1806101 (Refugee)

1806101 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 2363 (8 March 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER: 1806101
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: China
MEMBER:Paul White

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 11:02am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – land dispute – inadequate compensation – participation in protests – departed country legally via airport – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65
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 Home Affairs on 16 February 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who is a citizen of China, applied for the protection visa on 31 October 2017. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that because the applicant did not attend his scheduled interview to discuss his claims for protection and the written material did not provide a sufficient basis to be satisfied that the applicant is facing persecution on account of his imputed political opinion or that he faced harm of any kind for such a reason on return to Peoples Republic of China.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 16 February 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages. The applicant gave evidence about his background, his migration history, and his claims for protection.
Relevant law
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Background
The applicant was born on [date]. He is [age] years of age. In his application to Immigration, he indicated he resided in [Village 1] Xian Shaanxi from August 2011 until August 2017. He is of Han ethnicity. He claimed in his application to Immigration that he had no religion. He said in the hearing that he believed in Buddhism. He has no family in Australia. He worked in [Country 1] and understands some Arabic and French. He also understands some English as he studied it at school in China.
The applicant married [in] January 2005. His wife, who lives in [named] Street, [Village 1], [District 1], Xian City, Shaanxi, remains in China. His wife stopped working about 10 years ago when she became sick with hepatitis. She has a National ID. The applicant’s daughter is about [age]. She is a college student who lives on campus during term and with her mother during her holidays. She encountered no problem enrolling in college in Shaanxi. The applicant said he now has limited contact with his wife because they have a tense relationship.
Immigration history
The applicant used his previous Chinese passport to travel to [Country 1] where he worked on construction from May 2010 until the end of 2011. His employment was organised by a company in China who recruits workers. When his passport expired in 2017, he applied for and obtained a new one without difficulty in July 2017. His current passport was issued in Shaanxi [in] 2017 and is valid [until] 2027. He was granted a tourist visa for Australia on 10^th August 2017.
The applicant departed China through [the] Airport [in] August 2017. He arrived in Australia [in] August 2017. He applied for a protection visa some two months after his arrival in Australia. In Australia he works in construction and has been doing so for much of the 7 years since he arrived. He supports his wife and daughter in China.
Claims to Immigration
The applicant claims:
I took part in the protest against the unfair house demolition and reported corrupt officials. I faced revenge and persecution. My town government notified me that our hometown area would be demolished and renovated. The developer explained the compensation to me with bad and arrogant attitude. They can only offer 1/4 of the market price. Our households would suffer huge losses. I strongly disagreed. So, my friend and I organised a protest with other relocation households. We came and gathered at the county government building.
Who could expect, shortly afterwards the protest, police(s) ransacked relocation households homes including my friend. I was lucky enough to escape. I heard that protestors were cruelly tortured in detention centre. The police knew that I took part in the protest too, so they wanted to arrest me. I was too afraid to go back to China. I fled to Australia and seek help.
The applicant claimed to Immigration that if he returned to China, he will be arrested by the Police. He claims he was convicted of opposing the Chinese Communist Party. He will be arrested in the prison and be abused to death. The applicant stated:
If I go back to China, officers colluding with the Police will continue to harm me. The whole political system is corrupted, and they work together with each other. They will not set me free.
Claims to the Tribunal
The applicant made no written claims to the Tribunal.
I asked the applicant why he left China. He said because income is low and not stable. He said he also left China because of the demolition of his house. He was not happy with compensation. He had a conflict with local government. His house was demolished in first half of 2017. He said he was offered two types of compensation by the developer: cash or alternative accommodation. He chose the cash option and received the 200,000RMB (about AUD48,000 today) for his family. Compensation was paid to him in August 2017 before he came to Australia. He used some of the money to travel to Australia. His family now rent their accommodation in China.
The applicant claimed that if he goes home police will come to his house and may take him to the local police station because of issues around the demolition of the house in 2017. I put to him that the demolition took place 7 years ago and he may not now be of interest to authorities. He said they have his case on file since August 2017 and when he goes back, they will come to him.
The applicant said that prior to this incident he had never had a problem in China or elsewhere. He had no problem with authorities until [date] August 2017 when police detained him. They used physical violence and hurt him. He said this happened because they wanted to build on his land. He was not happy with the amount of compensation. The applicant was not sure if he was arrested or simply detained. He claimed he was in detention for 7 days for interrupting the security of the state. He claimed that because of the conflict with government he was mistreated while detained. The applicant said he was not charged or taken to court. He said he was detained on [date] August and released on [date] August. He said he did not tell authorities he was going to Australia. He claimed that the police did not know he had a new passport.
The applicant claims that after he received his new passport, he applied for tourist visa to come to Australia as he had time to travel, and he liked the culture in Australia. At the time he applied for his visa he had no problem in China. He said the incident was a long time ago, so he did not remember details as it was quite painful to recall. I suggested that if it was such a significant event in his life it was likely he would remember details. He said he had no problems with authorities apart from this incident.
The applicant said he did not have any problems departing China. The police did not stop him because he did not cause any significant problem or social consequence. The police did nothing to prevent him travelling to Australia. I put to him that the police behaviour seemed to indicate that they did not care if he left China. He said, “I think that should be right, but I don’t know how they think.”
I asked what difficulty he might face if he returned to China. He said, “Not a big problem; it was not a serious case and I am not a criminal so it should be fine”. He said he applied for a protection visa because of his experience with police and it’s not likely he will have any big problem should he return as his difficulty is not serious as he is law abiding.
The applicant said he can work in China, but the economy is getting worse, and his salary will be low. He said he reads the news about economics and especially after Covid his friends and family tell him it’s difficult to live in China. He said that he could apply again to work in [Country 1]. The applicant said he can stay with family although they don’t have a house now and are renters.
Findings
I find that the applicant is a citizen of China and based upon the documentation he has submitted and his own evidence that his returning country is China.
I accept that, as the applicant says, he suffered no harm in China except for one week in August 2017. I accept that the applicant encountered some difficulty following his involvement in protests about compensation for his land being acquired by a developer with the support of local authorities. I accept that he was detained, physically harmed following his involvement in a protest about the demolition of his house. DFAT (Country Information Report People’s Republic of China 21 December 2021) indicates at 3.88 that:
Land disputes are a particularly common reason for protest. Rapid development and high levels of internal migration have led to an increase in contested development and displacement. Land policies and the process to compulsorily acquire land vary from place to place but, across China, land in urban areas is owned by the state and rural areas are collectively managed by villages. Disputes arise when local officials try to sell land and evict existing tenants with low amounts of compensation (thus, disputes are generally complaints against local government which may escalate to the national government, as outlined above). China’s new Civil Code (in force 1 January 2021) requires fair and reasonable compensation to be paid for expropriated land but does not define ‘fair and reasonable’. Land sales are an important source of revenue for local governments and corruption in land deals is commonly alleged. ‘Thugs’, who intimidate protesters or cut utility supplies, have been used and are allegedly hired by local governments.
DFAT Country Information Report People’s Republic of China 21 December 2017 that covers the period when the applicant departed China indicates:
5.26According to the Passport Law of the People’s Republic of China (2006), ordinary passport applicants must apply in person to the Entry-Exit Control Department of the Ministry of Public Security or the authorised county-level bureau where their hukou is registered. Applicants must provide their RIC, hukou, recent photos, and documents substantiating the reasons for their application. Once approved, a passport is generally issued within 30 days.
5.27Passports are readable visually and by computer and contain anti-forgery properties. Under the Passport Law, authorities can refuse passports to people who ‘will undermine national security or cause major losses to the interests of the State’.
5.30Chinese passports use sophisticated technology and Chinese authorities have a high surveillance capability, particularly at train stations, airports and ports. An ordinary citizen would find it difficult to bribe border protection agents because of sensitivities to corruption, and the professional and comparatively well-paid status of public security officials.
It is the DFAT assessment (at 3.88 Country Report PRC 22 December 2021) that people who organise or participate in protests over land, local corruption, or any other matter critical of the state are subject to a high risk of official discrimination. I find that the applicant was not subjected to any difficulty or discrimination following his release on [date] August 2017. Within 6 days of his detention the applicant departed China for Australia on a visa granted on the first day of his detention. The applicant obtained and retained all documents and visas necessary for him to depart China and travel to Australia and was not under any significant surveillance by either local authorities or those at the airport. I am satisfied that he was not considered a person who ‘will undermine national security or cause major losses to the interests of the State’ as he was not under surveillance and was not subjected to any discrimination following his release.
The applicant was paid compensation for himself and his family notwithstanding his protests. The applicant accepted the compensation in cash for this property notwithstanding his doubts about whether the amount was sufficient. The applicant’s daughter is a college student who resides on campus during her term time. There is no evidence to suggest the applicant, his daughter, or other family members face any discrimination or repercussions for reason of the applicant’s actions or encounters with officials in China in August 2017.
The applicant raised claims that he may face financial and economic hardship. However, there is no persuasive information before the Tribunal to suggest and the Tribunal does not accept that the conditions of generalised hardship brought about by a deteriorating financial situation which prevails in China would expose the applicant to a real change of persecution for any reason under 5J(1)(a).
Under 36(2B)(c) of the Act there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm if the Tribunal is satisfied that the real risk is faced by the population generally and is not faced by the applicant personally. The tribunal is satisfied that generalised hardship referred to is faced by the population generally and not by the applicant personally. The Tribunal finds that there is no real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm in China as a result of difficult financial circumstances and living conditions and any consequential hardship.
Further, it is the applicant’s own evidence that he does not anticipate major problems upon his return to China. The applicant stated he could obtain work in China or apply for work elsewhere should he return to China. This is a further indication that the applicant does not face a real chance of harm in the place to which he will return to in China.
I reject his claims that he will be subject to arrest, detention or discrimination of any kind should he return to China. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. I reject his claim that he faces any harm upon return for reason of any imputed political opinion arising out of a protest in August 2017 or for any other reason. I do not accept that he will face abuse in prison or that police will come to his house and take him to a local police station. I am satisfied that today he is of no interest to the Chinese authorities at a national or local level for reason of his involvement in any protests. He has given no indication that he intends to continue to protest. I find that the applicant is of no interest to the Chinese authorities for reason of any activity he undertook in China or for any other reason. I find that the applicant faces no real chance of serious harm should he return to China.
Does the applicant meet the refugee protection criterion?
Taking into account the findings set out above and the country information referred to in this decision and having considered the claims singularly and on a cumulative basis, the Tribunal is not satisfied that if the applicant returns to China now or in the foreseeable future that he faces a real chance of serious harm reason of his political opinion imputed or otherwise or for any reason set out in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act, or for any other reason. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the reasons set out in the Act, or for any other reason.
As the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution, it is not satisfied that the applicant meets the definition of refugee in s 5H(1). As the applicant does not meet the definition in s 5H(1), the Tribunal is not satisfied he is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Does the applicant meet the complementary protection criterion?
As the Tribunal has found that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act, it has considered whether the applicant meets the criterion for the grant of a protection visa under the complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa).

As the ‘real risk’ test under the complementary protection criterion imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test under the refugee criterion, for the same reasons as those set out above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not face a real risk of significant harm. Therefore, 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 China, 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).
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.
Paul White
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.
…

[2024] AATA 2363

8 March 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction