1807538 (Refugee)

[2023] AATA 1397

1807538 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 1397 (22 February 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mrs Madhu Warnakulasuriya (MARN: 1068979)

CASE NUMBER:  1807538

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Sri Lanka

MEMBER:Genevieve Hamilton

DATE:22 February 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 22 February 2023 at 2:07pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Sri Lanka – political opinion – supporter and campaigner for opposition party – threats and attacks by local leader and supporters of governing party, and relative killed – new claim of marriage to homosexual man who withheld his orientation from her – country information – no reports to police or supporting evidence provided – husband’s protection visa refused – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), 65(1)

CASES
Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33

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

BACKGROUND

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs refusing to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 14 July 2015. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 6 March 2018.

3. The applicant attended a hearing of the Tribunal on 12 December 2022.  The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Sinhala and English languages.

4. The applicant was represented in relation to the review.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

5. Under section 65(1) of the Act a visa may be granted only if the decision maker is satisfied that the criteria for the visa prescribed in the Act are met.

6. The criteria for a protection visa are relevantly set out in s 36 of the Act.  An applicant must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2). Generally speaking, they must either be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion (s 36(2)(a)), or on ‘complementary protection’ grounds (s 36(2)(aa)), or be a member of the same family unit as such a person. 

7. Under s 36(3) Australia does not have protection obligations to an applicant who has not taken all possible steps to avail themselves of a right to enter and reside in a third country.

   Refugee

8. Refugee is defined in the Act.  A person is a refugee if they are outside the country of their nationality (of if they have no nationality, their country of former habitual residence) 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).  

9. 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.

10. The criterion in s 5J(1) contains a subjective requirement, that an applicant must in fact hold a fear of being persecuted, but also imposes an objective standard, that there be a real chance the person would be persecuted.  A 'real chance' is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility: Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379.

11. The persecution must involve serious harm such as a threat to the person’s life or liberty or significant physical harassment or ill treatment, significant economic hardship that threatens their capacity to subsist, or denial of access to basic services or capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens their capacity to subsist (ss 5J(4) and (5)).

12. A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to them in the receiving country (ss 5J(2) and 5LA).  A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecutionif the person could take reasonable steps to modify their behaviour to avoid persecution (s 5J(3), which also gives examples of types of modifications that are not required, such as concealing one’s religion, political opinion, race or sexual orientation). 

13. In determining whether the person has a well-founded fear of persecution, any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless they satisfy the Minister that they engaged in the conduct for a reason other than to strengthen their claim to be a refugee (s 5J(6)).

    Complementary Protection

14. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion, they may still be a person to whom Australia has protection obligations if there are substantial grounds to believe that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm.  S 36(2A) defines significant harm as arbitrary deprivation of life, carrying out of the death penalty, torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  “Real risk” has the same meaning as “real chance”: MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33.

15. Under s 36(2B) Australia does not have complementary protection obligations where:

    ·it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that they will suffer significant harm;

    ·the applicant could obtain protection from an authority of the country, such that there would not be a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    ·the risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and not by the applicant personally.

    Mandatory considerations

16. 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.

    Claims and evidence

17. In her protection visa application the applicant said she was born in [Town], Sri Lanka, on [Date] and is a Sri Lankan citizen.  She speaks, reads and writes Sinhalese, is ethnically Sinhalese and her religion is Buddhist.  At that stage she was single.  Her occupation is [Occupation].  She left Sri Lanka legally on a Sri Lankan passport.  She had a visitor visa for Australia issued on 7 May 2015, and left Sri Lanka [in] June 2015.  Before coming to Australia she was working at a [Workplace] in her [home town], since 2013. 

18. The applicant claimed that after she left Sri Lanka people from the local leader of the current government came and searched for her and told neighbours if she returned they would catch her.  She was having a good time helping the opposition party as a ground level supporter.  She believed that is why they were searching for her.  She called the local leaders of her Party but they said they could not help.  The authorities could not help her because of political power.  Asked whether she had experienced harm in Sri Lanka the applicant ticked “no”.

19. The applicant supplied a handwritten letter on what purports to be Sri Lankan Parliament letterhead, with the stamp of [Mr A], dated 14 September 2015, stating that the applicant was well-known to him as a member of a family interested in politics, advancing the activities of the SLFP in [Town].  Her family was under threat by opponents and she is in a very dangerous situation.  The letter was accompanied by a certified translation. 

20. The applicant also submitted a document written in Sinhala, accompanied by a certified translation which is an affidavit written by her aunt in [Town], dated 17 September 2015, stating that the applicant was the daughter of her deceased sister who grew up under her guardianship, and had held responsible offices in various associations of the UPFA.  Her only brother lives in Australia.  Because of her keen interest in past presidential elections she is under threats.  Her opponents have grudges and are trying to take revenge. 

21. The applicant was interviewed by a Department case officer in relation to her protection application.  She stated that she was married [in] August 2015, to a Sri Lankan who came to Australia on a boat and had lodged a protection visa application. 

22. She said she had worked for a political party.  Asked who might harm her on return to Sri Lanka she said she could not name one specific person, it could be someone from her own party or the opposition side.  Asked why she would be harmed, she said that she was a door to door campaigner and had been able to persuade people to support her party.  She was with the United [People’s] Freedom Alliance.  Asked why she joined this group the applicant said it was because her father was threatened at gunpoint and his properties were taken over by these people.  Asked who she was referring to the applicant said she didn’t know exactly who it was but there was a local thug she thought was responsible. 

23. Asked which policies she supported in the UPFA the applicant said she had grown up during the civil war and had to go through checkpoints and witnessed bombings.  In 2008 or 2009 she joined, and there would be meetings in the local Temple.  She outlined the different regions in the electorate and the role of the youth movement she was involved with.  She remained involved until she came to Australia. 

24. Asked if she was harmed the applicant said there was a UNP person in the village who did not like the UPFA people.  He associated with thugs, for example a person called [Mr B].  [Mr B] came up to her while she was walking home from shopping one day, pulled her hair and told her to stop working for (Candidate) [Mr C], and then cut her hair off.  She didn’t report it to police because she had no one to speak for her, she had no parents.  A cousin, on her maternal aunt’s side, had got involved in the altercation.  Later, [Mr B] turned up to the [Workplace] she was working at (owned by her aunt) really drunk.  He later stabbed someone 17 times.  Now he is out of gaol.  Two months before she came to Australia she got off a bus and some people came om a motorbike and attacked her legs and hands with a chain.  She came to Australia in a wheelchair.  She can’t get police protection because she is by herself.  Everything depends on money or doing the police a “favour”. 

25. The Case Officer asked why none of this detail was in the protection visa application.  The applicant said she didn’t tell her lawyer the whole story.  They didn’t advise her what needed to be said or how to say it.  

26. The case officer noted that the UPFA was now one of the major ruling parties.  The applicant said the SLFP, which was her Party in the alliance, was only a minor player.  In any event they don’t care about helping the small people. 

27. After a short break the applicant was invited to raise any other claims.  She said she was married to a homosexual.  She did not know that he was a boat person when they married.  She only found out about his homosexuality afterward.  This would cause her problems in Sri Lanka.  The Case Officer noted that this was a new claim and asked that it be put in writing. 

28. The applicant provided a written statement dated 25 February 2018.  She described how she got into politics after leaving school, helping a candidate called [Mr D].  Her uncle did not like it.  A thug in her village known as [Mr E] threatened her directly, and her uncle, about her political activities.  Her uncle forbad her from leaving the house but she went anyway.  She was assisted by another person called Uncle [F]. 

29. In 2009 she was waiting for a bus to go to [Educational Institution] in [City].  [Mr E] followed her onto the bus and threatened her with a razor blade, she slapped him.  After this she decided to take a break form politics and went to live at her father’s maternal house in Colombo.  She worked as [an Occupation].  She found out that her Colombo relatives had swindled her father out of his property.  Her cousin made advances to her, the relatives did not help her.  She decided to go home, but before she could the cousin tried to sexually assault her.  She hit him with a bottle.  Next day she returned to her village.  She remained traumatised by this incident. 

30. Uncle [F] got her involved in politics again, and again she was intimidated.  Once while campaigning a group of people threatened to acid her face.  One of them wanted to start a love affair with her.  One day when she was coming home from town a group of people followed her, threatened and slapped her, pulled her hair and cut it off.  Her “cousin brother” came and fought them off and took her to a salon to get her hair straightened out.  About a week later she was working at one of the [Workplaces] that belonged to her maternal aunt’s son.  The group of thugs came and made a havoc.  Her “cousin brother” was later stabbed to death.  She found out it was [Mr B], who worked for [Mr G], a local UNP leader.  She thought it was because of her political activities.  After the 2015 Presidential election, when her party was defeated in her electorate, violent behaviour towards its supporters escalated in the area.  The applicant was attacked shortly before coming to Australia causing her to arrive in a wheelchair, and still has scars on her knees.  The applicant was under a lot of physical and psychological distress and once tried to take her own life.  She had suffered for 28 years and been attacked and ill-used.  These things were not known to her lawyer or husband because they may impact her personal life. 

    The hearing

31. The applicant said her mother died of cancer in 1999 and her father, who was a heavy drinker, in 2008 from liver disease.  As a child she lived with her family in Dehiwela in a rental house.  After her mother died she went to live with her mother’s relatives in [Town] and her father drifted around among his relatives. 

32. The applicant said she did politics from 2008 until 2014-2015, for the UPFA alliance, as part of the local youth organisation.  She described her activities and the candidates she helped during different elections. 

33. The applicant discussed the occupants of the “main house” (her father’s family’s home), where she lived while working for [Employer] at one stage.  She found out that the house belonged to her father but an aunt got it put into her name.   She went back to [Town] after the incident with the cousin.  Asked whether she expected any more problems from this family, the applicant said the cousin still lives in the house and is unmarried.  But she conceded that she had no need to go there in future.

34. The applicant said both her mother and father were actively involved in politics with the UNP.  She was aware growing up that politicians used to go to the main house.  The applicant then appeared to make the claim that political victors against the UNP took her father’s properties by force.  She was unable to articulate how this occurred, claiming that she was very small at the time.  Opponents also came and damaged the house they we reliving in.  Most people in the area supported the SLFP.  Her uncle in [Town] supported the SLFP, as stated in the MP’s letter.

35. The Tribunal put to the applicant that the country information indicated that elections were generally free and fair and that election violence was uncommon.  The applicant said she did not have a lot of knowledge about this but referred to the April 2022 protests.  Asked if she would be involved in politics if she returned to Sri Lanka, the applicant said she could not risk it as she now has a child, [Number] months old. 

36. The Tribunal put to the applicant that after this passage of time people in Sri Lanka would be unlikely to maintain a hostile interest in the applicant due to her past political activities.  The applicant said people are angry with politicians in general, they hate people who support politicians and could kill them.  The Tribunal said it did not have information that supported that contention.  The Tribunal asked the applicant why she thought something would happen to her?  The applicant said she has nowhere to live and no one to support her.  The Tribunal asked if the applicant in fact feared harm due to her political opinion.  The applicant said she did not know if the problems would come back but she can’t go back with a small child.

37. Asked what harm she had experienced the applicant said [Mr B] caused her harm.  He assaulted her.  Asked when this was the applicant said it was 2014.  He was a local thug who used to come to the [workplace] and ask for liquor and if he wasn’t given it he would damage property.  She was working there.  He assaulted her and cut her hair.  The Tribunal asked the applicant how her hair got cut.  The applicant said [Mr B] was associated with [Mr E].  He used to force his way onto the bus.  The Tribunal asked the applicant to describe in detail the incident in which her hair got cut.  The applicant said [Mr B] did not like her.  The Tribunal found the account of the hair cutting incident vague and might not accept that it occurred.  The applicant said she had nothing else to say about it. 

38. The Tribunal asked the applicant if anything else happened to her or her family members.  The applicant said just little issues.  She confirmed that the [Workplaces] were still there and still being run by her aunt’s son.  Asked again if anything else happened to her, the applicant said she could not recall.  Asked if she went to the police when she was assaulted and her hair got cut, the applicant said she did not.  Asked why this was, the applicant said she had no one to help.  The Tribunal said she had an uncle and aunt.  The applicant said they were more concerned about putting their own children at risk. 

39. The Tribunal asked the applicant why she had answered no, in the protection visa application, when asked if she had been harmed.  The applicant could not comment on this.

40. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it may give the letters little weight, as such documents may be easily obtained from connections and one comes from her own aunt.    

41. The Tribunal asked the applicant about incidents she had not mentioned during the hearing, for example a cousin being stabbed to death (the applicant said she had thought the Tribunal was only asking about herself and her brother) and the incident which had her in a wheelchair (the applicant said she had been waiting for the Tribunal to raise it).  She did not have a death certificate in relation to her cousin, she could not explain why her aunt had not mentioned the death of this family member in her letter, and had no records of her treatment for the injuries that put her in a wheelchair.  She did not report the latter assault to the police, because she had no one to go with her. 

42. Asked which of the incidents she claimed to have experienced was related to her political activities the applicant said not the attempted sexual assault by her cousin, nor the damage to the [workplace].  She said some things did happen because of her political activities, but she did not say what. 

43. The applicant said when she arrived in Australia she was not happy living with her brother, she was lonely and she met someone on [Social media] who she later married.  He has a case currently before the Court, he has already had a hearing with the Tribunal.  She only found out he was homosexual after they married.  Their connection after marriage was not as she expected.  He was pressured by his family to marry someone.  They had their child through IVF.  He is good to her and she is happy living with him. 

1. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it found it difficult to believe that her husband withheld his sexual orientation from her until after marriage and that, considering she had applied for protection by then (they married in August 2015), they had not discussed their respective protection cases before marriage.  The applicant maintained that this was the case.  The Tribunal asked the applicant what harm she feared in relation to this matter.  The applicant said society will not accept them and that it will reflect on their child.  The Tribunal observed that this might not constitute serious harm.  The applicant said she could not tell what would happen in the future. 

2. The applicant said her child has some food allergies and Sri Lanka lacked food and medicine at the moment, and she would not be able to take him to a hospital. 

   Country information

3. DFAT’s Country Information Report on Sri Lanka dated 23 December 2021 states as follows:

   Sri Lanka has held regular democratic elections since independence. Large-scale violence and vote rigging have never been features of elections, but nor have elections always been described as entirely free and fair. DFAT assesses that political parties are able to operate freely across Sri Lanka and contest elections. There are no constitutional, legal or other restrictions preventing minorities from participating in politics. Sri Lanka has a diverse political landscape, with 70 registered political parties representing ethnic, religious and ideological interests. 

4. As cited in the Delegate’s decision submitted with the review application, there were isolated incidents of threats and violence reported to the Sri Lankan Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV) during the 2018 elections, involving a range of political parties.  The Department of Home Affairs Country of Origin Information Services Section (COISS) report on Sri Lanka Common Claims states that while there were a number of electoral law violations and other incidents during both the August 2020 parliamentary and November 2019 presidential polls, independent observers stated that there were fewer than in previous elections.  The Report also notes that in the 9 May 2022 violence, which was instigated by SLPP supporters, SLPP parliamentarians and members were attacked in retaliatory violence. 

5. The DFAT report states that: violence against women is common in Sri Lanka. Local sources told DFAT that violence against women occurs throughout the country, across all ethnic groups and social strata. Violence against women is most common in domestic settings.

6. The DFAT Report states that freedom of sexual orientation is not protected under the Constitution and same-sex intercourse is a criminal offence, even when consensual. Equal Ground, an LGBTI advocacy group, in its 2017 mapping study, found that 46.7 per cent of LGBTI people in Sri Lanka (willing to participate in the study) had experienced police harassment. LGBTI victims of abuse and harassment, including by the police, are generally unwilling to file complaints due to safety concerns and a reluctance to bring attention to their sexual orientation, meaning incidents go largely unreported. No legislation exists to protect LGBTI individuals from discrimination or hate crimes. According to local sources, LGBTI individuals are widely seen as 'sexual deviants' and routinely experience discrimination and bullying in the workplace and the education and health care systems. Local sources told DFAT that openly-gay couples face obstacles to securing housing and accommodation. According to local sources, the LGBTI community faces threats, harassment and forced heterosexual marriage from family and other members of the community. According to local sources, anti-LGBTI sentiment is deeply ingrained in Sri Lankan culture and society, particularly in rural areas. The majority of Sri Lankans hold conservative views about sexual orientation and gender identity, and many prioritise collective values over individual rights.

7. The DFAT report states that: attempts to use fraudulent documents are common and DFAT is aware of fraudulent sponsor letters and employment letters being presented by asylum seekers.  Land title deeds that have been fraudulently obtained have also been presented as evidence of an individual’s financial situation.  Other asylum destination countries have reported receiving fraudulent documentation from asylum applicants.  DFAT assesses that document fraud is common in Sri Lanka. 

   FINDINGS AND REASONS

8. Based on the information in her protection visa application, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is a Sri Lankan national. 

9. The applicant claimed to be at risk of serious harm primarily due to her political opinion and her marriage to a homosexual. 

10. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was involved in campaigning for the UPFA in the years before coming to Australia.  Although her explanation of why she became involved and what policies she supported was unclear, her description of the campaigning process and the electorate structure indicated a degree of first hand experience, growing out of family involvement.    

11. In light of the country information, and her own evidence, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was harmed or threatened in relation to her political activities.  The country information indicates that political violence is uncommon in Sri Lanka and that incidents are reported to election monitors.  The applicant indicated categorically that she had not been harmed, in her protection visa application.  Her explanation for not including later claimed incidents of harm or threat in her application was not persuasive.  The applicant was represented at all stages of her application and submitted an otherwise complete, if generalised, political claim.   

12. The Tribunal does not accept that government people were “looking for” the applicant.  The claim was unsupported by any evidence as to who was looking for her and with what purpose. 

13. At the interview the applicant was very vague in answering questions about who might harm her if she returned to Sri Lanka, saying she didn’t know if it might be someone from her own Party or an Opposition Party.  If the applicant had been threatened or harmed in relation to her political activities the Tribunal would expect her to be able to respond in a concrete way to these questions. 

14. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant had her hair cut off or was threatened with acid or a razor blade or any other specific forms of harm.  The applicant was unable to provide any realistic detail about the incident in which her hair was cut off, which cast doubt on her credibility.  The Tribunal does not accept that she was attacked when she got off a bus before coming to Australia.  There is no evidence (e.g. medical evidence) before the Tribunal that the applicant was injured resulting in her being a wheelchair.  She did not report these incidents to the police, which the Tribunal would expect she would have done if they occurred.  Her explanation for not doing so (that she had no family) was unpersuasive, as she was raised under the guardianship of an aunt and uncle after her parents passed away. 

15. The Tribunal does not accept that a relative (described as a cousin/brother) was killed by stabbing, as this was not even mentioned by her aunt and the applicant has not provided any of the normal documents one might expect to support such a claim (coroner report, trial report). 

16. The applicant advanced information that her father had been swindled or extorted out of his properties by relatives in Colombo (although how that might have related to her political opinion was unclear).  There is little information before the Tribunal to support this claim and the Tribunal does not accept that it occurred.

17. In assessing her claims to have been harmed and threatened, the Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant’s documents provided by an MP and her aunt, due to the prevalence of fraudulent documents in Sri Lankan migration matters referred to in the DFAT Report. 

18. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was the victim of unwanted sexual attention by a cousin in Colombo (again, it is not clear how this related to her political claims but it could also be theorised as a claim regarding women as a particular social group).  Nevertheless her own evidence was that she did not expect any future harm from this direction.  Although violence against women (including sexual violence) is common in Sri Lanka, there is nothing in the applicant’s particular circumstances that indicates that this is a real risk to her in the foreseeable future. 

19. The applicant claimed to have been psychologically traumatised by her experiences.  The Tribunal is not satisfied that this is the case, she has presented no evidence of an assessment, diagnosis or treatment plan for such a condition. 

20. The applicant indicated she would not be engaging in political campaigning if she returns to Sri Lanka.  Considering this, the country information, and that the Tribunal has not accepted her past claims of being harmed or under threat, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm for reasons of her political opinion.

21. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s husband is homosexual.  Firstly, he married the applicant in Australia, well away from the pressures of his family.  Second, the applicant claimed that he didn’t tell her about his sexual orientation before they married.  Notwithstanding cultural differences that might have made this difficult to discuss, it is not readily conceivable that he would keep this from someone he was about to marry.  Third, he had made a protection visa application as an unauthorised maritime arrival.  Considering that the applicant had also made a protection application, and neither had any expectation of being able to stay in Australia until their claims had been determined, it is not readily conceivable that they did not discuss what their respective claims to protection were.  The Tribunal accepts that they have used IVF to conceive a child but this is of limited weight considering there can be a range of reasons for a couple to require fertility assistance. 

22. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm in relation to marriage to a homosexual. 

23. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm for the reasons specified in s 5J(1).  She therefore does not have a well-founded fear of persecution as required by s.5J(1).  The Tribunal finds that she is not a refugee as defined in s.5H(1). 

24. Having concluded that the refugee criterion is not met, the Tribunal considered the application of the complementary protection provisions.  As the Tribunal has already found that there is no factual basis for the applicant facing a real chance of serious harm in relation to the claims discussed above, similarly it finds that she does not face a real risk of significant harm, as defined, in relation to those claims. 

25. The Tribunal acknowledges that it may be challenging to provide correct food and medical care for her child in Sri Lanka given the economic situation there, but this does not amount to significant harm as encompassed in the complementary protection regime. 

    CONCLUSION

26. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa).

27. 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

28. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

    Genevieve Hamilton
    Member