1802993 (Refugee)

1802993 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 2167 (8 March 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER: 1802993

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Malaysia
MEMBER:Rebecca Mikhail
DATE:8 March 2024
PLACE OF DECISION: Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 08 March 2024 at 10:46am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – particular social group – women – family violence – infertility – divorce – state protection – employment – mental health – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 424, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505
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

The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Malaysia, arrived in Australia [in] August 2016 on an Electronic Travel Authority visa.
On 5 June 2017 the applicant applied for a permanent protection visa.
On 12 January 2018 a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs refused the grant of the visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
This is an application for review of that decision.
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the refugee criterion and, if not, whether they are entitled to complementary protection. The relevant law and mandatory considerations are set out in the attachments.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
APPLICANT’S CLAIMS FOR PROTECTION AND EVIDENCE
Before the Department
The applicant’s claims, as outlined in her application for protection, can be summarised as follows:
·She was born in Kuala Lumpur in [specified year].
·She was married for six years and did not have a child. A specialist told her that she could not conceive due to infertility problems.
·Her family-in-law applied pressure on her until she wanted to kill herself. She suggested adoption but they refused.
·They forced her to consent to her husband marrying another person.
·If she returns to Malaysia, she will likely face more pressure which may force her to kill herself.
The applicant did not provide any further supporting documentary evidence in relation to her claims to the Department of Home Affairs (the Department).
The applicant was not invited to an interview with a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs in relation to her application for protection.
The delegate refused the grant of the visa on the basis that, if the applicant were to return to Malaysia and needed assistance from the authorities, that protection would not be withheld from her and was not satisfied that there was a real chance the applicant would suffer serious harm on return to Malaysia as a ‘women subjected to domestic violence in Malaysia’ or for any other reason. The delegate also found that there was no real risk of the applicant facing significant harm.
Review application
On 5 February 2018 the applicant lodged an application for review of that decision with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal). She provided the Tribunal with a copy of the delegate’s decision record with her application. She was not represented in relation to this review.
On 1 March 2024 the applicant appeared before the Tribunal. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Malay and English languages. The applicant was able to communicate in English throughout the majority of the hearing but utilised the interpreter when she needed. During the hearing the applicant provided evidence in relation to her background and claims for protection. During the hearing, the applicant raised the following claims:
·She was born and raised in Selangor where she lived with her parents and [siblings]. Her family remains living in Selangor.
·She got married in approximately May 2013. Her husband was physically abusive and had a relationship with another person during their marriage. She left the marriage one month prior to departing for Australia and moved back in in with her family prior to leaving for Australia. In 2020 she and her ex-husband mutually agreed to get divorced, and they are now divorced. He has since married someone else and has a child with his new wife.
·She completed [school] in [year] and started a [course 1] in Malaysia but did not complete it.
·She worked in Malaysia in various roles since [specified year] including as [an occupation 1] and in administration in various companies up until 2016.
·She travelled to Australia as a tourist in July 2016 after being invited by her [school] friend to travel with her to Australia. She wanted to forget about her experiences in Malaysia, so she went with her friend to the Gold Coast on holiday. After being there for several days, they met a Malaysian man who offered them work and she and her friend agreed. She worked in various parts of Australia [doing occupation 2] and realised she was making good money so that is why she stayed in Australia.
·She applied for a protection visa in June 2017 because she did not have a visa and she wanted the right to work. She was able to get work rights via her bridging visa in December 2021.
·She moved to Sydney in 2022 to live with her new de facto partner who is also a Malaysian national.
·She is afraid of returning to Malaysia because she had been bullied about her weight during one of her previous jobs there. She was also told in Australia that she would not be able to [do occupation 2] because of her weight. She claims nobody will give her work in Malaysia because she is [age] years old, she does not have a higher degree and because of her weight. She also claimed the economy in Malaysia is down.
·She also fears returning to Malaysia because she does not get along with her mother and siblings and she is afraid they will not accept her.
·She is also afraid of returning to Malaysia as she concerned it will impact her mental health as she has to start her life over again.
·She does not want to return to Malaysia because she feels comfortable in Australia and wants to continue her life here.
The applicant did not provide any further supporting documentary evidence in relation to her claims to the Tribunal.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
REFUGEE ASSESSMENT
Nationality
With the application for protection, the applicant provided a certified copied of her Malaysian passport and identity card. I am satisfied she is a national of Malaysia and that Malaysia is the receiving country for the purpose of this assessment.
Credibility
I found the applicant to be a generally credible witness and I accept her evidence in regard to her claimed experiences in Malaysia and in Australia.
At the beginning of the hearing, I explained to the applicant the criteria applicable to the grant of a protection visa. At the end of the hearing, I noted my general concerns to the applicant, that is, that I may find her claims do not meet the criteria for a protection visa. She agreed and said her claims were not relevant to being a refugee and were not connected to the definition of a refugee, but she still wished to remain in Australia.
I have considered each of her claims below.
Previous marriage
During the hearing, when I asked the applicant why she feared returning to Malaysia, she did not refer to her experiences in her previous marriage and the claims she raised in her application for protection. I then raised with these claims with her at hearing. She confirmed that she was unable to fall pregnant during that marriage and that her mother-in-law requested her consent for her ex-husband to marry someone else so he could have a child and the applicant’s response to this request was to be quiet. She said she left the marriage because she felt she gave up on it because he was physically abusive and did not consider her feelings. She said her family was indifferent that she had left her marriage and told her that she had been unfortunate in marrying such a man. She noted they were now divorced. When I asked if she had any fears on return to Malaysia in regard to her previous marriage, she said she did not, because her ex-husband had since remarried and has a happy family and she has no relationship with him. I accept the applicant’s claims in this regard. On the evidence before me I am not satisfied she will face a real chance of harm from any group or person due to her previous marriage, and the problems that arose during that marriage, if she were to return to Malaysia. I am not satisfied she has a well-founded fear of persecution in relation to her previous marriage.
As I have found the applicant will not face a real chance of harm from any group or person due to her previous marriage if she were to return to Malaysia. As such, I am not satisfied she will face a real risk of significant harm in Malaysia in relation to her previous marriage.[1]
Relationship with family
[1] MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505.
During the hearing the applicant explained that she is not in contact with her mother and siblings who do not appear to want to talk to her. She says they fought in the past because she was unable to get a good job in Malaysia so she did not have money to give to her mother or siblings. She said her siblings also have a good level of education, so they sometimes used to call her ‘stupid’. They also used to call her fat and ugly. She said she felt useless when she was with her family. She came to Australia to prove to her family that she can achieve something. She also says that she is still in contact with her father who understands her better. He has condoned her current relationship with her de facto partner. She sends money to her father to give to her mother. She said she wants her mother to feel proud of her. She said she does not think her mother and siblings will accept her if she returns to Malaysia, but she is not sure and noted she still single and had been married. When I asked the applicant why her mother and siblings do not want to talk to her, she said previously she had a bad attitude and was stubborn about everything and did not listen to them. She said her family were controlling and restrictive and she did not want to listen to them. She gave the example of not wanting to continue her higher studies because she was struggling to understand the content and did not have friends at college.
At hearing, I noted to the applicant that her fears in regard to her family may not meet the definition of a refugee or complementary protection. I also noted that, given she was still in touch with her father, I may not accept that her family would not offer her support if she were to return. In response she said she accepted my concerns and appeared to acknowledge that her claims did not meet the definition of a refugee or complementary protection.
On the evidence before me, although I accept the applicant has had a strained relationship with her mother and siblings in recent years for the reasons she has given, as she is still in touch and has maintained a positive relationship with her father who remains living with his wife and one of their children, I am not satisfied that there is a real chance her family will reject her and not offer her support, if she were to return to Malaysia. I am not satisfied she has a well-founded fear of persecution in relation to this claim.
As per my findings above I am not satisfied that there is a real risk the applicant’s family will reject her and not offer her support if she were to return to Malaysia. As such, I am not satisfied the applicant will face a real risk of significant harm in relation to her relationship with her family.
Inability to find work
At hearing, I noted to the applicant the country information before me indicates that Malaysia’s unemployment rate at end of 2023 had declined to the pre-pandemic level of 3.3% while the labour force participation rate was at a historic high in 2023.[2] I noted to the applicant that I may not accept that she will be unable to find any work for the reasons she has given, that is, because she is [age] years old, she does not have a higher degree, her weight or because of the Malaysian economy. I noted to her that she had been able to find work in Malaysia previously and was able to find another job after experiencing harassment in one role and even without a higher education. She agreed that she had been able to find work in [an industry] in Malaysia after experiencing harassment about her weight in a previous job but said she had decided to stay in Australia. I also noted to her that being [age] years of age did not appear to be too old to find any work. She indicated she accepted my concerns.
[2] ‘Economic and Financial Developments in Malaysia in the Fourth Quarter of 2023’, Bank Negara Malaysia, 16 February 2024 available at
I am not satisfied there is a real chance the applicant will be unable to find any work on return to Malaysia in the reasonably foreseeable future for the reasons she has claimed or any other reason. On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution in relation to her concerns about finding work on return to Malaysia due to the economy and her weight, age, or education, individually or cumulatively. I am not satisfied she has a well-founded fear of persecution in relation to this claim.
I am not satisfied there is a real risk the applicant will be unable to find any work on return to Malaysia in the reasonably foreseeable future for the reasons she has given. As such, I am not satisfied the applicant will face a real risk of significant harm in Malaysia on the basis of her concerns about finding work on return to Malaysia due to the economy, her weight, age, and education, individually or cumulatively.
Mental Health
As noted, when I asked the applicant what she thinks would happen to her if she were to return to Malaysia at hearing, the applicant also said that she has nothing there and she must start again, and she does not know she will be able to ‘endure’, and her mental health will be impacted.
At hearing, I noted to the applicant that I may not find her concerns in relation to her mental health meet the criteria for a protection visa. She said she was not ready to go back to Malaysia and did not want to go back.
The applicant has not claimed that she would be harmed or targeted as a result of her mental health.
I accept that the applicant’s potential return to Malaysia may cause her stress which may impact her mental health as she does not want to return and start her life over again there. I am not, however, satisfied that this amounts to persecution as it does not involve an act perpetrated by a third party, nor does it involve systematic or discriminatory conduct.
I am not satisfied the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis that her mental health may be adversely impacted if she were to return to Malaysia.
Even if the applicant’s potential return to Malaysia may impact her mental health, I am not satisfied that this amounts to significant harm. As previously noted, any impact on her mental health does not involve the conduct of a third party. It also does entail the requisite intention requirements in the s 5(1) definition of cruel or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the Act nor does it amount torture or the arbitrary deprivation of her life or the death penalty. I am not satisfied there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm because her mental health will be impacted by her return to Malaysia.
General preference to stay in Australia
At hearing, I noted to the applicant that her general claim to prefer to stay and work in Australia may not meet the criteria for a protection visa. In response she said she hoped to continue to work and stay in Australia
I am not satisfied her claim in this regard amounts to a well-founded fear of persecution in Malaysia.
I am also not satisfied there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Malaysia, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm on the basis of her general claim to prefer to stay and work in Australia.
The applicant does not meet the requirements of the definition of refugee in s.5H(1). I am not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is also not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Rebecca Mikhail
Member

ATTACHMENT A - 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). 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 Attachment B.
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 Attachment B.
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.
ATTACHMENT B - 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.
…

[2024] AATA 2167

8 March 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Procedural Fairness

Natural Justice

Appeal