1732984 (Refugee) - [2018] AATA 3651

1732984 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 3651 (31 August 2018)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1732984
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Greece
MEMBER:Christopher Smolicz
DATE:31 August 2018
PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Statement made on 31 August 2018 at 2:23pm

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Greece – Discrimination and economic hardship – Person from the outer islands of Greece – Effective protection in Europe – Citizen of the European Union – Right to reside and enter a third country – Decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 5H, 5J, 5K-5LA, 36, 65, 417, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
WAGH v MIMIA (2003) 131 FCR 269
Applicant C v MIMA [2001] FCA 229
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 18 December 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Greece applied for the visa on 26 October 2016.
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 (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.
Paragraph 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 themself 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…

Grounds of appeal

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

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

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

Consideration

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

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

Continue reading 1732984 (Refugee)

Details

AGLC: 1732984 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 3651
Case: [2018] AATA 3651
Decision Date: 31 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a protection visa made by a Greek national who arrived in Australia in 2013 and whose visa subsequently ceased. The applicant claimed to have left Greece due to discrimination and economic hardship, asserting that individuals from the outer islands faced discrimination from mainland Greeks and lacked legal protection. The applicant did not wish to provide oral evidence, consenting to a decision based on the available material, and indicated an intention to seek ministerial intervention.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically considering the provisions of section 36(3) of the Migration Act 1958. This section requires that a non-citizen must have taken all possible steps to avail themselves of a right to enter and reside in any country apart from Australia, including their country of nationality. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant possessed such a legally enforceable right to enter and reside in another country, and if so, whether they had exhausted all avenues to exercise it.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant, as a citizen of the European Union, had a right to enter and reside in other EU countries. It applied the established legal principle that for the purposes of section 36(3), this right must be legally enforceable and existing, not merely potential or past. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not demonstrated that he had taken all reasonable steps to avail himself of this right to enter and reside within the European Union. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of section 36(3).

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. It also noted that the applicant and his agent remained at liberty to seek ministerial intervention directly if they believed the case warranted it based on compelling or compassionate circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and relevant 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 On 3 August 2018 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising that it had considered all the material before it relating to the 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. On 5 August 2018 the applicant’s migration agent advised the Tribunal that the applicant did not wish to give oral evidence and consented to the Tribunal proceeding to make a decision on the review without taking any further action to allow or enable him to appear before it. The agent advised that the applicant requests that the appeal be refused. The applicant believes that he has compelling and compassionate circumstances to obtain a visa and will be seeking ministerial intervention. This matter has therefore been determined on the evidence available to the Tribunal. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.Issue The applicant has applied for a protection visa in order to enable him to seek ministerial intervention pursuant to s.417 of the Act. Background The applicant is [age] years old. He was born in Athens, Greece. In [year] he completed a [Course]. He arrived in Australia in September 2013 as the holder of a [temporary] visa. He travelled to Australia as the holder of a Greek passport. His visa ceased on 18 December 2013 and the applicant has not departed Australia. He declared that he was engaged to [an] Australian citizen whom he intended to marry. Summary of claims The applicant claims he left Greece due to discrimination and economic hardship. He claims that he is a person from the outer islands of Greece and mainland Greeks discriminate against islanders. He claims there are no laws to protect islanders in Greece. Effective protection in Europe Subsection 36(3) of the Act provides that Australia is taken not to have protection obligations to a non-citizen who has not taken all possible steps to avail himself or herself of a right to enter and reside in, whether temporarily or permanently and however that right arose or is expressed, any country apart from Australia, including countries of which the non-citizen is a national. The right to which s.36(3) refers is not merely a right to enter, but must consist of a right both to enter and reside.[1] The Federal Court has held that a 'right to enter and reside' as envisaged in subsection 36(3) must be a 'legally enforceable right.'[2] The Australian courts have held that the right referred to in s.36(3) must be an existing right and not a past or lapsed right, or a potential right or an expectancy.[3] [1] WAGH v MIMIA (2003) 131 FCR 269 per Hill J at [64]. [2] Applicant C v MIMA [2001] FCA 229 (Carr J, 12 March 2001), Kola v MIMA [2001] FCA 630 (Mansfield J, 30 May 2001) at [36], upheld by the Full Federal Court in MIMA v Applicant C (2001) 116 FCR 154 and Kola v MIMA (2002) 120 FCR 170 at [63] respectively.[3] [2001] FCA 1391 (Gray J, 2 October 2001).

Decision

Reasons for decision

It remains open to the applicant and his agent to make such a request for ministerial intervention directly to the Minister themselves if they believe that the applicant’s case meets the ministerial intervention guidelines or otherwise raises strong compassionate or compelling circumstances.DECISION The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.Christopher SmoliczMemberATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 19585 (1) Interpretation…cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:(a)severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or(b)pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;but does not include an act or omission:(c)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or(d)arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.…degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:(a)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or(b)that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.…torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:(a)for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or(b)for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or(c)for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or(d)for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or(e)for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.…receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:(a)a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or(b)if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.…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 them practice of his or her faith;(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):(a) that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and(b) the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and(c) the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:(a) a threat to the person’s life or liberty;(b) significant physical harassment of the person;(c) significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;(d) significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;(e) denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;(f) denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.5K Membership of a particular social group consisting of familyFor the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:(a) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and(b) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:(i)the first person has ever experienced; or(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.5L Membership of a particular social group other than familyFor the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:(a) a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and(b) the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and(c) any of the following apply:(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and(d) the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.5LA Effective protection measures(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:(i)the relevant State; or(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and(b) the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:(a) the person can access the protection; and(b) the protection is durable; and(c) in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system...36Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act… (2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:(a) the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or(b) the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or(c) the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or(d) the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or(e) the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:(a) it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or(b) the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or(c) the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.…

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision. Mandatory considerations In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and relevant 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 On 3 August 2018 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising that it had considered all the material before it relating to the 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. On 5 August 2018 the applicant’s migration agent advised the Tribunal that the applicant did not wish to give oral evidence and consented to the Tribunal proceeding to make a decision on the review without taking any further action to allow or enable him to appear before it. The agent advised that the applicant requests that the appeal be refused. The applicant believes that he has compelling and compassionate circumstances to obtain a visa and will be seeking ministerial intervention. This matter has therefore been determined on the evidence available to the Tribunal. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.Issue The applicant has applied for a protection visa in order to enable him to seek ministerial intervention pursuant to s.417 of the Act. Background The applicant is [age] years old. He was born in Athens, Greece. In [year] he completed a [Course]. He arrived in Australia in September 2013 as the holder of a [temporary] visa. He travelled to Australia as the holder of a Greek passport. His visa ceased on 18 December 2013 and the applicant has not departed Australia. He declared that he was engaged to [an] Australian citizen whom he intended to marry. Summary of claims The applicant claims he left Greece due to discrimination and economic hardship. He claims that he is a person from the outer islands of Greece and mainland Greeks discriminate against islanders. He claims there are no laws to protect islanders in Greece. Effective protection in Europe