1824250 (Refugee)

1824250 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 4778 (5 December 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1824250
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   China
MEMBER:Suseela Durvasula
DATE:5 December 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 05 December 2023 at 3:49pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – religion – Christianity – registered official church – employment claims – corruption – neighbourhood dispute – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 1 August 2018 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 China applied for the visa on 1 December 2017. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant is not a person to whom Australia has protection obligations.
The delegate invited the applicant to attend an interview on 26 April 2018, but the applicant did not attend.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 23 November 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.
Background
The applicant is a [age] year old Chinese national who was born in Fujian province. He arrived in Australia on a visitor visa [in] October 2017 which ceased [in] January 2018. He applied for a protection visa on 1 December 2017.
At the hearing, the applicant told the Tribunal that in China, he lived at his family home in a town in Fujian Province with his wife, 2 children (aged [age] and [age] years) and his mother. This was the same house where he was born and grew up in.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Refugee grounds
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
The persecution must involve serious harm to the person and systematic and discriminatory conduct: ss 5J(4)(b), (c). For the purposes of s 5J(4), s 5J(5) provides that the following are instances of serious harm: (a) a threat to the person’s life or liberty; (b) significant physical harassment of the person; (c) significant physical ill-treatment of the person; (d) significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist; (e) denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist; (f) denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
Complementary protection
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
‘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.
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 issues in this case are whether there is a real chance, if the applicant returns to China, that he would be persecuted for one or more of the following reasons: race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. If not, the Tribunal must decide whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Country of nationality
The national applicant has provided a copy of his passport to the Department and Tribunal which shows he is a Chinese citizen. The Tribunal finds, based on the applicant’s passport, that he is a national of China and has assessed his claims on this basis.
Christianity claims
The applicant’s protection visa application was prepared by a former migration agent. In that application, the applicant states he was persecuted by the Chinese Government because he believed in underground Christianity. The Chinese government began to crack down on underground Christianity and sent police to monitor and harass his home. They forced his family to give up their beliefs and his parents were beaten by the police because they refused. The applicant wrote a public letter to distribute. However, after officials knew of his behaviour, they wanted to catch him to brainwash him. He was not at home at the time, so he survived. He fears that if he returns to China he will be persecuted by the police and would go to prison.
At the hearing, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant, the claims made in his protection visa application. The applicant stated it was not correct that he was an underground Christian and experienced harassment and harm from the police because of this. He may not have made himself clear to the agent. The agent did not read his claims back to him to ensure they were correct when preparing the application. He had only mentioned his childhood experience of attending church to the agent. He did not have any problems from the authorities and was never harassed by the police because of his Christian religion or church attendance. He did not write a public letter to distribute. He had told the agent that it was not easy to find a job in China.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about his religious practice at the hearing. He stated that he is a Christian as his mother is also a Christian. When he was young, his mother went to church in his hometown every Sunday. Sometimes he went with her, but not all the time. They initially met in a large room, but later the church built a big building and 300 to 400 people attended. He is not sure if the church was an official registered church or not, but it was not an underground church. They met in a separate building, not in someone’s house. They sang hymns and prayer songs and then came home. His wife and sons came with him and they continue to attend the church with his mother. The applicant and his family did not have any problems from the authorities due to their church attendance. They were freely able to go and return home.
At home, sometimes, when he had difficulties, he would pray to God at night and read part of the Bible, but not the whole book. In Australia, he attends a church in western Sydney almost every Sunday.
If he returned to China, he would practice in the same way and would attend the same church with his mother and family. He does not believe he would experience any harm from the authorities in practising his religion in this way.
Based on the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal accepts he is a Christian and he attended church on an occasional basis with his mother in China. The Tribunal accepts that he attends church in Australia. Given the applicant’s evidence about the size of the church congregation, the nature of the church building and the fact that he had no difficulties from the authorities in attending church or practising his faith in China, the Tribunal finds that the applicant was not an underground Christian and did not attend a house church in China. The Tribunal considers that he was most likely attending a registered official church. The Tribunal finds the applicant did not experience any difficulties from the authorities due to his religious practice or church attendance in China. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence that the claims in his protection visa applications were not correct and were embellished by his migration agent.
In relation to the applicant’s future conduct, the Tribunal accepts that if the applicant were to return to China, he would continue to practice his Christian faith and attend an established church with his mother and wife. The Tribunal does not accept, based on the applicant’s own evidence, that he would practice in an underground Christian house church. The Tribunal therefore does not accept the applicant would experience serious harm from the authorities due to his religious beliefs and practice. For these reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied there is a real chance the applicant will face persecution involving serious harm, for reasons of his religion, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, if he returns to China.
Employment Claims
At the hearing, the applicant claimed he does not want to return to China as he will not be able to find a good job that will be sufficient for him to support this family.
When asked at the hearing asked what he feared would happen to him if he returned to China, the applicant stated that it is hard to find a good job in China. In his hometown, the price of goods is high, and earning 3 000 to 4 000 RMB a month is not enough to support the whole family.
The applicant gave evidence that in China, he worked in a variety of jobs in various provinces. He mainly obtained the jobs through friends and connections. He did not get paid well so he kept changing jobs. His most recent job, before he came to Australia, was at a service station in his hometown. He worked there for more than 3 years. Prior to that, he worked at a [factory] in a different province for 2 years, as a [Position 1], in a [warehouse] and in factory jobs. He also sold insurance in his spare time. When he lived outside his hometown, the accommodation was provided by his employer. He has always worked in China. The exception was when he took 6 months to 1 year off to look after his children just after they were born. His wife has worked in an office that does logistics for the past 2 to 3 years and his children both attend school. His wife also supports her own mother.
In Australia, he has worked on and off, doing odd jobs in construction and other areas. He sends some money to his family which helps to support them.
At the hearing, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant that his claim he would not be able to find a higher paying job in China, may not meet the definition of serious harm in

s 5J(5) the Act. In addition, the claimed economic harm he fears may not be for reasons of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. It may arise because of the general different economic circumstances between Australia and China. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had been able to find work throughout his time in China and his wife was also working. If he had to return, he may not be denied of capacity to earn a livelihood, such that it would threaten his capacity to subsist. The applicant stated he had no comment on this.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims that as he will not be able to find a job that will be sufficient for him to support his family if returns to China. The Tribunal accepts the applicant has been sending money to his family from Australia which supplements their income. However, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claim that he would not be able to find a suitable job in China that will be sufficient to support his family. The applicant completed high school and has broad work experience. When he was in China, the applicant worked in a variety of jobs in various provinces. The jobs were obtained through his friends and contacts and in some instances, included accommodation. He also had a part time job selling insurance. His wife has worked in an office role for 2 to 3 years. He did not spend any significant periods unemployed because of his inability to find work.
Based on these findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied that if the applicant returned to China, he would be denied of capacity to earn a livelihood, such that it would threaten his capacity to subsist, within the meaning of s 5J(5)(f) of the Act. Noting that what constitutes serious harm is not limited to the examples in s 5J(5), the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant fears serious harm, having considered the evidence as a whole.
For these reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied there is a real chance the applicant will face serious harm if he returns to China, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. In addition, the Tribunal finds the claimed economic harm feared by the applicant is not for reasons of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion and he does not meet s 5J(1)(a) of the Act.
Corruption
At the hearing, the applicant also stated there is corruption in his hometown. When asked to explain this further, the applicant stated the officers are biased and rich people will bribe the town people. The Tribunal asked the applicant if could give details of any specific incidents that had impacted him or his family. The applicant stated that before 2013, he was driving his motorcycle. He had an accident and the driver of the other vehicle made him at fault as he had a relative in the police force. He had not experienced any other incidents since then and he does not consider he will experience any further corruption related harm if he returns to China.
Based on the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal finds the applicant has not experienced serious past harm due to any potential corruption if he returns to China. The incident he outlined in 2013 was a relatively minor traffic accident and he has not experienced any other incidents of harm related to corruption since 2013. He does not consider he will experience corruption related harm if he returns to China. The Tribunal finds the applicant has not raised any claims to fear harm as a result of potential corruption. For this reason, the Tribunal does not accept there is a real chance the applicant would face persecution involving serious harm, due to potential corruption, if he returns to China.
Neighbourhood dispute
At the hearing, the applicant told the Tribunal he remembers telling his migration agent his family was involved in a neighbourhood dispute when his young, after his father passed away in 1996. There was conflict with the neighbours about some land. His family was allocated a certain rice field, there was a dispute with the neighbours in terms of the boundary of the land, and the neighbours belittled his family.
The Tribunal asked whether the dispute was ongoing. The applicant advised it happened a long time ago when he was young. The dispute was no longer ongoing and there were no issues with the neighbours since he had grown up.
The Tribunal finds the applicant has not raised any claims to fear harm as a result of a historic dispute with his neighbours. For this reason, the Tribunal is not satisfied there is a real chance the applicant would face persecution involving serious harm for this reason.
Overall assessment
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively. Having considered the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal is not satisfied that if the applicant returns to China, now or in the foreseeable future, that he faces a real chance of serious harm for reasons of his religion or any of the other reasons in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the reasons set out in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant meets the definition of refugee in s 5H(1) of the Act.
Complementary protection
The Tribunal has also considered whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk he will suffer significant harm (subsection 36(2)(aa) of the Act).
The Tribunal takes into account the above findings of fact and its view of the applicant’s future conduct and circumstances if he were removed from Australia to China. The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant would be able to live with his family, find a job and would not experience adverse treatment from the authorities. The Tribunal is not satisfied there real risk that the applicant will experience significant harm as that term is defined in s 36(2A) of the Act.
The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence, that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under paragraph 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS

For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Suseela Durvasula
Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2023] AATA 4778

5 December 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice