1801716 (Refugee)

1801716 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 3357 (19 July 2018)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1801716
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Vietnam
MEMBER:Denis Dragovic
DATE:19 July 2018
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 19 July 2018 at 2:50pm
CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Vietnam – Political opinion – Pro-democracy movement – Member of Viet Tan – Involved in protests in Australia – Photo posted on Viet Tan website – Particular social group – Failed asylum seeker – Government monitored protest – Activities undertaken for the purposes of strengthening protection claims – Real risk of significant harm – Unauthorised maritime arrival as a minor – Complementary protection – Decision under review remitted for reconsideration
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 5K, 5L, 5LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), 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 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 9 January 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant claims to be a citizen of Vietnam. He does not hold any identity documents and has not provided any to the Department. In earlier Departmental reviews he has been found to be a citizen of Vietnam upon the basis of his fluency in Vietnamese, his claims of being Vietnamese and efforts that had been undertaken by a Vietnamese diaspora organisation to help locate his family in Vietnam. Based upon previous efforts to ascertain the applicant’s identity, his own claims and his fluency in the Vietnamese language I find that the applicant is Vietnamese and that Vietnam is the receiving country and country of reference for this assessment. I also find that the applicant cannot avail himself of a right to enter and reside in a third country.
The applicant arrived in Australia on [date] July 2012 [age]. He came as an unauthorised maritime arrival and applied for a protection visa. On 5 August 2013 he was denied the visa. The decision was subsequently appealed to the Refugee Review Tribunal and similarly denied on 14 January 2014. The applicant was notified of a data breach which included his name on 19 June 2014. The applicant subsequently applied for a SHEV visa on 27 September 2016 and was refused by the Department on 9 January 2018. This review is a review of the SHEV refusal.
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm on the basis of being an orphan, his political opinion, religion, failed asylum seeker, his illegal departure or the data breach. The delegate found that the harm arising from being an orphan as described by the applicant did not amount to significant harm. Regarding the applicant’s political opinions, the delegate found them not to be genuine and that as such he would not continue to pursue his political views in Vietnam and those activities which he had undertaken in Australia would not lead him to face serious or significant harm. Regarding his status as a failed asylum seeker who had left illegally and was known to the authorities through the data breach the delegate found that Vietnam distinguishes between people traffickers and those who use the services and no information was known that persons in similar circumstances were being acted against by the government.
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.
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 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 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.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 (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Summary of the applicant’s claims: The applicant is a Vietnamese national who lost his mother and father early in life leaving him living with his stepmother who treated him harshly. An opportunity arose for him to leave Vietnam, so he did, by working on a boat that took him to Australia. When he was released into the Australian community the applicant was still a minor, he had few relationships and so became involved in the Vietnamese diaspora including with the Catholic Church and Viet Tan, a designated terrorist group by the Vietnamese authorities. Upon turning 18 he joined Viet Tan as a full-fledged member and has provided support to them ever since. The support has included receiving and processing information from informants in Vietnam and once participating in a protest. He fears returning to Vietnam for the reason of not knowing anyone, being a failed asylum seeker and his political activities.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
Evidence and findings of fact
The applicant left Vietnam when he was [age] years old without any documents. At the time of the decision the applicant was [age] years old.
The applicant hails from a town along the coast that is dependent upon fishing. It is a small village with about [number] families. He lived in a house that belonged to his dad who was originally from northern Vietnam but moved to the fishing village prior to the applicant being born. His biological mother passed away shortly after he was born and he was instead raised by his stepmother. His relationship with his stepmother was troubled following the death of his father. She forced him to stop his studies, but he admitted that it was at a time that aligned with his completion of the nine years of compulsory education. Instead of studying she required him to find work cleaning boats. Once a week he would go to church. I accept this as fact.
The applicant does not know if his father has siblings or the name of the village in northern Vietnam from which he had come. He has [stepbrothers] but he is not in contact with them, nor does he intend to be in touch as they are sons of his stepmother who he sees as having treated him badly. I accept this as fact.
The owner of the boat he was cleaning had a conversation with another boat owner about a trip being made to other countries. The applicant begged him that he wanted to go and was told that he should prepare with one or two days’ notice. The day before he was to depart he was informed that they would leave the next evening. At no time did they mention anything about money; instead he was supposed to help on board. I accept this as fact.
He left Vietnam because life was difficult. After his father passed away, he stated that his stepmother treated him roughly and as a burden. He didn’t go elsewhere in Vietnam because he feared being abused by policemen or thugs. He claimed that he didn’t know that the boat was heading to Australia. All he knew was that it was heading to another country. Perceiving life in any overseas country to be really good he left. I accept these statements as fact.
Since the applicant’s release from immigration detention in Australia the applicant claims to have attended church activities and other Vietnamese community activities in [State 1]. Through these activities he got in touch with Bloc 8406 and Viet Tan, which operate together in [State 1]. Prior to turning 18 he says that he participated in those groups’ activities and after turning 18 he claims to have become a member. He said that he has been involved in organising fundraising dinners and preparing signs for protests which Viet Tan would organise. He said that he first attended protests organised by the Vietnamese community along with Viet Tan in [Australian City 1] [in] 2018. The applicant submitted photos of him from the Viet Tan [social media] page. He said that he didn’t participate in any prior protests because he was busy.
Two letters were submitted claiming to be from Viet Tan’s [State 2] representative, [Mr A]. Both letters provide extensive information on the applicant, his work with Viet Tan and confirmation of his membership of the group. The Tribunal attempted to confirm the position of the author in the organisation. In response a letter was provided by [a Senior Office Holder] of Viet Tan on their letterhead confirming the authority of [Mr A](Tribunal folio 171).
The other activities that he claims to have been involved in include him receiving information via the internet from Viet Tan members in Vietnam and actioning it as required. I asked how he was doing this work but he refused to disclose the details. The responsibility, he explained, rotates across the membership on a weekly basis. I accept this to be true based upon the applicant’s general credibility and the substance of the letters submitted by [Mr A] .
A number of issues arise in the applicant’s case which I will now consider.
Consideration of harm for being a failed asylum seeker and leaving Vietnam illegally
The applicant fears that he will be arrested for leaving Vietnam illegally.
I read to him from the DFAT Country Information Report on Vietnam dated 21 June 2017:
5.15 Article 91 of the Penal Code 1999 states that ‘Fleeing abroad or defecting to stay overseas with a view to opposing the people’s administration’ is an offence. However, DFAT is unaware of any cases where this provision has been used against failed asylum seekers. Returns to Vietnam are usually done on the understanding that they will not face charges as a result of their having made asylum applications. In December 2016, a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between the Australian Department of Immigration and Border Protection and Vietnam's Ministry of Public Security, which provides a formal framework for the return of Vietnamese nationals ‘with no legal right to enter or remain in Australia, including those intercepted at sea’.
The applicant responded that in theory it is correct but that they don’t do what they say. He said that he has read on [a social media site] and other forums that the truth is the opposite. I asked if he didn’t believe that Australia had a framework with Vietnam for the return of nationals. He believes that there is such an agreement and that it was signed but doesn’t believe the Vietnamese authorities. If he is returned he claimed that he will face harassment from them. Security forces such as the police in Vietnam would harass him. He believes that local authorities would be contacted by Vietnamese immigration and he would be handed to them. I put to him that based upon the DFAT report it seems likely that they would let him through immigration and no one would know.
I also read to him the following paragraph from the DFAT report:
5.16 Vietnamese nationals who depart the country unlawfully, including without travel documents, may be subject to a fine upon return under Article 21 (regarding ‘Violations of the regulations on exit, entry and transit’) of the Decree on Sanctions against Administrative Violations in the Sector of Security and Social Order. A fine of between VND2 million and VND10 million (approximately AUD120-600) is specified for leaving Vietnam without a passport or equivalent, departing without undergoing official exit procedures, or departing using another person’s documents.
He responded that even if he believed what is said he would have to pay 10 times the amount because of corruption. He knows about this because it is shared with him by people who are experienced in it and because of what he has read on social media. I asked if he would be able to pay the fine if it was VND10 million, to which he responded that he can afford to pay but repeated that it doesn’t stop there.
I read to him the following paragraph from the DFAT report:
5.17 While some returnees can be briefly detained and interviewed, DFAT assesses that long-term detention, investigation and arrest is conducted only in relation to those suspected of involvement in organising people-smuggling operations.
He responded that it is his understanding that if you want to process it all quickly you have to sign a document with any and all sorts of allegations and then they let you go but subsequently they would ask you to come back, fine you and make you pay more money.
The applicant did not provide any supporting documentation for such claims other than having read it on [social media pages]. In deciding which evidence to give greater weight I place more weight on the DFAT report for the reason of its providence and the level of research undertaken to arrive at these conclusions. As such I find that the applicant would be required to pay a fine, that he is able to pay such a fine but otherwise would not be detained or further questioned and instead released. As such I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm for the reason of being a failed asylum seeker who left Vietnam illegally.
Consideration of sur place activities
The applicant claims that his membership of Bloc 8406 and Viet Tan place him in danger were he to return to Vietnam.
The Viet Tan Party is an opposition party run in exile which is considered by the Vietnamese government as a terrorist group.[1] Country information shows the Vietnamese government takes a strict stance against the organisation:
·Two Vietnamese have been convicted of ‘attempting to overthrow the people’s administration’ for among other things having received training and funding from Viet Tan abroad.[2]
·A Vietnamese-American was detained for nine months awaiting trial solely for being a member of Viet Tan.[3]
·14 members of Viet Tan were convicted to between three and 13 years in prison for ‘subversion of the administration’ by actively participating in and being members of Viet Tan.[4]
[1] Radio Free Asia, Vietnam: Rights lawyer disbarred, 16 August 2011, available at: [accessed 12 June 2018]
[2] Radio Free Asia, Vietnam: Rights lawyer disbarred, 16 August 2011, available at: [accessed 12 June 2018]
[3] Radio Free Asia, Vietnam: Activist returns home dejected, 31 January 2013, available at: [accessed 12 June 2018]
[4] UN News Service, UN human rights office concerned over convictions of 14 activists in Vietnam, 11 January 2013, available at: [accessed 12 June 2018]
Regarding the applicant’s participation in the [Australian City 1] protest a photo was submitted which shows him holding a sign with[details deleted]. Viet Tam asked him for permission to put the photo on [social media] and he gave it. I asked why he travelled to [Australian City 1] a week before this hearing to participate in a protest and hold a sign and allow the photograph to be posted on the [social media] page of a group designated by the Vietnamese government as a terrorist group. He said that he did that as a representative of Viet Tan [State 2]. I asked why he had to have a photo taken holding a sign. He said that he was fighting for something that he believes in. I asked why he allowed it to be posted. He said that he didn’t think that the photo in of itself was dangerous but all of the other activities that he is involved in make it dangerous. Other than that single protest he has not participated in any others.
I read to the applicant a section of the reference letter from Viet Tan [State 2]:
With members like [applicant’s name deleted] who’s future in Australia we are unsure of, there was a concerted effort to minimise evidence of his involvement in Viet Tan as much as possible, on the unfortunate chance that he would one day have to return to Viet Nam.
I put to him that it seems that even if information was made available of his involvement with Viet Tan, this would then reduce his level of risk. He responded that maybe his involvement won’t be revealed as much but his membership of and activities in the party are equal to anyone else’s and that puts him at a risk.
I now consider the applicant’s participation in the [Australian City 1] protests and specifically whether the motivation was genuine and not undertaken in bad faith as per s.5J(6) of the Act. I have found earlier that since being released into the community the applicant had participated in a single trip to [Australian City 1] to protest against the Vietnamese regime which coincided with the week before his hearing. I also note that he has not undertaken any online political activism. I find that his participation in the [Australian City 1] protests including allowing for his photo to be used in the group’s [social media] page was undertaken in bad faith and solely for the purpose of strengthening his claim to be a refugee. As such I disregard the above discussed conduct engaged in by the applicant when considering whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution.

I now turn my mind to whether the applicant’s activities in Australia would lead to the applicant facing a real risk of significant harm as legislated through complementary protection which does not have a provision to exclude behaviour that is found to be undertaken in bad faith. In this situation the applicant’s photo has been posted on the website of an organisation that the Vietnamese government considers to be a terrorist group. Country information referenced above shows that members of this group which he is, both local residents and foreign nationals, are treated harshly. Country information indicates that as of 2005 the Vietnamese government did monitor protests and nationals living in Australia:
Officials from the Ministry of Public Security are posted in Vietnamese embassies and consulates abroad and are given the task of monitoring the activities of overseas Vietnamese as well as Vietnamese citizens traveling abroad. Trusted members of the Vietnam Communist Party living abroad are often asked to report on their fellow Vietnamese to security officials. This is particularly the case with respect to university students.[5]
No evidence is available to suggest that this situation has changed.
[5] Thayer, Carlyle A., ‘Comments for the Australian Refugee Review Tribunal’, Johns Hopkins University Washington, D.C., 18 March 2005, quoted in RRT Country Research, Research Response VNM17238, 24 March 2005 (Q1-2)
I find the government would have monitored the protest the applicant participated in. I find that the Vietnamese government would have identified the applicant as a member of Viet Tan. I find that were the applicant to return to Vietnam under his own identity the authorities would identify him and connect him to the ‘terrorist’ activities that he has undertaken in Australia. Considering the earlier mentioned country information on government action against members of Viet Tan at [31] I find that there is a real risk that the applicant will face significant harm were he to return to Vietnam.
The persecutor in this case being the state of Vietnam which controls the entire territory of Vietnam does not allow the applicant an option to relocate nor seek state protection.
The risk the applicant faces is specific to him and is not one that is faced by the general population.
The applicant cannot modify his behaviour to avoid the harm as the source of the risk is in his past behaviour which I found will be known to the Vietnamese state.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Denis Dragovic

Senior 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.
…
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 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.
..
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.
…

[2018] AATA 3357

19 July 2018

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Remedies

Standing