed to make a decision on the review.

9. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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).

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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 AND FINDINGS

16. The applicant’s claims in his application for a Protection visa filed on 10 May 2017 are summarised as follows:

    ·He is a member of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). He was targeted by his enemies because of his political opinion.

    ·He received death threats from his enemies including supporters and members of the Nepal Congress Party. He was mentally and physically tortured by his political opponents because of his political activities.

    ·He sought help from the Police but the Police did nothing to investigate the matter. The authorities are not effective and the officials are corrupt.

    ·He tried to move to another area of Nepal but continued to receive threats on his life. He has to obey his Maoist leader, Netra Bikram Chand. He cannot relocate in Nepal to avoid harm as his enemies have a nationwide network.  

    ·He left Nepal in search of protection as he was targetted because of his political opinion. He will be tortured, persecuted, seriously harmed and killed if he returns to Nepal.  

17. The applicant provided the Department with a copy of the bio data page of his Nepalese passport issued [in] 2012 and valid until [2022].

18. The applicant stated in his application for a Protection visa, “please see my statement to follow”. On 8 September 2017, the delegate wrote to him and requested that he provide the Department with this statement. He did not respond.   

19. The applicant was invited to attend an interview with the Department on 13 September 2017. He failed to attend the interview and did not provide any explanation for his non-attendance. His application for a Protection visa was refused on 14 September 2017.

20. The applicant has filed with the Tribunal a copy of the Department’s Decision Record dated 14 September 2017. He did not provide the Tribunal with the statement referred to his in application for a Protection visa or any other evidence. 

    Receiving country

21. The applicant claims to be a citizen of Nepal and has provided a copy of the biodata page of his Nepalese passport to the Department. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal finds that he is a citizen of Nepal. The Tribunal finds that Nepal is his receiving country for the purpose of assessing his claims for protection under the refugee criteria and under the complementary protection criteria.

    Third country protection

22. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is outside his country of nationality. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that he has a right to enter and reside in any country other than his country of nationality.

    Assessment of claims

23. The mere fact that a person claims a fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is for the reason claimed or that it is well founded. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant himself/herself in as much detail as is necessary to enable the decision maker to establish the relevant facts. A decision maker is not required to make the applicant's case for him/her. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all of the allegations made by an applicant. (MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169 70.)

24. In this case, the applicant's claims are made in the most general terms and they are unsubstantiated. Despite stating in his visa application “please see my statement to follow”, he did not provide that statement to the Department when requested to do so and he did not provide it to the Tribunal. He has not filed any documentary evidence with the Department or the Tribunal to support his claims. He did not attend the interview with the delegate on 13 September 2017 and provide oral evidence. He did not attend the hearing before the Tribunal on 9 February 2023. If he had attended the hearing on 9 February 2023, the Tribunal would have been able to obtain further details of his claims and to test their veracity.

25. If the applicant had attended the hearing, the Tribunal would have sought additional information about whether his father or any other members of his family were members of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), when he became a member of this party, why he became a member of this party, whether he held any position in the party and what political activities he was involved in. The Tribunal would have ascertained how and why his political activities brought him to the adverse attention of opposing political parties. The Tribunal would have found out how he was targeted by his enemies and sought further details of the death threats he received and the mental and physical torture he was subject to by his political opponents.

26. If the applicant had attended the hearing, the Tribunal would have discussed with him when and how he sought help from the Police and how the Police responded. The Tribunal would have sought further information about his attempt to relocate within Nepal and the outcome. The Tribunal would have asked him why he now fears that he will be tortured, persecuted, seriously harmed and killed if he returns to Nepal. The Tribunal would have asked him whether he has been involved in any political activities whilst living in Australia. The Tribunal would have discussed relevant country information with him. The Tribunal would have found out why he delayed applying for protection after his arrival in Australia considering his claim that he left Nepal in search of protection.

27. On the limited evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is or was a member of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). It follows that the Tribunal does not accept any of his claims that flow from that. The Tribunal is not satisfied that he was or is of adverse interest to the members or supporters of any political party in Nepal or to the Nepalese authorities. The Tribunal is not satisfied that he left Nepal for the reasons claimed or that he fears returning to Nepal for the reasons claimed.

28. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm to the applicant, for the reasons claimed, if he returns to Nepal now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. 

    Does Australia have protection obligations to the applicant under the refugee criterion?

29. On the limited evidence before it and in view of the above findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for reason of his actual or implied political opinion or any other reason set out in s.5J(1)(a) of the Act, that there is a real chance that he would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of Nepal. Therefore, he does not meet the definition of refugee as set out in s.5H of the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a) of the Act.

    Does Australia have protection obligations to the applicant under the complementary protection criterion?

30. As the Tribunal has found that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal has considered whether he may nevertheless meet the criterion for the grant of a Protection visa pursuant to the complementary protection criterion.

31. On the limited evidence before it and in view of the above findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Nepal, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.

    CONCLUSION

32. 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) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.

33. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) of the Act on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act and who holds a Protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2) of the Act.

    DECISION

34. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

L. Symons

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.

…