1817883 (Refugee)

1817883 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 5085 (16 December 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:1817883

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Sri Lanka
DEPUTY PRESIDENT:  Antoinette Younes
DATE:16 December 2022
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 16 December 2022 at 12:17pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Sri Lanka – Federal Circuit Court remittal – race – Tamil – imputed political opinion – involvement with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) – particular social group – failed asylum seeker – wealthy Tamil targeted for extortion – abductions – torture – attacks by the Karuna group – illegal departure – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 91, 424AA, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
AVQ15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 133
Sujeendran Sivalingam v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 1167
Sundararaj v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 76
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 Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Sri Lanka, applied for the visa on 21 November 2012 and the delegate refused to grant the visa on 2 August 2013.
This matter was before the Tribunal previously (differently constituted). On 17 December 2014, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision record. On appeal, the matter was remitted to the Tribunal on 23 May 2018 for reconsideration.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 30 November 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Tamil (Sri Lankan) and English languages.
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, the applicant 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.
Refugee criterion
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 under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).
Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
Sections 91R and 91S of the Act qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the Regulations to a particular person.
There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.
Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s 91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve ‘serious harm’ to the applicant (s 91R(1)(b)), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s 91R(1)(c)). Examples of ‘serious harm’ are set out in s 91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.
Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors.
Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition - race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase ‘for reasons of’ serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s 91R(1)(a) of the Act.
Fourth, an applicant’s fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a ‘well-founded’ fear. This adds an objective requirement to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution under the Convention if they have genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted for a Convention stipulated reason. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.
In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. The expression ‘the protection of that country’ in the second limb of Article 1A(2) is concerned with external or diplomatic protection extended to citizens abroad. Internal protection is nevertheless relevant to the first limb of the definition, in particular to whether a fear is well-founded and whether the conduct giving rise to the fear is persecution.
Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.
Complementary protection criterion
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 a protection 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 the applicant 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’).
‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s 36(2A): s 5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s 5(1) of the Act.
There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise 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 the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s 36(2B) of the Act.
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
The applicant arrived at Christmas Island as an irregular maritime arrival (“IMA”) in July 2012. His circumstances and claims were in the first instance provided to the Department at an entry interview held on 31 August 2012.
At the entry interview, the applicant claimed that:
·[Between specified years], his wife ([Wife A]) was a co-ordinator of a non-government organisation called [Agency 1] supporting Tamil people and controlled by the LTTE. The government perceives [Agency 1] as part of the LTTE. Those who worked in [Agency 1] were abducted and have disappeared.
·[Wife A’s] former husband had been abducted by the Sri Lankan authorities and the applicant faces the same kind of threats from the CID and the police.
·In 2009, he was questioned because his wife had worked in [Agency 1]. He was interrogated about her and then he was released. On many occasions, the CID came after him and gave him trouble but when he bribed them, they left him alone.
·He left Sri Lanka because of the last incident that occurred 1.5 months ago when the CID were about to take him. The CID would not let him live because there were many times when they came and he bribed them. Since he arrived in Australia, they came to his house asking [Wife A] about his whereabouts and she told them he left the country.
·Neither he nor any member of his family was associated or involved with any political group or organisation, or any activities or protests against the government. He was never arrested or detained by the police or security organisations.
The delegate’s decision record, a copy of which was provided to the Tribunal in support of the application for review refers to oral submissions made by the applicant’s representative namely that the applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted on his return to Sri Lanka, by reasons of his Tamil ethnicity, imputed political opinion as a supporter/fundraiser of the LTTE, place of residence, membership of a particular social group defined as wealthy Tamils who are targeted for extortion and returned failed asylum seekers of Tamil ethnicity who made asylum claims in a Western country.
In support of the protection visa application, the applicant provided a Statutory Declaration dated 14 November 2012, in which he claimed:
·He was born on [date] in [Village 1], Batticaloa District, Sri Lanka. He is of Tamil ethnicity and of the Christian faith.
·From [year] until 2005, he worked for [a product 1] company called [Business 1]. Although the head office for [this] company was in Colombo, until 2004, he was attached to the Batticaloa branch but he attended quarterly meetings at the head office in Colombo. He travelled to several areas including previously LTTE controlled areas.
·He met [Wife A] sometime in 2003. They became good friends and later fell in love. They married [in] April 2009. He discovered that [Wife A] had been working for [Agency 1] since 1996 and that her former husband, [named] was abducted in June 2002 by unknown persons but it is likely that he was abducted by the Sri Lankan authorities. The Sri Lankan authorities perceived [Agency 1], which was an NGO, as being an LTTE supporter, due to its close ties with the LTTE.
·At the time he met [Wife A], she was managing [several worksites] funded by [Agency 1] and she was also responsible for managing the financial matters for [Agency 1] in the [named] area. The [worksites] were situated in LTTE controlled areas, and [people] who attended those [sites] were mostly [families who] were LTTE members/supporters/sympathisers.
·Sometime in October 2008, while he was travelling on his motorbike in [Village 1], he was stopped by two Sri Lankan police officers who were also travelling on motorbikes. The policeman asked him for his identity card and he was asked to wait. A while later, a police jeep arrived and he was forcibly taken to the [Police Station 1] where he was verbally abused, interrogated, and tortured. Another police officer spoke to those who were torturing him. He was held for one night and later appeared in court where he was required to pay a large sum of money to the Sri Lankan police ([amount] Sri Lankan rupees) as a bribe. He believes that he was taken to the police station on suspicion that he was an LTTE member. He was beaten and tortured when they discovered his involvement and relationship with [Wife A].
·Sometime in June 2009, the Sri Lankan police came to his home and he was taken to the [Police Station 1] where he was interrogated and beaten. Although he was asked to pay [amount] lakhs Sri Lankan rupees, he was released the same day at night after he paid. Based on the questions he was asked, it was evident that the police were aware of his wife’s involvement with [Agency 1].
·In 2010, the Sri Lankan police came to his home again and they questioned him and his wife. They asked if they provided refuge to LTTE cadres and where the money that belonged to [Agency 1] had been buried. After he was questioned, he was taken to [Police Station 1] where the police told him that they were after more money. They asked him where the money had been stored but he denied any involvement with [Agency 1]. He was forced to pay money once again ([amount] Sri Lankan rupees) and he was released the same day at night after he paid the bribe.
·Sometime in May 2011 while he was at home, the Sri Lankan police came and accused him and [Wife A] of being in possession of a large sum of money that belonged to [Agency 1]. The police wanted him and [Wife A] to go with them but he pleaded with the officers and asked them to leave [Wife A] alone. He was taken to the [Police Station 1] where he was severely beaten. They wanted [amount] lakhs Sri Lankan rupees which he was not able to pay. The police pressed false charges against him, namely that he was suspected of being an LTTE member or had links to the LTTE. He was produced in court and released upon payment of a bribe to the police of [amount] Sri Lankan rupees.
·In March 2012, five Sri Lankan police/CID officers came to his home searching for him. Four of the police officers were Sinhala and the other one was a Tamil speaking Muslim. The officers interrogated him and [Wife A] as they believed they were not truthful regarding [Wife A’s] involvement in [Agency 1]. The CID officers were about to take both him and his wife, however his wife explained all that had happened. The officers agreed to leave them alone on the condition that both of them would report at the CID office in Colombo when required. The CID officers took his phone number and left. The officers called him on his mobile on several occasions and he believes that they were keeping an eye on him.
·It was no longer safe for him to remain in Sri Lanka so he decided to leave in June 2012. Since his arrival in Australia, the Sri Lankan police/CID went to his home searching for him on several occasions. The authorities also went to his relatives’ homes looking for him.
·If he were to return to Sri Lanka, he would be at risk of being targeted by the Sri Lankan police/CID because of [Wife A’s] previous involvement with [Agency 1], an organisation perceived to be closely linked with the LTTE. The fact that he has left Sri Lanka illegally and has claimed asylum in Australia, places him at a higher risk of being seriously harmed in case of return. He would not be protected by the Sri Lankan authorities and it is not possible for him to relocate to other parts of Sri Lanka.
·Sometime in 2008, [Wife A] was taken by members of the Tamil paramilitary group, Karuna group (KG) because they were aware she was managing [Agency 1] funds. She was forced to withdraw a large sum of money from her bank account, which was a joint bank account with [Agency 1]. Although he was not specifically targeted by members of the KG, he is at risk of being targeted due to his wife’s previous involvement with [Agency 1].
In support of the protection visa application, the applicant provided copies of photographs of the applicant and his family, identity documents including his Sri Lankan Driver’s Licence, Marriage Certificate, Certificate of Baptism, family card, Sri Lankan business Certificate of Registration of [Business 2], dated 20 November 2007.
In submissions to the Tribunal provided on 31 March 2014, the applicant’s former representative summarised the applicant’s claims and the delegate’s decision record. In essence, the representative argued that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of his Tamil ethnicity, imputed political opinion, and membership of particular social groups such as failed asylum seekers. It was submitted that the applicant has a profile that must be considered independently and cumulatively. In relation to the delegate’s concerns about the applicant’s credibility, the representative referred to the RRT and UNHCR guidelines and reiterated that the applicant fears serious harm if returned to Sri Lanka. The representative relied on country information reports relevant to the treatment of failed asylum seekers, the consequences of illegal departure including criminal charges under the Sri Lankan Immigrants and Emigrants Act (I&E Act), s 25 the Sri Lankan Bail Act (number 30 of 1997), which refers to, among other things, interrogation of suspects. It was submitted that there is a real chance and a real risk of the applicant facing serious and significant harm, if forced to return to Sri Lanka.
In post hearing submissions, provided on 11 December 2014, the representative referred to concerns of the previous Member during the hearing 10 December 2014, and relied on country information to support the claims that the applicant remains at risk of serious and significant harm. The representative referred to reports published by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and other organisations to support the applicant’s contentions.
On 29 November 2022, the applicant provided to the Tribunal copies of the following:
·Untranslated documents.
·Photographs of a person claimed to be [Wife A] speaking as a Council member.
·Translated document titled [media article title], dated [in] April 2018 referring to [Wife A’s] disclosure to the Council that she had been threatened and that she was a member of the United National Party (UNP).
·Letter titled Recommendation Letter for [Wife A], dated 19 November 2022, by [Mr A], [a Human Rights Advocate], referring among other things to [Wife A] being an active human rights defender who has been advocating to promote and protect human rights, vulnerable women, war victims, Tamil ethnic minority community in the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka “for many years”. The letter also mentions that due to those reasons, the applicant left Sri Lanka and migrated to Australia to provide security for his family who are living alone in Batticaloa.
·Letter from [Wife A], dated 29 November 2022 stating that she and the applicant had faced serious hardship at the hands of the CID and police officers in Batticaloa. She stated that she was arrested and interrogated in relation to funds that she held for [Agency 1] and that she was unable to escape those officers. She decided to enter into politics by contesting the [named] Council elections under the UNP but the CID and police continued to question her about her husband’s past involvement in the LTTE, and the amount of money she gave to her husband to transfer to the LTTE to purchase arms. She stated that the police demanded bribes thinking that she still held funds belonging to [Agency 1]. She claimed that she has recently been accused of collecting funds for [Agency 1] from expatriates and spending the money to regroup the LTTE organisation and that she presently faces death threats from the police stating that if she were to lose in the next Council election, she would be abducted and killed. As a consequence, she has contacted human rights organisations including high-profile individuals such as the [Official A], who promised to assist. She asked that this information remains confidential as it could jeopardise the family’s safety in Sri Lanka. She believes that the applicant faces imprisonment as the security officers are convinced that he had been travelling to LTTE territories not as an [occupation 1] but as an informant to the LTTE organisation.

In pre-hearing submissions dated 29 November 2022, titled Additional new claims and information before the interview, the applicant made the following claims:
·Subsequent to the previous Tribunal decision in December 2014, he was unable to provide any new updated information to the Federal Circuit Court in relation to his and [Wife A’s] fear of persecution in Sri Lanka. There has been a change in his circumstances subsequent to December 2014.
·Police officers continued to harass [Wife A] and she was abducted and tortured until she confessed the details of the whereabouts of [Agency 1] funds held as a security to regroup the LTTE in the future. Her pleas were not given any weight and she had to bribe the police officers to avoid any further risk of harm under the PTA. [Wife A] could not pay the required amount and she suffered seriously but she was released after [Reverend A’s] intervention. [Reverend A] protected her from the beginning.
·The Batticaloa police are aware that he had been working as an [occupation 1] for a company and had visited LTTE controlled areas. [Wife A] was interrogated in 2017 and was repeatedly questioned about his involvement in the LTTE and how much money she had given him from [Agency 1] funds to be transferred to the LTTE to purchase arms. The officers claimed that they had witnesses to testify that he was a member of the LTTE and had travelled around Batticaloa working for the LTTE as an informant while working as an [occupation 1]. The police were determined to take him away on return from Australia.
·The last time [Wife A] was released from police custody by [Reverend A], he introduced her to [Leader A] who asked [Wife A] to seek protection from civil society organisations and human rights organisations. He also said that if [Wife A] were to contest the Council election, he would ensure that his men and party members could give her protection. He advised her to contest under the UNP seat. When she was nominated, she started to receive threatening calls but she contested under the UNP seat in 2018 and won the election. She used this forum to publicise political corruption, militarisation of talent areas, detention of innocent Tamils in custody for monetary reasons, the inaction of the government to take action against the security forces involved in bribery, abduction and torture of innocent civilians.
·Subsequent to the election of Gotabaya Rajapkse as the new President of Sri Lanka in 2019, he gave wide powers to the police and army. [Wife A] had to move to another house in Batticaloa for security reasons but the police watched her activities. She is outspoken and she has earned more enemies than friends. She was determined to assist women and children and other vulnerable people. She believed that her position in the Council would be advantageous to escape the frequent interrogations by the police.
·During the middle of the night, unknown people were seen loitering in front of [Wife A’s] house and she had to get security guards to protect her, but the security guards left as they were intimidated by the police and Karuna paramilitaries. She told him that she was receiving threatening calls, and that she would be abducted and killed once she loses her Council membership. She told him that in the middle of October 2022, a woman from the public approached her and gave her a chit where it was written that the authorities have found out after investigation that she had sent all the funds belonging to [Agency 1] to the applicant in Australia and that he is collecting funds from former LTTE supporters and sympathisers. She told him that even inside the Council chambers, other members who contested under the TNA asked her whether she was collecting money from expatriates to assist the LTTE in [named countries]. They said to her that they were questioned by the CID about the applicant’s involvement in regrouping the LTTE through the former LTTE militants.
·[Wife A] continues to have contacts with human rights activists and she told him that if he were to return to Sri Lanka, he should let her know so she could leave to take refuge in India. She told him that he would be taken by the CID and be killed.
FINDINGS & REASONS
The Tribunal recognises that assessment of credibility is an inherently difficult process and that there are unique considerations in relation to asylum seekers. The Tribunal is guided by the observations and comments of both the High Court and Federal Court of Australia in a number of decisions concerning credibility. In the full Federal Court case of AVQ15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 133, the Court observed that it is well-established that assessment of reliability and credibility of evidence of asylum seekers should be careful and thoughtful, and processes should be conducted fairly and reasonably. As Burchett J counselled in Sundararaj v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 76, it is necessary to:
understand that any rational examination of the credit of a story is not to be undertaken by picking it to pieces to uncover little discrepancies. Every lawyer with any practical experience knows that almost any account is likely to involve such discrepancies. The special difficulties of people who have fled their country to a strange country where they seek asylum, often having little understanding of the language, cultural and legal problems they face, should be recognised, and recognised by much more than lip service.
The Full Federal Court noted in Sujeendran Sivalingam v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 1167:
refugee cases may involve special considerations arising out of problems of communication and mistrust, and problems flowing from the experience of trauma and stress prior to arrival in Australia.
The Tribunal has also taken into consideration psychological research on memory of trauma,[1] which indicates that inconsistencies, fragmentation of memory, lapses in memory, lack of specificity and overgeneralisations do not necessarily reflect lack of veracity in relation to recalled events. The research indicates that accurate human recollections of all kinds can be disrupted in unpredictable ways following trauma.[2] Assessment of evidence can be based on imperfect perceptions of truth. There may also be factors that consciously or otherwise influence decisions.[3]
[1] M Conway, ‘Episodic Memories’ (2009) 47 Neuropsychologia 2305; J Herlihy, Jobson, L and Turner, S, ‘Just tell us what happened to you: autobiographical memory and seeking asylum’ (2012) 26 Applied Cognitive Psychology 661; C Brewin, The nature and significance of memory disturbance in posttraumatic stress disorder (2011) 7 Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 203.
[2] H E Cameron, Refugee Status Determinations and the Limits of Memory (2010) International Journal of Refugee Law 469.
[3] H Bennett and Broe, G, The neurobiology of achieving a comfortable satisfaction (2014) 26 Judicial Officer, Bulletin 8, 65–9.
As credibility assessment is not an exact science, great care must be taken to ensure that the approach taken is reasonable, reflective, and fair. In this case, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the fact that this applicant has been in immigration detention and, prior to that, was incarcerated for his convictions of criminal offences. The Tribunal has had regard to the Tribunal’s Guidelines on Vulnerable Persons[4] because of the physical health concerns raised in relation to the applicant in the reports before the Tribunal. On the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant had a meaningful opportunity to put his case in full before the Tribunal.
[4] AAT, Guideline on Vulnerable Persons, available on the AAT Website, >
Taking these matters into consideration, the Tribunal makes the following findings of fact.
The applicant’s evidence
The Tribunal acknowledges that the claimed events of harm occurred over 10 years ago and that it would be unreasonable to expect the applicant to have a detailed recollection of those events. However, as outlined below and on balance, the applicant’s evidence was confused, lacked significant details, and he required extensive prompting to respond to simple questions, many of which had to be repeated. Furthermore, the applicant made significant claims that had not been made previously, for example, he claimed that [Wife A] had been arrested “so many times” prior to their marriage. He said she has a lot of scars on her [body]. He stated that prior to their marriage, she was injected with a toxic substance aimed at killing her. Moreover, prior to the hearing the applicant provided to the Tribunal documents and on his own evidence, certain comments made in those documents are “wrong”, raising concerns about the truthfulness of the claims and suggesting a willingness on the applicant’s part to make claims perceived to be favourable.
The Tribunal appreciates that some of the evidentiary matters discussed below may be perceived as being minor; however when considered cumulatively, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable to take them into account in assessing the applicant’s claims.
The applicant gave evidence that he met [Wife A] in 2003 and they lived together from 2006. They married in 2009. [Wife A] was previously married and has [children of specified ages] from that marriage. [Wife A] and the applicant have a [child], now aged [age] years old. [Wife A] and the [children] have remained in Sri Lanka. The Tribunal asked the applicant about [Wife A’s] former husband’s abduction and he stated he did not know.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about [Wife A’s] role in [Agency 1]. He stated there were a lot of [clients] at that time and that the [clients] were members and supporters of the LTTE. He said she was managing 3 [worksites] in different locations. The Tribunal asked the applicant about the exact nature of the work [Wife A] did at the centres and he stated that she was [providing services] and “giving money”. He said the “money was sent through her”. Asked again for further details, he said [Wife A] was a coordinator of the 3 centres but the staff looked after the [clients]. The Tribunal asked the applicant about what he meant by “giving money” and he stated that she paid employees’ salaries and purchased items for the [worksites]. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether [Wife A] was the most senior person in the [worksites] and he stated that he did not know. He stated that she ran the [worksites] and through [Agency 1], she “did all that … giving the money to her everything was done through [Agency 1] … I don’t know all the details … she goes to work in the morning and sometimes she stays there”. He said money was given to her, and that she was basically working for the “monthly income”. The applicant gave evidence that [Wife A] worked at the centres for more than 5 years and he confirmed that he does not have any further details about her role at the centres. As suggested by the Tribunal, given the significance of the claims relating to [Wife A’s] work in [Agency 1], it was odd that he did not have a clearer idea and more detailed account about her role or the structure of the centres. The Tribunal is of the view that given his claims that he had suffered harm on the basis of, among other things, [Wife A’s] work, it is difficult to accept the applicant’s limited and unclear knowledge of the nature of her work, raising some doubts about the significance of [Agency 1] work.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about the 2009 incident. He stated that in June or July 2009, whilst he was on his motorbike going to work, the police were in the Jeep and they took him away because [Wife A] was working with [Agency 1]. He said they thought he had money and was involved with the LTTE. The Tribunal asked him where exactly he was at that time and he stated he was in “two places” – in [Village 2] in Batticaloa and [Village 1]. He said the incident happened in June when he was returning from work to [Village 1] where he was living. The Tribunal indicated to the applicant that in the Statutory Declaration provided in support of the application for a protection visa, he refers to the motorbike incident occurring sometime in October 2008 whilst he was in [Village 1][5] and was stopped by police on their motorbikes, which appears to be inconsistent with his oral evidence. He said he could not recall exactly. He stated that in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 he was abducted. He said in 2012 they came but they did not take him. He said it has been a long time and there might be a mix-up in the dates. The Tribunal asked the applicant what the police did when they abducted him in 2008. He said he was taken to the police station but they could not prove that he had any connection with the LTTE. He said they “expected me to have [Agency 1] money” and as he could not arrange the money, he was imprisoned “I think in 2008… 2009 … I can’t remember”. Later he said he was arrested in 2011 and 2012 but he could not recall. Asked again when he was arrested and he said he was arrested in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and in May 2012, they came to arrest him but he told them things so they did not arrest him. In relation to the 2012 incident, he stated that it occurred at the end of May 2012. As pointed out by the Tribunal, in the Statutory Declaration provided in support of the application for a protection visa, he claimed that the incident occurred in March 2012.[6] He stated this might be due to a typing error. In relation to the 2011 incident, the Tribunal indicated that in the Statutory Declaration, he refers to an incident that occurred in May 2011. He stated that he had told those who assisted him that the incident occurred in May 2012. He stated, “I don’t know what they did”. Although it is plausible that the applicant could not recall clearly the events given the length of time past, his explanation that the inconsistency is due to those who assisted him and that he does not know what they did, is not convincing.
[5] Statutory Declaration, dated 14 November 2012, para 16.
[6] Statutory Declaration, dated 14 November 2012, para 42.
The Tribunal asked the applicant for how long he was detained in 2008 in the police station and he stated that he was kept all day and released the following day. He said he was ill-treated and they wanted to remove his toenails but they were stopped by another policeman who spoke to them. He said they suspected him of being an LTTE member and that he had money belonging to [Agency 1]. The Tribunal asked if he was charged with any offences and he stated that he was asked for a bribe and released on payment of [amount] Sri Lanka rupees. He stated that he was produced in court and charged with transportation/smuggling of [products 2]. Regarding the June 2009 incident, he stated that [Wife A] got money and he was released the same day. He stated although they asked for a big sum of money, he paid [smaller amount] Sri Lankan rupees ([amount] lakhs rupees).
The applicant gave evidence that when he was arrested in 2010, they gave the police [amount] lakhs rupees. He stated that he was not able to recall if he was kept overnight. As far as the 2011 incident, he stated that he did manage to arrange funds of [small amount] lakhs so he was released the same day. He said he was not sure if he appeared in court on that occasion. As pointed out by the Tribunal, in the Statutory Declaration, in relation to the 2010 incident, he claimed that he was released the same day.[7] He stated that he might have forgotten and there could be a mix-up in the years. He said he could not recall whether it was the 2010 or the 2011 incident when they asked for a large sum of money. In relation to the 2010 and possibly 2008 incidents, he stated that he appeared before the court in relation to an incident concerning [products 2] and he had to pay a small fine. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he thought he was arrested on four different occasions. He stated he was working in [product 1] company as a [manager] and he travelled a lot in LTTE controlled areas. He said they might have suspected that he was associated with the LTTE and also because [Wife A] had worked for [Agency 1]. He said they thought the family had money.
[7] Ibid, para 35.
Country information relevant at the time indicates that in 2008, the Sri Lankan authorities considered [Agency 1] to be an organisation linked with the LTTE.[8] Given the Sri Lankan authorities’ concerns about the LTTE at the time, the Tribunal finds it difficult to accept that if the applicant were of adverse interest to the Sri Lankan authorities, that he would have been released, even with the payment of bribes. He stated they knew that they were “ordinary people” but they could pay bribes, suggesting that the alleged arrests were motivated by bribes rather than any perception of connection with the LTTE or [Wife A’s] work with [Agency 1].
[8] [Source deleted].
In relation to the claim that [Wife A] had been arrested, he stated she was arrested “so many times”. The Tribunal asked when that had occurred and he stated that it was before they married. He said she told him and she has a lot of scars on her [body]. He stated that she was injected with a toxic substance aimed at killing her. The Tribunal asked the applicant when those incidents occurred and he stated that they occurred prior to their marriage. As raised in the hearing, those claims had not been made in the application for a protection visa. His response that he had told those who assisted him about those claims and he does not know why they were not written down, is not convincing. Those are significant claims which were not made previously, raising concerns about his credibility and the truthfulness of the claims. Given the seriousness of the claims, it is reasonable to expect the applicant to have mentioned them in the application. The applicant asserted that he told those who assisted him. The Tribunal notes that when applying for a protection visa, the applicant was assisted by a registered Migration Agent. The Tribunal appreciates that this does not mean that it is impossible that the Migration Agent had neglected to include those claims but the Tribunal does not consider this be a likely scenario given how detailed the Statutory Declaration dated 14 November 2012 is, suggesting that the assistance the applicant received was thorough.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant his claims in the Statutory Declaration, that the “CID officers were about to take both my wife and I along with them. However, when my wife explained all that had happened to us in the past and the amount of money that had been paid as bribes the officers agreed to leave us alone on the condition that both my wife and I would report at the CID office in Colombo when required…”.[9] The Tribunal asked the applicant when that incident occurred and he stated it happened at the end of May 2012 when they came to this house. As pointed out by the Tribunal, in the Statutory Declaration he claimed that it happened in March 2012.[10] He said it was the fifth month but it had been incorrectly typed up as the third month. The Tribunal noted that if they did not take him or his wife, this would suggest that neither one of them was of particular interest. He reiterated that they came in a van to the house in May 2012 and that there were five officers, four of whom were Sinhala and another one Tamil speaking. He said they told him that they came from the “[Location 1]” but he does not mention that in the Statutory Declaration. His response that he told them so [referring to those who assisted him in preparation of the document], is not persuasive. As discussed earlier, when applying for a protection visa, the applicant was assisted by a registered Migration Agent. The Statutory Declaration dated 14 November 2012 is detailed and comprehensive, suggesting that the assistance the applicant received was careful.
[9] Statutory Declaration, dated 14 November 2012, para 44.
[10] Ibid, para 42.

The Tribunal discussed with the applicant the documents which were provided prehearing on 29 November 2022. In relation to the untranslated documents, the applicant stated that they were newspaper articles referring to the incident concerning [Wife A]. The applicant gave evidence that [Wife A] was a member of the UNP and she successfully contested Council election but she had been told not to. He stated that others were very angry and they threatened to “slit her throat”. As suggested by the Tribunal, it would appear that [Wife A] was not scared of those who threatened and opposed her, with which the applicant agreed.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he was ever a member of any party and he stated that he was a member of the TNA about 20 years ago, in 1990 or 1995, but he was no longer a member. He did not suggest that he was or would be ill-treated on this basis.
In relation to the letter titled Recommendation Letter for [Wife A], dated [in] November 2022, by [Mr A], referring to [Wife A] among other things being an active human rights defender, the Tribunal asked the applicant about the author of the letter, and how he knew him. The applicant stated that he spoke to him about 2 weeks ago. He said that [Wife A] asked him to write the letter for the hearing. The applicant did not know who typed the letter. The Tribunal asked the applicant about the claim made in the letter that [Wife A] is a human rights defender. He stated that she participates in meetings concerning women’s and children’s rights. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant the comments in the letter that [Wife A] had been threatened and harassed by the authorities and that due to those reasons, the applicant left Sri Lanka and migrated to Australia. As pointed out by the Tribunal the reasons for the applicant’s leaving Sri Lanka as noted in the letter appear to be inconsistent with his claimed reasons for departure, namely the incidents that happened to him. The applicant indicated that the document was “written like that … but not like that … that is wrong … it is not right … no I’m not claiming … I’m accepting that”. Given those concerns and concessions, the Tribunal has decided to give the letter limited weight as being corroborative of any claims by the applicant or [Wife A].
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant the letter from [Wife A], dated 29 November 2022. He said a friend helped her in Sri Lanka to prepare the letter. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant the claims made in the letter, including the threats. The Tribunal noted that [Wife A] has a vested interest in the review. The Tribunal noted that she has claimed that she was threatened by the CID and police officers in Batticaloa in 2009 until she confessed where she held [Agency 1] funds. The Tribunal appreciates that familial connections do not necessarily mean capacity or willingness to be untruthful, however, [Wife A] has a significant vested interest in the outcome and it is reasonable to take this aspect into account. Moreover, the letter does not overcome the Tribunal’s evidentiary concerns discussed in this decision. In consideration of the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal gives this letter limited weight.
In relation to the submissions signed by the applicant, provided to the Tribunal on 29 November 2022, the Tribunal asked who prepared that document and the applicant stated that he did not wish to tell the Tribunal who typed the document as that person had asked him not to disclose their identity. He did say however that the person is in Australia and that he is a friend of [Wife A’s] father’s friend. He stated that [Wife A] had spoken to the person. He confirmed he however signed the document. The Tribunal asked the applicant about the claim that the police officers had continued to harass [Wife A] and that she was abducted and tortured until she “confessed details of the funds of [Agency 1] and where it was held as a security …”.[11] The Tribunal asked the applicant if he knew about the whereabouts of the funds and he stated the funds might have been in the bank but he does not know the actual details. He said she left [Agency 1] after 2009 and she was suspected of having money. He said [Agency 1] put money in her account. He said those who were harassing her were suspicious that she still had [Agency 1] funds, despite her leaving the organisation in 2009. The Tribunal asked the applicant when she had told him about the whereabouts of the money and he said he does not know. The question was repeated and now he said she told him about it a month ago “they came and did that…”. The Tribunal asked him again when [Wife A] had confessed the details of the whereabouts of [Agency 1] funds and he stated that the content of the submissions provided to the Tribunal was “…that is all wrong”. He said what he told the person who typed the letter was true. It was evident to the Tribunal that the applicant did not know the details of the claims that he made in submissions to the Tribunal. This suggested that the applicant was prepared to provide to the Tribunal a document containing claims that were not correct; his concession that “that is all wrong” means that the Tribunal has legitimate grounds to be concerned about the truthfulness of the applicant’s claims, as well as his credibility.
[11] Additional new claims and information before the interview, dated 29 November 2022, para 4.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about the claim that [Wife A] had been abducted and tortured and he stated that this occurred “so many times” prior to their marriage. He said once it happened in an army camp in 2009. The Tribunal indicated that this was not mentioned in the application for a protection visa and he said he forgot to mention it. Later he said he told those who assisted in the preparation of the protection visa application, but he did not know why those claims had not been written down. The Tribunal asked the applicant about the claim made in the submissions that [Wife A] was released from police custody and he stated it was in 2009. The Tribunal indicated that this was not mentioned in the application for a protection visa to which he said “I forgot to tell that … My fault”. The Tribunal is of the view that significant new claims made at this stage raise credibility concerns and doubts about the veracity of those claims.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about [Reverend A] referred to in the submissions dated 29 November 2022. The applicant gave evidence that [Reverend A] knew [Wife A] from when she was about 20 years of age and he used to protect her, including getting her released. As noted by the Tribunal, [Reverend A] was not mentioned in the application for a protection visa (although this was mentioned before the previous Member). He responded, “I told all this but it’s not written”. He said [Wife A] and other [number of Agency 1] officers were abducted in “2000 something”. Given the fact that the applicant was represented by a Migration Agent at the time of the visa application and that the Statutory Declaration provided in support is comprehensive, the Tribunal is not persuaded by the explanations.
The applicant acknowledged that although he signed the submissions prepared by the unidentified person, he did not “quite understand fully”. He stated the document had to be prepared in a hurry and he told the truth. This acknowledgment supports the Tribunals’ concerns about the document. Moreover, the fact that the applicant did not wish to reveal the identity of the person who typed the letter has meant that the Tribunal could not seek clarifications from that person in order to get the full context.
Findings of fact
Country of nationality
On the basis of the available information and for the purpose of this review, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is a national of Sri Lanka. The applicant made no claim to be a national of any other country.
The Tribunal finds that the claims should be assessed against Sri Lanka for the purposes of the Convention in s 36(2)(a) and as the receiving country for the purposes of the complementary protection obligations in s 36(2)(aa).
Ethnicity, background, and other claims
On the basis of the available information, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is of Tamil ethnicity from Batticaloa (Eastern Province). The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a Christian. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is not claiming to have experienced or would experience any harm for this reason. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant worked for [a product 1] company and travelled to LTTE controlled areas.
Is a real chance or a real risk of the applicant suffering serious or significant harm?
As outlined above, the Tribunal has a number of concerns about the applicant’s evidence and supporting material provided to the Tribunal. On balance, the evidence was vague, lacked details, inconsistent with written claims, and some of the claims had not been made previously. The Tribunal did not find the applicant to be a credible, truthful, or reliable witness in relation to matters central to, and related to, his claims. The Tribunal has taken into account the time passed, and the Tribunal acknowledges that a holistic approach is required. The Tribunal is of the view that any one of the concerns discussed above may not have caused the Tribunal to question the applicant’s overall credibility; however when looking at the evidence cumulatively, the Tribunal's concerns about the applicant’s credibility are significant.
As discussed in the course of the hearing and in accordance with s 424AA, the Tribunal pointed out to the applicant that both the delegate and the previous Member had concerns about his credibility. In this regard, the previous Member noted: “In this instance, as will be evident from the ensuing discussion, the Tribunal was unable to simply accept the applicant’s claims at face value and has given them careful attention on light of the totality of the evidence”.[12] The Tribunal notes that in the delegate’s decision record provided to the Tribunal, the delegate indicated “During the PV interview, I found the applicant’s account of the arrests, interrogations and beatings he allegedly suffered at the hands of the Sri Lankan police to be inconsistent and vague. It is noted that he was unable to provide any in-depth detail of the events he claims to have occurred”.[13] So even at that early stage, the applicant was not able to provide a detailed and consistent account of the claimed arrests, suggesting fabrication.
[12] AAT Case File 1311194, Decision Record, dated 17 December 2014, para 77.
[13] Page 9, para 2.
The Tribunal accepts on the evidence that [Wife A] had worked for [Agency 1] for a number of years up until 2008 and that her role was that of a coordinator. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence that [Wife A’s] role was to manage the three [worksites], namely paying the salaries of staff and purchasing items for the centres. The Tribunal is not satisfied that she had a significant role that went beyond that of being a coordinator of the three centres or that her role meant that she had actual or perceived financial control of [Agency 1] funds. The Tribunal is satisfied that [Agency 1] was associated with the LTTE. Country information relevant at the time indicates that in 2008, the Sri Lankan authorities considered [Agency 1] to be an organisation linked with the LTTE[14] and that it is plausible that those who worked for [Agency 1] were abducted and might have disappeared. On the evidence and given the credibility concerns, the Tribunal is not satisfied that [Wife A] had a role or a profile in [Agency 1], or in LTTE fundraising, or the retention of [Agency 1] funds, which attracted adverse attention from the Sri Lankan authorities, or any other entity, or that her husband was abducted.
[14] [Source deleted].
As outlined earlier, there are evidentiary concerns relating to the claims of arrests. Moreover, given country information referred to earlier about the Sri Lankan authorities’ concerns about [Agency 1], the Tribunal finds it implausible that if either the applicant or [Wife A] was perceived to be associated with the LTTE or any other adverse profile, that they did not experience more significant harm, such as death.[15] The Tribunal is of the view that had the authorities been concerned about [Wife A] or had considered her to be of adverse interest, it is reasonable to suggest that she would have come to some harm. It is also noteworthy that the applicant initially claimed that although he was arrested and ill-treated by the Sri Lankan authorities, [Wife A] did not experience any ill-treatment, suggesting that she was not of any adverse interest to the Sri Lankan authorities. In his Statutory Declaration of 14 November 2012, the applicant claimed, among other things, that sometime in May 2011, when the police went to their home and accused them of being in possession of [Agency 1] funds, he pleaded with them not to take [Wife A] and he was taken. On his own admission, he and [Wife A] were “ordinary people” and there was no proof of their involvement in activities of interest to the Sri Lankan authorities.
[15] Country of Origin Information Report: Sri Lanka, the UK Home Office Border Agency, 7 March 2012; US Department of State, 2011 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Sri Lanka, released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour, 24 May 2012.
The applicant is currently claiming that [Wife A] has experienced significant harm but as discussed above there are problems with those claims, many of which had not been made previously and the applicant did not know much about those claims. On his own evidence, some comments made in the documents provided are not accurate. It was evident to the Tribunal that the applicant did not know the details of a claim that he made in submissions to the Tribunal. His concession that “that is all wrong” means that the Tribunal has legitimate grounds to be concerned about the truthfulness of his claims.
In consideration of the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant or [Wife A] has ever been approached, visited, arrested, questioned, harassed, interrogated, abused, tortured, accused of any wrongdoing, ill-treated in any way by any arm of the Sri Lankan authorities or any other entity, including the KG, or that false charges were pressed against the applicant. Although it is plausible that the applicant was perceived to be wealthy, for the above reasons, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant or [Wife A] was ever targeted for any reason including money, or that either was perceived for any reason in an adverse manner by the Sri Lankan authorities. For those reasons, the Tribunal does not accept that he or [Wife A] had to pay any bribe to anyone or that he was produced before the court for any reason on any occasion. In essence, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant or [Wife A] has a profile of any adverse interest to the Sri Lankan authorities, or any other entity.
On the evidence including the material provided to the Tribunal, the Tribunal accepts as plausible that [Wife A] was elected in 2018 in council elections under the UNP seat, but for credibility reasons, in consideration of the evidence as a whole, and the fact that the applicant conceded that incorrect information has been provided in the documents given to the Tribunal, the Tribunal is not satisfied that she received threats, or that she engaged in conduct to publicise political corruption, or that [Leader A] asked [Wife A] to seek protection from civil society organisations and human rights organisations, or that if [Wife A] were to contest the Council election, he would ensure that his men and party members could give her protection, or that he advised her to contest under the UNP seat, or that she publicised political corruption or any other topic, or that subsequent to the election of Gotabaya Rajapkse, [Wife A] had to move to another house in Batticaloa for security reasons, or that the police watched her activities, or that she has enemies, or that unknown people were seen loitering in front of her house, or that she had to get security guards to protect her, or that she would be abducted and killed once she loses her Council membership, or that at any time, a woman from the public approached her and gave her a chit where it was written that the authorities have found out after investigation that she had sent all the funds belonging to [Agency 1] to the applicant in Australia and that he is collecting funds from former LTTE supporters and sympathisers, or that inside the Council chambers, other members had asked her whether she was collecting money from expatriates to assist the LTTE in [named countries], or that they said to her that they were questioned by the CID about the applicant’s involvement in regrouping the LTTE through the former LTTE militants, or that she fears if returned from Australia, the applicant would be taken by the CID and be killed.
In essence and for the stated reasons, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant or [Wife A] has suffered any of the claimed harm on the basis of [Wife A’s] work in [Agency 1] or any other basis, or that there is a real chance or a real risk of any such harm occurring in the future.
Other claims
For the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal has not accepted that the applicant or [Wife A] has any adverse profile.
The applicant does not claim that he is, or has ever been, an LTTE member, supporter or sympathiser but as well as his claims relating to [Agency 1], the applicant is claiming that he would be harmed for being a Tamil from the Eastern Province, a failed asylum seeker, being forcibly returned from Australia, and for having departed illegally.
Independent Country Information
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, the Tribunal is has taken into account 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 (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
The Tribunal will now refer to country information relevant to the applicant’s claims.
DFAT’s most recent Country Information Report on Sri Lanka[16] provides the following summary:
2.1 Sri Lanka, formerly Ceylon, achieved independence from the United Kingdom (UK) in 1948. Historically, relations between Sri Lanka’s majority Sinhalese and minority Tamil communities have been tense. Tamils received preferential treatment during British rule, including in education and civil service employment. After independence, successive Sinhalese-led governments introduced measures to promote the primacy of the Sinhalese community. These developments created a sense of marginalisation within the Tamil community and encouraged calls for an independent Tamil state, Tamil Eelam, in the predominantly Tamil-populated north and east of the country.
2.2 A number of militant groups emerged to advance the cause of Tamil statehood. The most prominent of these, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, commonly known as the Tamil Tigers), formed in 1976 and launched an armed insurgency against the Sri Lankan state in 1983. Government forces re-took the north and east of the country from 2007-09, culminating in the military defeat of the LTTE in May 2009. The UN and human rights organisations documented serious violations in the final stages of the war when Mahinda Rajapaksa was President, during which up to 40,000 civilians may have been killed. In total, Sri Lanka’s 26-year civil war is estimated to have claimed 100,000 lives and displaced over 900,000 people. Civil society groups and NGOs have criticised the Rajapaksas for enabling and covering up alleged war crimes and atrocities against civilians.
2.3 In 2015, Maithripala Sirisena, who defected from the Mahinda Rajapaksa Government to a rival political grouping, was elected President. Sirisena promised a new era of “clean” government, free of corruption, and embarked upon a path of reconciliation with the Tamil minority that appeared to make some progress. His government faced a constitutional crisis when he briefly appointed Mahinda Rajapaksa as his Prime Minister in a move that was not approved by parliament.
2.4 On 21 April 2019, local Islamic extremist groups inspired by Daesh (also known as Islamic State), carried out coordinated terrorist attacks against Christian churches and hotels. The attacks, comprising suicide bombers, killed more than 250 people and injured another 490 — the deadliest bout of violence and the first known terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka since the end of the civil war in May 2009 (see 2019 Easter Sunday Terrorist Attacks).
2.5 In November 2019, Gotabaya Rajapaksa was sworn in as Sri Lanka’s President, choosing his elder brother Mahinda Rajapaksa, a former two-term President, as his Prime Minister. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), in its report of January 2021, said: ‘Sri Lanka seemed to be on a new path towards advancing reconciliation, accountability and human rights. The developments since November 2019, however, have reversed that direction and, instead, threaten a return to patterns of discrimination and widespread violations of human rights experienced in past decades’ (see Political System).
[16] Report of 23 December 2021.

In relation to Tamils, the Report noted:
3.4 According to the most recent census (2012), Tamils are the second largest ethnic group in Sri Lanka (15.3 per cent of the population). Tamil political parties are active, with the largest coalition of parties operating under the umbrella of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA). In the 2020 parliamentary elections, the TNA won 10 seats (of a total 225) during the landslide victory of President Rajapaksa’s Sri Lanka People's Freedom Alliance (SLPFA). There are two Tamil parties in the Government’s ruling SLPFA coalition: the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal (TMVP) (formerly known as the Karuna group), and the Eelam People's Democratic Party (EPDP), which have a combined total of three seats in the Sri Lankan Parliament. There is one Tamil cabinet minister as of November 2021: Minister for Fisheries, Douglas Devananda of the EPDP. This represents a decline in political influence for Tamils from the previous Sirisena Government.
3.5 Some members of the Tamil community report discrimination in employment, particularly in relation to government jobs, though other sources suggest this is because many Tamils speak neither Sinhala nor English. Even the Tamil-dominated north and east have relatively few Tamil public servants. Despite government incentives, the number of Tamil-speaking police officers and military personnel in the north and east remains small, and monolingual Tamil speakers can have difficulty communicating with authorities. In April 2021, Sri Lanka Police announced plans to recruit 2,000 Tamil speakers for the north and east, given that very few of the mostly Sinhalese officers (with around 700 police officers working in the Northern Province and 1,100 in the Eastern Province) speak fluent Tamil. All police basic training is reportedly conducted in Sinhala limiting accessibility to most Tamils.
3.6 DFAT assesses there is no official discrimination on the basis of ethnicity in public sector employment. Rather, Tamils’ under-representation is largely the result of language constraints and disrupted education because of the war.
3.7 DFAT is aware that some Sinhalese from the south have resettled in the north and east with government assistance in the post-war period. Local sources in the north expressed concern about the construction of Buddhist statues and temples in non-Buddhist populated areas. DFAT is unable to verify claims that Sinhalese settlers in the north and east have received preferential treatment to establish businesses.
Monitoring, harassment, arrest and detention
3.8 Many Tamils, particularly in the north and east, reported being monitored, harassed, arrested or detained by security forces during the war. While LTTE members and supporters were almost all Tamil, security forces also imputed LTTE support based on ethnicity, and emergency regulations were, at times, applied in a discriminatory manner (see Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam).
3.9 Members of the Tamil community and NGOs report that authorities continue to monitor public gatherings and protests in the north and east, and practise targeted surveillance and questioning of individuals and groups. Security forces are most likely to monitor people associated with politically-sensitive issues, including those related to the war, such as missing persons, land release and memorialisation events (see Civil society organisations and government critics and Media).
3.10 Communities in the north and east report that monitoring is undertaken by military intelligence and the Police Criminal Investigation Department, though in many cases officers dress in plain clothes and do not identify themselves. According to local sources, those participating in public gatherings and protests are often photographed. In the east, local informants within the community (including neighbours and business owners) reportedly undertake monitoring on behalf of the authorities. Intelligence agencies also monitor links to foreign groups, including some in the Tamil diaspora (see Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam).
3.11 LTTE cemeteries in the north and east were destroyed by government forces during and after the war. Some have subsequently been restored. It is illegal to commemorate the birthday of LTTE leader Prabhakaran (26 November), or Maaveerar Naal (‘Great Heroes’ Day’ in Tamil, 27 November), although some Tamils are known to defy this ban. The public display of LTTE symbols, including the LTTE flag and images of Prabhakaran, is also banned.
3.12 Tamils have been arrested in 2021 under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) for commemoration of the war (see Prevention of Terrorism Act). In May 2021, on the eve of commemoration of the end of the civil war in Mullaithivu district, the location at which various estimates suggest up to 40,000 civilians died in the closing phase of the war, authorities placed the district under strict COVID-19 quarantine isolation. According to local sources, Tamils who tried to commemorate the day were harassed or arrested by police. For example, 10 Tamils including two women were detained from 19 May 2021 until at least late July for holding a socially-distanced candle-lit vigil on a beach in Batticaloa, Eastern Province. On 19 May 2021, the Government of Sri Lanka, including President Rajapkasa, celebrated the same occasion as War Heroes Day. DFAT Country Information Report Sri Lanka (December 2021) 20
3.13 DFAT assesses that surveillance of Tamils in the north and east continues, with particular surveillance of those associated with politically-sensitive issues. DFAT also assesses that physical violence against those being monitored is not common, and that ordinary Tamils living in the north and east of Sri Lanka are at low risk of official harassment.
In relation to political opinion, actual or imputed and the LTTE, DFAT’s report[17] states:
[17] Report of 23 December 2021.
3.38 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. Political representation in parliament of each ethnicity is broadly proportional to the ethnic make-up of the overall population. The current parliament includes 27 Tamils and 19 Muslims among its 225 members. There is a single Muslim and Tamil respectively in the current cabinet, with another two Tamil state ministers.
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
3.39 At its peak in 2004, the LTTE had an armed force of approximately 18,000 combatants. The LTTE was proscribed as a terrorist organisation by a number of countries, including Australia. It was supported by foreign funding, primarily from the Tamil diaspora, and both voluntary and forced recruitment of Tamils. Funding from the Tamil diaspora was sometimes attained through means of intimidation and coercion, including threats against local family members and kidnapping for ransom. Within Tamil Eelam, the LTTE imposed its authority in a brutal fashion, reportedly murdering Tamil rivals and critics.
3.40 Towards the end of the war, in 2009, government security forces arrested and detained a large number of LTTE members. Most were sent to government-run rehabilitation centres. A smaller number were prosecuted through Sri Lanka’s court system. Security forces also questioned or monitored many civilians for possible LTTE activity, and for civil resistance or anti-government sentiment. Although not officially mandated, in many areas the military took a visible and active role in civilian life. The previous Sirisena Government publicly committed to reducing military involvement in civilian activities, but observers have expressed concern that this has reversed and the military’s role is growing again.
3.41 While the LTTE was comprehensively defeated, Sri Lankan authorities remain concerned over its potential re-emergence, and to separatist tendencies in general. Sources report that Sri Lankan authorities collect and maintain sophisticated intelligence on former LTTE members, supporters and other separatists, including ‘stop’ and ‘watch’ electronic databases. DFAT understands these databases remain active. ‘Stop’ lists include names of those individuals who have an extant court order, arrest warrant or order to impound their Sri Lankan passport. ‘Watch’ lists include names of those individuals whom the Sri Lankan security services consider to be of interest, including for suspected separatist or criminal activities.
3.42 Former LTTE members face no legal barriers to participating in public life, including politics. In the August 2015 parliamentary elections, the TNA did not allow ex-LTTE members to run on their ticket, but ex-combatants established the Crusaders for Democracy party and ran for election. While the party did not win any seats, its participation demonstrated the relative openness of the electoral process. The party did not contest the 2020 parliamentary elections.
3.43 The LTTE has not carried out any attacks since 2009; however, individuals linked to the LTTE have been involved in what are alleged to be thwarted attacks. DFAT assesses that the LTTE no longer exists as an organised force inside Sri Lanka, and any former LTTE members within Sri Lanka would have only minimal capacity to exert influence on Sri Lankans. Local sources told DFAT that the Tamil community had abandoned militancy and was committed to addressing its grievances through political means.
3.44 The International Truth and Justice Project (ITJP), an NGO which documents torture and sexual violence by the security forces in Sri Lanka, claims that, while ex-LTTE cadres exist, they are no longer affiliated in any way with an extant LTTE, and are subject to harassment and discrimination by the Government. The Sri Lankan Government may not accept that the LTTE is finished, arresting several Tamils in 2021 under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) for alleged LTTE-supportive behaviour (see Prevention of Terrorism Act). In July 2021, a Tamil man was deported from Qatar to Sri Lanka at the request of Counter-Terrorism Investigation Department (CTID) for allegedly promoting the LTTE. In its May 2021 decision on the refugee status of Tamil activists in the UK, the UK Upper Tribunal found that the present Government of Sri Lanka was possessed of a ‘determination to prevent any form of resurgent separatism’.
…
High-profile former LTTE members
3.47 ‘High-profile’ former LTTE members are individuals who held senior positions in the LTTE’s military wing and civilian administration. The LTTE’s former leadership face the highest risk of monitoring, arrest, detention or prosecution, regardless of whether they performed a combat or civilian role during the war. Although most of the LTTE’s leadership died during the war, a number surrendered or were captured and sent to rehabilitation centres or prosecuted/detained. Some former leaders may have left Sri Lanka before, during or after the war (see Former LTTE members living outside Sri Lanka). Others considered ‘high-profile’ include individuals suspected of terrorist or serious criminal offences during the war, or of providing weapons or explosives to the LTTE. Other former leaders, such as Karuna Amman (previously a leader of the TMVP, now a member of the Sri Lankan Freedom Party (SLFP), part of the President’s ruling coalition), defected and are allied with the Government.
3.48 DFAT assesses that the number of high-profile former LTTE members living in Sri Lanka is small and that the vast majority would already have come to the attention of the authorities. DFAT also assesses that any remaining high-profile former LTTE members who came to the attention of the authorities would likely be arrested, detained and prosecuted through Sri Lanka’s criminal courts and, once they had their prison sentences, be subjected to some form of rehabilitation. The average judicial process in Sri Lanka, including appeal, is protracted (see Judiciary). High-profile former LTTE members would likely continue to be monitored by the Sri Lankan authorities following their release from prison and completion of any rehabilitation process.
Low-profile former LTTE members
3.49 ‘Low-profile’ former LTTE members include former combatants, those employed in administrative or other roles, and those who may have provided a high level of non-military support to the LTTE during the war. DFAT assesses that, although the great majority of low-profile former LTTE members have been released following their rehabilitation, any low-profile former LTTE members who came to the attention of the Sri Lankan authorities now, particularly if suspected of having a combat function during the war, would likely be detained and may be sent for rehabilitation. Following their release from rehabilitation, a low profile former LTTE member might be monitored but would generally not be prosecute.
In relation to the PTA, DFAT reported:[18]
The Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA)
4.20 The PTA was enacted as a temporary measure in 1979 to counter separatist insurgencies. It was made permanent in 1982 and remains legally in force. The PTA is not part of regular criminal law and contains special provisions on detention and the admissibility of confessions. The PTA allows arrests for unspecified ‘unlawful activities’, permits detention for up to 18 months without charge and provides that confessions are legally admissible. Prior to the 2019 Easter Sunday terrorist attacks, the PTA was used mainly to target those suspected of involvement with the LTTE. It was used only sporadically between 2016 and April 2019 following the then-government’s commitment to repeal and replace the PTA under HRC Resolution 30/1 (2015). During the civil war, authorities detained more Tamils under the PTA than any other ethnic group. The PTA has been used for many years to detain people in prolonged and often arbitrary detention. According to the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, in his 2017 report, 70 people had been in detention without trial for over five years and 12 had been in detention without trial for over 10 years. According to the HRCSL, as of 31 January 2018, about 15 per cent of PTA suspects had been in detention for 10 to 15 years, and about 41 per cent had been in detention for five to 10 years. As of 2021, many of these detainees are still being held.
4.21 DFAT is not able to verify the precise number of individuals currently held under the PTA. One local source estimated that 300 Muslims and 60 Tamils are being held under this legislation. A large number of Muslims were detained under the PTA following the 2019 Easter Sunday terrorist attacks. In 2021, the Sri Lankan police were still arresting Muslims in connection to the bombing. For example, in April 2021, opposition MP Rishad Bathiudeen and his brother Riyadh were arrested by CID for allegedly assisting the terrorists responsible for the 2019 Easter Sunday terrorist attacks. The brothers have claimed the arrest was political. The Government has not explained the nature of their alleged connection to the bombing. The brothers have since been released on strict conditions of bail.
4.22 The Government has used the PTA for purposes with arguably limited connection to terrorism. In May 2020, police arrested Ahnaf Jazeem, a 26-year-old teacher and Tamil poet, based on allegations that his poetry collection promoted ‘religious extremism’. In December 2021, Jazeem was charged under the PTA and released on bail. Human rights observers have reported other cases with respect to Muslims, including: Hejaaz Hizbullah, a Muslim human rights lawyer in custody since 14 April 2020 and eventually charged with an offence under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Act; and Ramzy Razeek, a retired government official, detained in April 2020 for posting on Facebook about religious extremism.
4.23 The PTA has also recently been used against Tamils. Media reported a Tamil man was arrested by Eravur police in April 2021 for allegedly sharing a photo of LTTE leader Prabhakaran, while Jaffna Mayor, V. Mannivannan, was arrested by TID in April 2021 under accusations of attempting to resurrect the LTTE, allegedly because the choice of uniforms for a municipal environmental enforcement team resembled those of the LTTE. DFAT is not aware of returnees from Australia to Sri Lanka being charged under the PTA.
4.24 In 2015, President Sirisena committed to repeal and replace the PTA with improved counter terrorism legislation. This proposal, which was criticised by some human rights defenders as being as bad or even worse than the PTA, lapsed with that Government. In June 2021, the European Parliament adopted a resolution urging the EU Commission to consider temporary withdrawal of the Generalized System of Preferences preferential trade agreement from Sri Lanka, if it did not reform the PTA. In its response the Sri Lankan Ministry of Foreign Affairs rejected the claim that detention under the PTA had resulted in arbitrary detention but nevertheless promised to ‘revisit’ provisions of the Act to propose ‘necessary amendments’.
4.25 In March 2021, the Government added ‘de-radicalisation regulations’ to the PTA which allow for arbitrary administrative detention of individuals for up to two years without trial. The Government also proscribed 300 Tamil and Muslim groups and individuals allegedly ‘linked to terrorism.’ On 5 August 2021, the Supreme Court, in response to Fundamental Rights Petitions filed by several activists, issued an Interim Order suspending the operation of Prevention of Terrorism (De-radicalization from holding violent extremist religious ideology) Regulations No. 01 of 2021. These petitioners argued that individuals arrested under these new regulations could be subject to potentially indefinite detention under the guise of rehabilitation, without judicial review. A court hearing of the matter remains stalled at the time of publication.
4.26 In September 2021, during the UN Human Rights Council Session, the Sri Lankan Government announced a Cabinet sub-committee had been convened in June to ‘review’ the PTA within three months. Its report was not available at the time of publication, however, according to media reports, the committee presented its report to the President on 15 November 2021.
[18] Report of 23 December 2021.
In relation to returnees, DFAT reported:[19]
[19] DFAT Country Information Report on Sri Lanka, dated 23 December 2021.
TREATMENT OF RETURNEES
Exit and Entry Procedures
5.17 Unsuccessful asylum seekers, both those subject to removal or departing voluntarily, are returned to Sri Lanka either using commercial or charter flights. In some cases, they may be accompanied by security escorts. On arrival in Colombo, returnees will be presented to Sri Lankan Immigration where they will be interviewed by the Chief Immigration Officer. Depending on the circumstances of their departure from Sri Lanka and their personal history, they may be interviewed by other agencies including CID, Sri Lankan State Intelligence Service (SIS) and Sri Lankan Navy Intelligence (SLNI). These agencies check travel documents and identity information against the immigration databases, intelligence databases and records of outstanding criminal matters. Those who have departed illegally will be referred to CID at the airport and charged accordingly. Once charged they are taken to the courts at Negombo where they are bailed and released.
5.18 DFAT is not aware of returnees in 2021 being detained for matters other than illegal departure (such as, for former membership of the LTTE). However, due to COVID-19, returnees have been returned to Sri Lanka in smaller numbers overall than in previous years. According to the IOM, in 2021 up to September, there had been 107 returnees, 19 of these from Australia. Local sources also report that Tamils overseas are much less likely to return voluntarily to Sri Lanka under the current Government.
5.19 The IOM meets Australian-assisted voluntary returnees (i.e. not deportees) after immigration clearance at the airport and provides some cash and onward transportation assistance, along with legal assistance provided by the Sri Lankan Legal Aid Commission for those charged with illegal departure. Prior to departure from Australia, Australian Border Force provides removed returnees with cash to assist their return.
5.20 For returnees travelling on temporary travel documents, police undertake an investigative process to confirm identity. This would identify someone trying to conceal a criminal or terrorist background, or trying to avoid court orders or arrest warrants. This often involves interviewing the returning passenger, contacting police in their claimed hometown, contacting claimed neighbours and family, and checking criminal and court records. DFAT is not aware of detainees being subjected to mistreatment during processing at the airport.
Offences under the Immigrants and Emigrants Act
5.21 The Immigrants and Emigrants Act (1948) (the I&E Act) governs exit from and entry to Sri Lanka. Returnees who depart Sri Lanka irregularly by boat are considered to have committed an offence under the I&E Act. Sections 34 and 35 (a) of the I&E Act make it an offence, respectively, to depart Sri Lanka other than via an approved port of departure, such as a seaport or airport, and/or without a valid passport. Returnees who departed Sri Lanka legally are not required to face a court, as no offence under the I&E Act applies. Sri Lanka has a mature people smuggling industry. Penalties for leaving Sri Lanka illegally can include imprisonment of up to five years and a fine, though DFAT is unaware of a prison sentence being given for illegal departure by itself. Facilitators or organisers of people smuggling ventures, including captains and their crew, are charged with more serious offences and typically refused bail.
5.22 Those charged are required to appear in court in the location where the matter was first heard, reportedly Negombo Courts, near the airport, which involves legal and transport costs. While the frequency of court appearances depends on the magistrate, DFAT understands that most individuals charged under the I&E Act appear in court every 3-6 months, regardless of their plea, for bail hearings. In addition to their own court hearings, those charged may be summonsed as witnesses in cases against the facilitators or organisers of people smuggling ventures. The cases of those charged with illegal departure may take years to resolve, requiring on-going court appearances (and illegal departees have no reasonable prospect of a defence). It is unclear to DFAT why such cases take so long. One source suggested that cases are taken forward in court only when all members of a people smuggling venture have been located; while another local source suggested it was simply due to the workings of the Sri Lankan justice system. For many returnees, this means they are subject to the slow processes of the Sri Lankan legal system; some returnees told DFAT that it was difficult and stressful having to return periodically to Colombo for a further hearing in a case where they were uncertain of the outcome.
5.23 While those convicted of the offence of illegal departure may theoretically face a custodial sentence, in practice, local sources suggest, a fine is always imposed and typically this fine is LKR 50,000 - 200,000 (AUD350-1400). Sources suggest those who are unable to pay the fine are permitted to pay in instalments but, if still unable, may be imprisoned for 14 days.
5.24 The severity of the fine for those charged under the I&E Act does not necessarily increase for those who have departed Sri Lanka illegally on more than one occasion. DFAT notes that, while the fines issued for passengers of people smuggling ventures are often low, the cumulative costs associated with regular court appearances over protracted lengths of time can be high. Anecdotal evidence suggests there is an acceptance within the Tamil community that illegal maritime ventures to Australia in search of asylum would be futile at this point in time.
5.25 The minimum age of criminal responsibility in Sri Lanka is 12 years. Under Sri Lankan law, anybody over the age of 12 at the time of their alleged offence is treated as an adult. Children over the age of 12 can therefore be charged with breaking the I&E Act, so long as they were 12 or older at the time of the alleged offence. No charges are imposed against children under 12 years of age or those persons who were younger than 12 at the time of the alleged offence.
5.26 DFAT is not aware of returnees from Australia to Sri Lanka being charged under the PTA. Some returnees from Australia have been charged with immigration offences and with criminal offences allegedly committed before departure.
Conditions for Returnees
5.27 Between 2010-11 and 2018-19, 3,716 Sri Lankan nationals returned from the Australian community or were removed from Australian onshore immigration detention centres to their country of origin or a third country. Between 2002 and September 2021, the IOM has facilitated the return of 876 Sri Lankans from Australia. Many others returned from the US, Canada, the UK and other European countries. Most returnees are Tamil. Although individual experiences vary, many Tamil returnees choose to return to the north, either because it is their place of origin and they have existing family links, or because of the relatively lower cost of living compared to the south.
5.28 Refugees and failed asylum seekers face practical challenges to successful return to Sri Lanka. Most returnees have incurred significant expenses or debt to undertake their outward journey. Some voluntary returnees receive reintegration assistance in the form of transport and livelihood support upon return to Sri Lanka from the Government, UN agencies and NGOs, but this requires a returnee to meet strict eligibility guidelines and is minimal. Failed asylum seekers receive limited reintegration assistance. Many returnees have difficulty finding suitable employment and reliable housing on return. Those who have skills that are in high demand in the labour market are best placed to find well-paid employment. The IOM provides eligible returnees with livelihood assistance and makes regular visits to monitor the welfare of returnees.
5.29 Multiple local sources said that some returnees, especially those in the north and east with suspected LTTE links, have been the subject of monitoring by the authorities, involving visits to returnees’ homes and telephone calls by the CID. DFAT understands that most returnees, including failed asylum seekers, are not actively monitored on an ongoing or long-term basis. DFAT is unable to verify whether monitoring, where it occurs, is specific to former LTTE cadres. Some Tamils who had failed to secure asylum in Australia and since returned to the Northern Province told DFAT they had no protection concerns and had not experienced harassment by the authorities, nor received monitoring visits, but DFAT cannot determine if this is the case for all such returnees.
5.30 Bureaucratic inefficiencies present a significant challenge to reintegration for returnees. Refugee returnees, particularly those who returned without UNHCR or IOM facilitation, can experience delays in obtaining necessary identification documents and proof of citizenship. Lack of documentation inhibits access to social welfare schemes and the ability to open bank accounts, find employment or enrol in educational institutions. Limited job availability in the north and east further contributes to difficulties in securing employment and housing. DFAT assesses that reintegration issues are not due to failure to obtain asylum, but rather due to the employment and accommodation difficulties returnees may face. Some Tamils who had failed to secure asylum in Australia and since returned to the Northern Province told DFAT they were able to reintegrate into their communities and find employment. DFAT understands that returnees may face financial difficulties reintegrating into their communities, including due to sale of their belongings to fund irregular ventures overseas, but do not experience societal discrimination for seeking asylum elsewhere.
5.31 Some refugees and failed asylum seekers reported being pressured upon return to their communities, chiefly for being beneficiaries of financial reintegration assistance. Others experienced resentment upon return because they spent family funds on what proved to be a futile attempt at irregular migration. Overall, DFAT understands that societal discrimination is not a major concern for returnees, including failed asylum seekers. Some Tamils who had failed to secure asylum in Australia and since returned to the Northern Province told DFAT they had not experienced significant societal discrimination following their return.
5.32 DFAT assesses that returnees face a low risk of societal discrimination upon return to their communities. DFAT further assesses that, where it occurs, surveillance of returnees can contribute to a sense of mistrust of returnees within communities
Reports from other sources

There are reports of increased mistreatment, monitoring and harassment of Tamils in the north and east after the November 2019 presidential election, and continued with the change of government in July 2022. Reports of monitoring, surveillance, intimidation and harassment of Tamils in day-to-day life by security forces in the north and east of the country increased after the election of Gotabaya Rajapaksa as president in November 2019.[20]
[20] 'Jailing Activists and Pardoning Murderers: Monitoring Ten Issues of Concern in Sri Lanka in 2021', Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice, February 2022, p.19, 20220218122156; 'Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Sri Lanka', UK Home Office, 20 January 2020, pp.11,49, 20200123162928; 'Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on Sri Lanka', OHCHR, 18 February 2020, p.7.
In September 2022, the United Nations’ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) said it continues to receive reports of surveillance, intimidation, and harassment of various groups in the North and East, including journalists, human rights defenders, families of the disappeared and persons involved in memorialization initiatives.[21] There have been reports of assaults, arrests and the alleged torture of Tamil civilians.[22] In one reported case in 2021, this resulted in the death of a Tamil civilian in police custody.[23]
[21] 'Situation of human rights in Sri Lanka: Comprehensive Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights A/HRC/51/5', United Nations Human Rights Council, 06 September 2022, p.7.
[22] 'Tamil man hospitalised following assault by Sri Lankan military aligned thugs over Mullivaikkal commemoration', Tamil Guardian, 22 May 2022, 20220524115440; 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2021 Sri Lanka', United States Department of State, 12 April 2022, p.3; 'Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka: Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights', United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations Human Rights Council, 25 February 2022, pp.7-8; 'Sri Lanka: End the use of and repeal the draconian PTA', Amnesty International, 17 February 2022, p.5; 'Sri Lanka military’s latest assault weapon: Barbed wire wrapped palm frond', Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka, 25 January 2022; 'Sri Lanka: Torture and Sexual Violence by Security Forces 2020-2021', Yasmin Sooka and Frances Harrison, International Truth and Justice Project, September 2021, pp.24-27; 'Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association', United Nations Human Rights Council, 05 May 2020, p.13; 'Repression of Dissent in Sri Lanka: 1 st - 31st May 2020', INFORM Human Rights Documentation Centre, 29 June 2020, p.10; 'Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Sri Lanka', UK Home Office, 20 January 2020, pp.11,49; 'Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on Sri Lanka', OHCHR, 18 February 2020, p.7; 'Tamil youth hospitalised following Sri Lankan army assault in Mannar', Tamil Guardian, 25 August; 'Sri Lankan police arrest ten Tamils in Jaffna', Tamil Guardian, 11 August 2020; 'Falsely arrested and tortured disabled Tamil man submits complaint at Human Rights Commission', Tamil Guardian, 03 June 2020.
[23] ‘Jailing Activists and Pardoning Murderers: Monitoring Ten Issues of Concern in Sri Lanka in 2021', Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice, February 2022, p.31, 20220218122156; 'Sri Lanka: Torture and Sexual Violence by Security Forces 2020-2021', Yasmin Sooka and Frances Harrison, International Truth and Justice Project, September 2021, p.33; 'Tamil youth was 'tied to a tree' and attacked before being 'beaten to death'', Tamil Guardian, 05 June 2021; 'Tamil youth beaten to death by Sri Lankan Intelligence officials', Tamil Guardian, 03 June 2021.
In January 2022, a Tamil fisherman and activist who had campaigned against military encroachment in the north, was found dead; local politicians and community members in Jaffna alleged he was murdered by the Sri Lankan Navy and called for an inquiry.[24] Tamils with certain profiles, such as political activists and journalists are more likely to attract the attention of authorities.
[24] 'Sri Lanka: Family seeks impartial investigation into killing of Tamil fisherman', Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka, 14 January 2022; 'Anger in Jaffna after leading Tamil protestor killed by Sri Lankan navy', Tamil Guardian, 12 January 2022.
Civil society groups report ongoing harassment and intimidation of family members of individuals who disappeared during the war.[25] Individuals and groups seeking to commemorate the end of the war and fallen LTTE combatants have experienced security forces surveillance, have been stopped from marking these occasions, and in some instances have been arrested, including under PTA.[26]
[25] 'Situation of human rights in Sri Lanka: Comprehensive Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights A/HRC/51/5', United Nations Human Rights Council, 06 September 2022, pp.7, 9; 'Human Rights in Sri Lanka in 2021', Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice, 21 December 2021, 20211222090819; 'Heeding Victims’ Voices: The Struggle of Tamil Families of the Disappeared in Sri Lanka', Dharsha Jegatheeswaran, Just Security, 03 March 2021.
[26] 'Jailing Activists and Pardoning Murderers: Monitoring Ten Issues of Concern in Sri Lanka in 2021', Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice, February 2022, p.27; 'Sri Lanka: Torture and Sexual Violence by Security Forces 2020-2021', Yasmin Sooka and Frances Harrison, International Truth and Justice Project, September 2021, p.3223; 'Sri Lanka army soldiers attack Tamil journalist covering commemoration for civil war dead', Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), New York, 02 December 2021; 'Sri Lankan security forces block Sencholai massacre commemoration in Mullaitivu', Tamil Guardian, 14 August 2021; 'Sri Lankan troops break up Tamil remembrance of civil war dead', Aljazeera, 29 November 2021.
While authorities lifted a ban on several Tamil organisations and individuals in August 2022, many Tamil individuals and Tamil organisations, including several diaspora organisations, remain proscribed.[27]
[27] 'Amendment to the List of Designated Persons under Regulation 4(7) of the United Nations Regulations No. 1 of 201', Gazette of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, The, 01 August 2022; 'Procedure for blacklisting and delisting of persons and organisations under UNSC 1373', Daily News, 18 August 2022; 'De-proscribed Tamil units funded terrorism earlier, says Defence Ministry', Morning, The, 17 August 2022; 'Ban on Tamil diaspora units lifted', Morning, The, 15 August 2022,; 'Selfish and cynical – Sri Lanka lifts ban on some Tamils but many more remain banned', Tamil Guardian, 17 August 2022; 'UN High Commissioner raises concerns of harassment of Tamils and Muslims in Sri Lanka', Tamil Guardian, 21 June 2021; 'Tamil organisations speak out against Sri Lanka's ban', Tamil Guardian, 04 April 2021.
Tamil political parties are generally able to operate freely and contest elections, although there have been increasing reports of the monitoring and harassment of hard-line parties. The TNA remains the largest single Tamil party, but saw its share of seats drop from 16 in the last parliament to 10.[28] In general, there have been few reports of political violence against party members in recent years.[29]
[28] 'Non-career lawmakers secure political authority', Daily Mirror (Sri Lanka), 13 August 2020.
[29] 'Sri Lankan police attack Tamils in Jaffna as frustration mounts over recount', Tamil Guardian, 06 August 2020; 'Internal strife within ITAK takes disturbing turn', Daily Mirror (Sri Lanka), 29 August 2020.
Information indicates that persons advocating for Tamil separatism may attract the attention of Sri Lankan authorities. Available sources indicate that those who hold a ‘significant role’ in Tamil separatist activities, such as through holding leadership positions in Tamil diaspora groups, those deemed to hold radical views, those formerly part of the LTTE, those in high-profile roles, those suspected of raising funds for the LTTE during the war, and those who actively advocate for Tamil statehood would likely be of particular interest to the Sri Lankan authorities.[30]
[30] 'KK RS (ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE) AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT', Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), 27 May 2021, pp.119-120.
In relation to the PTA, there are reports that the PTA has been used to arrest hundreds of mostly Muslim Sri Lankans as part of investigations into the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings, although most have now been released. Prior to the Easter Sunday bombings, government statistics indicated that the majority of individuals held under the PTA were Tamils detained in many cases for years in connection with serious security offences.[31] Government data indicate that, as of 2 December 2021, 333 people were detained under the PTA, of whom 16 were convicted, 11 were under appeal and the remaining were detained as suspects.[32] The Sri Lankan government passed a bill to amend the PTA in March 2022 which critics said was ineffective and did not adequately address human rights concerns. Critics, including the UNHCHR and civil society groups, said the amendments failed to address aspects of the PTA which have enabled human rights abuses and the targeting of minorities, critics and journalists.[33]
[31] 'Sri Lankan Minister claims all pending pre-2016 PTA cases ‘to be concluded in next three months'', Tamil Guardian, 15 August 2021; ‘UN Special Rapporteur (Ben Emmerson) on human rights and terrorism in Sri Lanka’, Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 14 August 2017, p.2,; ‘PTA suspended pending passage of new Counter Terrorism Law’, Island, The, 8 February 2017,; ‘Human rights and counter terrorism: UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism concludes visit to Sri Lanka, Preliminary findings of the visit to Sri Lanka’, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 14 July 2017; ‘Locked up without evidence: Abuses under Sri Lanka’s Prevention of Terrorism Act’, Human Rights Watch, 29 January 2018, p.5; ‘Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on its visit to Sri Lanka’, UN Human Rights Council, 23 July 2018, p.7; ‘Police arrest 2289 over Easter Sunday terror attacks – Police Spokesman SP Ruwan Gunasekara’, The Sunday Reader, 3 June 2019; ‘Over 2,280 suspected arrested since Easter Sunday terror attacks’, Daily News, 5 June 2019; ‘Brother of Suicide Bomber Arrested’, Daily News, 10 May 2019; ‘Govt urged to review ‘security reforms’ as 60 suspects taken in under PTA’ The Island, 25 April 2019; 'Official list of detainees under PTA', Ceylon Today, 30 July 2017; 'Promotion reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka: Report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights ', OHCHR, 27 January 2021, p.13.
[32] 'Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka: Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights', United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations Human Rights Council, 25 February 2022, p.10.
[33] Civil Society statement on proposed amendments to Prevention of Terrorism Act', Daily FT, 08 February 2022.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant country information, including the most recent DFAT report,[34] and indicated that on balance, country information indicates that being a failed asylum seeker, a returnee from a Western country, Tamil, and having departed unlawfully do not necessarily mean that there is a real risk or a real chance of serious or significant harm. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant the Sri Lankan I&E Act and noted that it is a law of general application, applied in a non-discriminatory manner and for legitimate purposes.
[34] Country Information Report: Sri Lanka, 23 December 2021.
Tamil ethnicity
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a Tamil from the Eastern Province. The Tribunal accepts country information that there is a level of mistreatment, monitoring and harassment of Tamils in the north and east which increased after the November 2019 presidential election, and continued with the change of government in July 2022. The Tribunal observes DFAT’s assessment that “surveillance of Tamils in the north and east continues, with particular surveillance of those associated with politically-sensitive issues. DFAT also assesses that physical violence against those being monitored is not common, and that ordinary Tamils living in the north and east of Sri Lanka are at low risk of official harassment”.[35]
[35] Ibid, para 3.13.
Whilst the Tribunal acknowledges that Tamils continue to face a degree of discrimination and ill-treatment in Sri Lanka, on balance and on the basis of the available information, the Tribunal is not satisfied that being Tamil without more means that the applicant would face harm amounting to serious or significant harm, or that he would be suspected of being associated with the LTTE merely on the basis of being a Tamil (or on any other basis). A fair appraisal of independent country information, essentially indicate that it is individuals who have actual or perceived strong LTTE links/sympathisers or a significant political profile who can be targeted.
Failed asylum seeker, the I&E Act, and the PTA
The Tribunal accepts country information that unsuccessful asylum seekers are presented to the Sri Lankan Immigration and are interviewed by the Chief Immigration Officer and possibly by other agencies including the CID, the SIS, and the SLNI. Those agencies check travel documents and identity information and those who departed illegally are referred to the CID at the airport and charged accordingly. Once charged they are taken to the courts at Negombo where they are bailed and released. DFAT[36] noted that it was not aware of returnees in 2021 being detained for matters other than illegal departure (such as, for former membership of the LTTE).
[36] Ibid, para 5.18.
In relation to the I&E Act, the Tribunal accepts that returnees who departed Sri Lanka irregularly are considered to have committed an offence under the I&E Act. The Tribunal observes that ss 34 and 35 (a) of the I&E Act make it an offence, to depart Sri Lanka other than via an approved port of departure and/or without a valid passport. As referred to earlier, DFAT reported that penalties for leaving Sri Lanka illegally can include imprisonment of up to five years and a fine, though DFAT was unaware of a prison sentence being given for illegal departure by itself. DFAT noted that while those convicted of the offence of illegal departure may theoretically face a custodial sentence, in practice, local sources suggest, a fine is always imposed and typically this fine is LKR 50,000 - 200,000 (AUD350-1400).[37] DFAT noted that sources suggest those who are unable to pay the fine are permitted to pay in instalments but, if still unable, may be imprisoned for 14 days.[38]
[37] Ibid, para 5.23.
[38] Ibid.
Regarding the PTA, the Tribunal notes that although the PTA has recently been used against Tamils, this appears to be related to those who are perceived to have some adverse profile. In any case, DFAT reported that “DFAT is not aware of returnees from Australia to Sri Lanka being charged under the PTA”.[39]
[39] Report of 23 December 2021, para 4.23.
Prison conditions in Sri Lanka
DFAT[40] reported that:
5.10 In general, prison conditions in Sri Lanka do not meet international standards, including due to old infrastructure, overcrowding, and a shortage of adequate health and sanitary facilities. The HRCSL in its study of prisons in 2020 found that the ‘treatment and detention conditions of prisoners fall far below the threshold of basic living standards’. The US Department of State reported in 2018 that only some of the larger prisons had hospitals, and that prisoners requiring medical care in smaller prisons were typically transferred to the nearest local hospital. Some facilities reportedly do not segregate juveniles and adults, or remand and convicted detainees. In many prisons, inmates reportedly slept on concrete floors, and prisons often lacked natural light or sufficient ventilation.
5.11 Overcrowding in Sri Lankan prisons is a major issue. According to official statistics, in 2020, the number of prisoners (approximately 90,000 prisoners on remand and 19,900 convicted detainees) DFAT Country Information Report Sri Lanka (December 2021) 46 exceeded prison capacity by nearly 64 per cent. Over half of the prison population is estimated to be awaiting trial. Remand detention typically lasts years and is considered as part of the final sentence at the discretion of judges. According to the HRCSL, the overcrowding of prisons is also impacted by the large number of convicted prisoners imprisoned due to the inability to pay fines and the non-payment of debt and maintenance payments.
5.12 The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has the right to access to all places of detention and all categories of detainees in Sri Lanka, including those held under the PTA and those undergoing rehabilitation for drug-related offences. The ICRC receives notification of arrest but, given resource constraints, can take some time to visit detainees to assess their welfare. The HRCSL also has the right to access a number of places of detention without restrictions from the authorities, including for unannounced visits. The Government continued to allow the ICRC and the HRCSL full access to prisons in 2020. In addition to the ICRC and the HRCSL, the Board of Prison Visitors, an internal governmental watchdog, examines detention conditions. The Board conducts regular visits to prisoners and accepts complaints as a part of its mandate.
[40] Report of 23 December 2021.
The Tribunal has carefully considered the material before it, and is satisfied that the laws in relation to illegal departure are laws of general application, applied in a non-discriminatory manner and serving a legitimate purpose of dealing with people who depart their country unlawfully. Having considered the relevant country information, the Tribunal is satisfied that the laws regarding unlawful departure, which includes being arrested, charged and fined (irrespective of amount) are not selectively enforced or applied in a discriminatory way for a Convention reason, as they apply to all persons who depart illegally.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the treatment faced by returnees who departed illegally would give rise to persecution as contemplated by s 91R(1)(c). This includes processing at the airport, questioning, and being fined. With regards to potential loss of liberty, because it arises from the non-discriminatory operation of a law of general application, the Tribunal finds that it does not amount to persecution for the purposes of s 91R(1)(c).
Although the Tribunal is satisfied that there is a remote chance that the applicant would be imprisoned in conditions which might cause him to suffer discomfort and unpleasantness, on the evidence and information before it, the Tribunal does not accept that, in his particular circumstances and with his attributes, he would be persecuted for any Convention reason, as contemplated by s 91R.
Having considered the information before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the treatment faced by the applicant as a returnee who departed Sri Lanka unlawfully, either at the airport on arrival, or in their community, or when they are later dealt with by the courts, amounts to persecution or gives rise to serious harm in the reasonably foreseeable future, even when assessed cumulatively with what is accepted of the applicant’s personal profile and circumstances in Sri Lanka. Nor is the Tribunal satisfied that the process involves or gives rise to differential treatment for a Convention reason.

Therefore, in consideration of the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant does not now or in the reasonably foreseeable future have a well-founded fear of persecution arising essentially and significantly from one or more of the five Convention reasons if he returns to Sri Lanka on the basis of his illegal departure, Tamil ethnicity, being from the Eastern Province, a failed asylum seeker, or for any other reason.
In essence, in consideration of the evidence as a whole, including the applicant’s individual circumstances either singularly or cumulatively, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm for being a failed asylum seeker, or for his illegal departure, or for any other claimed reason, either singularly or cumulatively. It follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason in Sri Lanka now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Act.
Looking at the evidence independently and cumulatively, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a level of discrimination or ill treatment amounting to serious harm on the basis of being Tamil. The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence that the applicant does not have an adverse profile, or that he would be perceived as having any links or associations with the LTTE or for being a supporter, or an opponent to the Sri Lankan government, or that he would be targeted by the authorities or anyone else, or that he would be ill-treated as contemplated by the Act, or that he would be subjected to more scrutiny than other returnees because of his profile, or that he faces a real chance of serious harm on the basis of being a Tamil from Batticaloa and has lived in Australia, or that he would be harmed on the basis of being perceived wealthy, or that he would face serious harm on the basis of [Wife A’s] work with [Agency 1] or in the Council, or on the basis of his work which caused him to travel to LTTE controlled areas. In essence, and for the stated reasons, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of harm on those grounds, or any other grounds.
Complementary Protection
The Tribunal has also considered whether the applicant is eligible for complementary protection. For the stated reasons, the Tribunal has not been satisfied that the applicant has any profile that would associate him with the LTTE, or that he is of any adverse interest to the Sri Lankan authorities. In consideration of the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal finds that there is not a real risk that he will suffer significant harm on the basis of being a Tamil from the Eastern Province. In essence and in consideration of the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal does not accept that there is a real risk of significant harm occurring to the applicant on those grounds.
The Tribunal notes DFAT’s advice that DFAT was “not aware of returnees in 2021 being detained for matters other than illegal departure (such as, for former membership of the LTTE)”.[41] Despite DFAT’s acknowledgment that due to COVID-19, there have been fewer returnees to Sri Lanka than in previous years, DFAT was not aware of detainees being subjected to mistreatment during processing at the airport.
[41] Report of 23 December 2021, para 5.18.
Regarding any harm the applicant may face in connection with the claimed treatment of failed asylum seekers and/or returnees from western countries, on the basis of the available information, including country information regarding what awaits a person in the applicant’s circumstances, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that the treatment faced by the applicant, being a returned failed asylum seeker, gives rise to a real risk of significant harm as contemplated by section 36(2A) of the Act.
For the same reasons, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant will be viewed by the Sri Lankan authorities to be a person who departed Sri Lanka illegally (to Australia by boat and without a passport), and the Tribunal is satisfied that he will be questioned by the Sri Lankan authorities at the airport. For the stated reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that he has any adverse profile in Sri Lanka which will be revealed throughout the process or in connection with that process, or that he has a profile that would mean that he would be closely scrutinised, or ill-treated. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant may be in prison for a few days in conditions which are cramped, uncomfortable and unpleasant and he may have to pay a fine. Country information indicates that the prospect of the applicant being detained for a prolonged period of time is remote and not likely to result in hardship to the applicant that constitutes significant harm as contemplated by section 36(2A) of the Act.
On the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is credible and consistent reporting of returnees being arbitrarily deprived of their life or the death penalty being carried out on them, or of being subjected to mistreatment including intentional mistreatment involving torture or cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or the extreme humiliation required for an act or omission to be degrading treatment or punishment amounting to significant harm as contemplated by section 36(2A) of the Act.
While the Tribunal accepts, on the basis of the country information available to it, that the applicant may be remanded in conditions which are cramped and uncomfortable, the Tribunal does not accept that spending time in such conditions amounts to ‘significant harm’ as defined in subsection 36(2A) of the Migration Act or that such treatment is intentional as is required in the definitions of cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment and degrading treatment or punishment. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the conditions have not arisen due to demonstrable intent on the part of the Sri Lankan authorities to inflict severe pain or suffering. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not accept that there is a real risk that the applicant will be subjected to ‘torture’.

100. The definition of ‘cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’ in subsection 5(1) of the Act requires that pain or suffering be ‘intentionally inflicted’ on a person and the definition of ‘degrading treatment or punishment’ requires that the relevant act or omission be ‘intended to cause’ extreme humiliation. Mere negligence or indifference is not sufficient, what is required is an intention to inflict pain or suffering or to cause extreme humiliation. The Tribunal does not accept on the evidence before it that the pain or suffering caused by the overcrowding and other problems in prisons in Sri Lanka is ‘intentionally inflicted’ on prisoners as required by the definition of ‘cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’ in subsection 5(1) of the Act. Neither does the Tribunal accept that the overcrowding and other problems are ‘intended to cause’ extreme humiliation as required by the definition of ‘degrading treatment or punishment’.
101. In essence, the Tribunal finds that there are no substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Sri Lanka, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm as a consequence of the poor conditions in prisons due to overcrowding during any period which he may spend in gaol. The Tribunal finds that there is not a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm for any other reason or reasons.
102. On balance, on the information before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that, the applicant’s profile, being a person who has left Sri Lanka illegally, even when considered cumulatively with what is accepted of the applicant’s claimed risk profile and the independent sources, involves or creates a real risk of treatment amounting to significant harm as contemplated by section 36(2A) of the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Sri Lanka, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.
CONCLUSIONS
103. 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 the Refugees Convention. Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a).
104. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
105. 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
106. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.
Antoinette Younes

Deputy President

[2022] AATA 5085

16 December 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Standing

Statutory Construction