1814100 (Refugee)

1814100 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 1498 (6 April 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1814100
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Iran
MEMBER:Joseph Lindsay
DATE:6 April 2022
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 6 April 2022 at 4:55pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Iran – religion and political opinion – rejection of Islam and participation in protests – arrested, detained and assaulted – mental health – credibility – departed on genuine passport – some previous claims conceded as false – decision under review affirmed

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

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 27 April 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 Iran, applied for the visa on 31 May 2017.
The applicant participated in a hearing with the Tribunal on 13 October 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Persian and English languages.
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) (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
In the hearing, the applicant claimed that when he originally made his claims in 2011, his lawyer at the time advised him to embellish his claims to make things sound “worse” in order to improve his chances at being granted protection.
The applicant said he was a [Sport 1 practitioner], he did participate in the protests, and he did get arrested. He said he was worried about having to go to court and going to prison and that was why he left Iran. The applicant maintained that these claims were true. However, he said that after his ASIO interview his life completely changed. He said he had no idea that the false claim about his father being a [Rank 1] in the Iranian [armed forces] would cause him so much trouble. He said that after he came out of the detention centre, he had a mental health breakdown. He said he had an interview with the Department in 2017. He said he rejected Islam. He said his life has been disastrous in the last 12 years and he has suffered. He said he has a [age]-year-old child now, but due to his circumstances he is separated from his former partner and child. He is in on high dosages of antidepressants. He said his main fear is being put in jail if he returned to Iran.
The applicant spoke about his experiences in Iran, where he said he had been arrested when he was in Iran. He said his [Body Part 1] had been broken by the authorities. He said when he was detained, he was not allowed to contact his family. When asked why he thought the Iranian authorities would have any interest in him at all, given the lengthy period of time he has been away from Iran, he said he did not know what would happen to him if he returned to Iran. He said he did not know what would happen if he went back to Iran. He said he is now completely cut off from his family members. He said he cannot understand Islamic speech and talk. He indicated that he is not religious, and he does not want to have to conform to being Islamic when he does not want to be. He conceded that there are people in Iran who are also not religious and are not Islamic. However, he said he would be too outspoken about his anti-Islamic views if he went back to Iran.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that he indicated that he had personally suffered and had endured very difficult personal circumstances since he came to Australia.
The applicant conceded that initially he claimed his father was a [Rank 1], but he indicated that this claim was not true and that he only made this claim at the behest of his previous lawyer in order to achieve a successful migration outcome. However, he said he took responsibility for his actions in this respect.
In summary, the applicant indicated that his only claims were that he thought he would be too outspoken if he returned to Iran and that he thought that, due to the incident where he was previously arrested when he was in Iran, that the Iranian authorities would have an interest in him.
In respect to changing his name to [an alias], the applicant said he did that because he wanted people to not think that he was from a Muslim background.
The applicant gave evidence that he departed Iran legally using an Iranian passport issued in Tehran through the Imam Khomeini Airport. He said his religion was Shia Islam, but he did not think that made him Shia Islam. The applicant said he was not religious at all. He said he previously competed internationally in [Sport 1]. He said he had a [sport facility] when he was in Iran, but that was now closed. He said he does not talk to anyone in Iran now at all. He said the first people to reject him were his family because they were strict in their religious beliefs, whereas he said he had a completely different mentality and did not want to follow any religion.
The applicant spoke about his previous involvement in the green movement protests. He said that the movement was the initial reason for going against the government. He said he wanted more than just a change of government, but rather he did not want to live under any Islamic government at all.
The applicant claimed that he was arrested and that he was assaulted by the Iranian authorities in around 2009. The applicant gave evidence in respect to his claims about his father being an army officer. He said his father was not a uniformed army officer, but that he did work for the Iranian government. He said he actually had no idea what his father did, and they never talked about it. He said he was not close to his father and, in any event, the applicant was against the government.
The applicant said the Iranian authorities did detain him for a few days and that they broke his [Body Part 1]. He said that, even with his broken [Body Part 1], he was left in his cell. He claimed he was not given medical treatment straight away. He said he was mostly unconscious because he was in so much pain. He said he was later taken to hospital, and his father came to the hospital. He said, after some time, he was taken home from hospital. The applicant said his father’s work colleagues found out the applicant had been arrested and gave his father a hard time because of what the applicant had done in taking part in the protests. He said when he was at his grandmother’s house while he was recovering, he received a letter saying he was required to attend the revolutionary court. The applicant said that after he came to Australia, he decided to become a Christian. He said he has been a Christian since he has been in Australia.
However, the applicant said that all of the claims in respect to his father being an employee with the [armed forces] ([location] section) or finding his father’s work files in a safety box were all false. The applicant said that ASIO questioned him about this issue, but he had made it all up, including the claims about files he took from his father’s safety box about underground cities and development of rockets that could be transported underground.
When asked why he claimed that his mother and brother were dead and that the Iranian government was responsible for their deaths, he said this was false. He said he was emotional at the time he made this false claim. The applicant said his biological father was dead and his mother has since passed away.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that in the hearing he had made admissions that he had knowingly given false information to the Department over a long period of time over a lot of matters. The Tribunal put to the applicant that, subject to his response, the Tribunal may find that the applicant had not given credible information to the Tribunal about his protection claims. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it may find that his claims that his biological father was Christian or that he himself was a Christian was not credible. The applicant said he did not wish to make a response to this proposed finding. He then said that his biological father was not Christian, and further that no-one was Christian in his family. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it may find that his claims about his father being employed by the Iranian Defence Ministry were not credible. In response, the applicant said he did not know how to prove his father worked for the Ministry of Defence.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that it accepted that he had been involved in [Sport 1] in his life.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that it may find that he was never detained or arrested or ever took part in any protests, including as part of the green movement, in Iran at any time. In response, the applicant said he did not have anything to say.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that it may find that he was never detained or arrested by the Iranian authorities at any stage, let alone in 2009. In response, the applicant said he thought the Tribunal had already made up its mind so it did not matter what he said.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that it may find that his claims about him finding sensitive information from his father’s safety box about high-level political detainees or a secret Iranian rocket program not to be credible. In response, the applicant said that was the biggest mistake he made where he listened to his previous lawyer’s advice to him to make such claims.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that it may find that he did not pass on any information to two student contacts who he claimed published information on YouTube and the internet and his claims in this respect were not credible. In response, the applicant said he did not wish to make any response.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that it may find that his claims that his brother and mother were killed by the Iranian government after he left Iran were not credible. In response the applicant said his brother and mother were killed by the government.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that it may find that his claims that his uncle had been punished for assisting the applicant to depart Iran was not credible. In response, the applicant said his uncle did help him to depart Iran.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that it may find that his claims that his father was dismissed from his position with the [armed forces] or sent to jail as a result of the release of sensitive [armed forces] information by the applicant’s conduct was not credible. In response, the applicant said he was not in contact with his father so he did not know what happened to him.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that he indicated he had mental health issues. The Tribunal spoke with the applicant about the DFAT Country Information Report for Iran dated 14 April 2020. The Tribunal noted that the report indicates that mental health services were available in Iran. The Tribunal put to the applicant that the Tribunal may find that mental health services would reasonably be available to the applicant should he return to Iran. In response, the applicant said he did not have anything to say.
When asked if he would go back to Tehran if he returned to Iran, he said he did not know what to say. However, the applicant said he would die in Australia before returning to Iran.
Analysis and Findings
The Tribunal has carefully considered the applicant’s claims and the evidence available to the Tribunal in respect to those claims.
The Tribunal holds great concerns about the applicant’s credibility. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant made a previous decision, on advice from his lawyer, to give false information about his claims for protection in order to improve his chances of being granted protection. However, the Tribunal finds that that applicant maintained his course of action in respect to these false claims for a considerable period of time and it was at the Tribunal hearing that the applicant made admissions to having provided false information in respect to his protection claims.
The Tribunal is required to make findings in respect to the applicant’s claims about the incidents he claimed took place in Iran that caused him to leave Iran and seek protection in Australia. However, regrettably, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has provided credible information about any of his protection claims. The Tribunal does accept that the applicant has mental health issues and he has experienced hardship in Australia, and for these reasons the Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s hardships in Australia are regrettable.
Accordingly, the Tribunal does not accept that any of the applicant’s claims in respect to his father, however described, are credible. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claims that his father was an army officer, or employed in any capacity by the Iranian government or the Iranian Defence Ministry or the [armed forces] [location] Unit, or that his father was dismissed from any such position or that his rank was [Rank 1]. The Tribunal finds that all of these claims are not credible. Likewise, the Tribunal finds that all of the applicant’s claims about finding his father’s work files in a safety box are not credible. The Tribunal finds that all of the applicant’s claims about files he claimed he took from his father’s safety box about underground cities and development of rockets that could be transported underground, or high-level political detainees, are not credible. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s claim of passing information to students who published the information on You Tube or on the Internet are not credible.
Additionally, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s claims of converting to Christianity at any time, or practicing Christianity at any time or at any place, are not credible. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s claims that his biological father was Christian or that he himself was a Christian, or that the applicant or his biological father were ever baptised as Christians, are not credible.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant came from an Islamic background but that he is not overly religious. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant would be too outspoken about his anti-Islamic views if he went back to Iran. In considering the DFAT Country Information Report for Iran dated 14 April 2020, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s circumstances, being a person from an Islamic background who is now not overly religious, mean that he would face either a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm should he return to Iran in the foreseeable future.
In respect to the applicant’s claims of participating in protests in 2009, or at any time in Iran, the Tribunal finds that these claims are not credible. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was ever detained or arrested or ever took part in any protests, including as part of the green movement, in Iran at any time.
In respect to the applicant’s claims of being arrested or detained or harmed by the Iranian authorities, including the Basij when he was in Iran in 2009, the Tribunal finds that these claims are not credible. The Tribunal accepts that at some previous point the applicant may have broken his [Body Part 1], but the Tribunal is not satisfied that the cause of the applicant breaking his [Body Part 1] was anything to do with the Iranian authorities. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was ever harmed by the Iranian authorities. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was ever required to attend court in Iran or that the Iranian authorities have any interest in the applicant at all. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s claims that his uncle had been punished for assisting the applicant to depart Iran are not credible.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s claims that his brother and mother were killed by the Iranian government are credible.
In considering the applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal is not satisfised that the applicant provided credible information in respect to his protection claims and finds that the applicant’s protection claims, in their entirety, are not credible.
In considering the DFAT Country Information Report for Iran dated 14 April 2020, the Tribunal is satisfied that mental health services would reasonably be available to the applicant should he return to Iran.

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).
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). Given the Tribunal’s findings in respect the credibility of the applicant’s protection claims, as detailed above, 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.
Joseph Lindsay
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.
…

[2022] AATA 1498

6 April 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction