1824387 (Refugee)

1824387 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 1223 (9 March 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE: Ms Paola Andrea Aristizabal Ramirez
CASE NUMBER: 1824387

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Ethiopia
MEMBER:Genevieve Hamilton
DATE:9 March 2023
PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 09 March 2023 at 3:52pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Ethiopia – political opinion – Ginbot 7 – particular social group – failed asylum seeker – refusal to monitor Ethiopian diaspora – human rights situation in Ethiopia – fear of detention – fear of killing – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
BACKGROUND

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 2 May 2017. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 9 August 2018.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 14 July 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Amharic and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
Under section 65(1) of the Act a visa may be granted only if the decision maker is satisfied that the criteria for the visa prescribed in the Act are met.
The criteria for a protection visa are relevantly set out in s 36 of the Act. An applicant must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2). Generally speaking, they must either be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion (s 36(2)(a)), or on ‘complementary protection’ grounds (s 36(2)(aa)), or be a member of the same family unit as such a person.
Under s 36(3) Australia does not have protection obligations to an applicant who has not taken all possible steps to avail themselves of a right to enter and reside in a third country.
Refugee
Refugee is defined in the Act. A person is a refugee if they are outside the country of their nationality (of if they have no nationality, their country of former habitual residence) and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1).
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.
The criterion in s 5J(1) contains a subjective requirement, that an applicant must in fact hold a fear of being persecuted, but also imposes an objective standard, that there be a real chance the person would be persecuted. A 'real chance' is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility: Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379.
The persecution must involve serious harm such as a threat to the person’s life or liberty or significant physical harassment or ill treatment, significant economic hardship that threatens their capacity to subsist, or denial of access to basic services or capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens their capacity to subsist (ss 5J(4) and (5)).
A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to them in the receiving country (ss 5J(2) and 5LA). A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecutionif the person could take reasonable steps to modify their behaviour to avoid persecution (s 5J(3), which also gives examples of types of modifications that are not required, such as concealing one’s religion, political opinion, race or sexual orientation).
In determining whether the person has a well-founded fear of persecution, any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless they satisfy the Minister that they engaged in the conduct for a reason other than to strengthen their claim to be a refugee (s 5J(6)).
Complementary Protection
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion, they may still be a person to whom Australia has protection obligations if there are substantial grounds to believe that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm. S 36(2A) defines significant harm as arbitrary deprivation of life, carrying out of the death penalty, torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. “Real risk” has the same meaning as “real chance”: MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33.
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.
Claims and evidence
The applicant said she was born [date], in [a named town in] Ethiopia, and is an Ethiopian citizen as were her parents (now deceased). Her ethnic group is Amhara-[deleted], and she is a Christian. She has a sister born in [year], and a brother-in-law, they are both in Australia. She came to Australia on a [specified] visa. She arrived [in] November 2015, travelling on an Ethiopian passport. Her visa was issued [in] March 2015 valid for [time period]. She has never been employed, always supported by her parents first and then her sister. She is now living on charity. She was at school [between specified years].
The applicant said her sister is from her father’s previous marriage. Her father’s first wife passed away before she was born. Her father passed away when she was [age] and her mother when she was [age]. Her sister looked after her. In 2010 her sister met [her husband] and married him in 2013. He worked for [Agency 1]. The applicant did not agree with his political views. He was lying abut the state of the country, people were being killed all over the place. But she could not say anything because she was dependent on them. They left for [City 1, in Australia] in March 2014 and the applicant remained behind to continue her schooling. They sent back money for her rent and expenses.
The EPRDF has been in power all her life and even at the age of [age] (the 2005 election) she was put off by the killings and election violence. She developed an interest in politics around 2012 to 2013. She had a friend called [name], they talked about politics and [this friend] told her that her father had been detained and tortured by the government. She had ESAT, a station run by the opposition and broadcast from the US, and said to be affiliated with Patriotic Ginbot 7. The applicant developed an interest in this movement. She was discreet about expressing her views among friends at school.
When she arrived in Australia she continued secretly watching ESAT. The new [Manager A] asked her brother in law to use her to spy on Ethopians living in Australia. Her brother in law wanted her to report on people she met at church and choir and report back on their ethnicity and political affiliations, and to persuade them to support the government. She refused, because of her political opinion and religious beliefs. He was angry, and said she was making trouble for his work, and kept making the same request. He threatened to take away her passport and visa, send her back to Ethiopia and report her to the authorities for not complying. He also wanted her to ask people to join the Party and donate money. When she refused he and her sister yelled at her. On 19 February 2017 he found her phone with the ESAT website open. There was a confrontation. He slapped her and her sister scolded her. The atmosphere worsened daily and the applicant hid her passport. If she was returned to Ethiopia she would be arrested, tortured and even killed. So she decided to go to [City 2]. Her brother in law called her and demanded she return and work for [his agency], otherwise her visa would be cancelled and she would be sent back to Ethiopia and punished as deserved. He called again three days later and she threatened to call the police.
About 10 days after arrival in [City 2] she was approached by an Ethiopian man with a message from [Manager A], who wanted her to come back and work for them otherwise she would be deported to Ethiopia where she would be put in a cell until she died and never see the sun. The applicant told a friend about this and she said it was not safe for her to talk to the applicant. The applicant keeps up with Ethiopian opposition politics but she does not go to meetings.
If returned to Ethiopia she would be identified and punished as an opponent of the government. As a single female without family, in the custody of the authorities, she would be particularly susceptible to physical and sexual abuse. As a failed asylum seeker the authorities will know that she has brought the government into disrepute. She would have no work, money or home, and this would also put her at risk.
In a submission in support of her application dated 14 March 2018 it was contended that the applicant faced persecution because of her ethnicity, political opinions, and various iterations of particular social group. The authorities would withhold protection for the same reasons. She faced threats constituting serious harm, actual serious harm, discrimination threatening her capacity to subsist, and would have to hide various attributes and beliefs, and is at risk of significant harm within complementary protection provisions, such as arbitrary deprivation of life, and relocation was not an option.
The applicant made an additional statutory declaration dated 18 May 2018 in response to questions about her family background and circumstances until coming to Australia. She submitted a copy and certified translation of a Guardianship order made [in] February 2014 appointing her sister and brother in law to be her legal guardians as her parents had passed away and they have raised her, there being no other close relatives.
At the protection interview on 16 March 2018 the applicant said her mother was Amhara, her father [specified], the applicant calls herself both. She is fluent in Amharic. Her father was a farmer. She has no family other than her sister. She had not had contact with her since leaving their house [in] February 2017. She did not know where they were now. The applicant said she had lived in Addis ([location specified]) since 2005 with her sister. Her brother in law moved in after the marriage. She completed high school and then joined them in [City 1]. [Manager A] told them she had to gather information about the young people in Church. The applicant thought people had the right to their own political opinion so she refused. Her brother in law constantly told her to do what [Manager A] wanted. Eventually he said, at least start [raising funds] for the [a specified project] back home, and promote the Government. The applicant didn’t want to do that either because the money would just be taken by the government and the [project] wouldn’t [happen]. He kept harassing her and told her [Manager A] wanted to have her visa cancelled and send her home. He wanted to get her passport off her for this purpose, but she hid it. Then he saw ESAT open on her phone and slapped her. He said she had to go back to Ethiopia and she would be imprisoned. Her sister said she wouldn’t help her. After some days she decided to go to [City 2] where there were contacts of her Church friends. Her sister was out of the house when her friend from the Church came and picked her up and drove her to [City 2].
He called and demanded she return and again threatened to have her visa cancelled by the Australian Government and she would be imprisoned in Ethiopia. The applicant told him to leave her alone and hung up. He called her again 3 days later and said [Manager A] was talking to the Ethiopian government about her. The applicant said she would report him for hitting her. 10 days later an Ethiopian guy approached her in the street in [a location in City 2] and said he had a message from [Manager A], which was that she would be imprisoned and tortured and no one would check on her. After she told her friend about this, her friend wanted her not to contact her again. She applied for assistance and lodged a protection application.
The Tribunal received a pre-hearing submission dated 12 July 2022, and a further statutory declaration dated 22 June 2022. In her statutory declaration the applicant said she was now married with a child. She had applied for a partner visa but was unsure if it could succeed because she was unable to obtain a passport from the Ethiopian authorities. The applicant described a conversation with her sister in January 2020 when the applicant was pregnant. She is still wary of contact with her sister because she might pass on information to her husband and the Ethiopian government about her. The applicant supports EZEMA and is opposed to the Ethiopian government. She still follows the news about what is going on in Ethiopia, but ESAT is not as accurate as it used to be because they are using a YouTube channel instead of Satellite. The Government was still violating human rights. She still fears serious harm in Ethiopia from the Government and her brother in law, and extremists who may associate her with the [Government].
In their submission the applicant’s representative, among other matters, cited country information about the prevalence of political and ethnic violence in Ethiopia.
At the hearing the applicant said her sister looked after her after her mother died, they have the same father. She took the applicant from her mother’s funeral. She went to work in Addis as [an occupation 1] and then at a [business], and married in 2013 when the applicant was [age range] years old. He was working in [Agency 1] and in 2014 he and her sister came to Australia. [In] November 2015 the applicant joined them. She was [age]. She stayed with them for a year and a bit. She left them [in] February 2017 and lodged her application the next month.
While living with them she mainly stayed at home, as she couldn’t afford to study. She went to [Church], she couldn’t remember which suburb it was in because she was driven) and joined its choir and social activities. She is a Coptic Christian. They had Bible Study and social events for the Ethiopian community once a month. About 50 people went. Her brother in law wasn’t going to the Church. Some of the Tigrayans in the community associated with [Agency 1], others did not out of choice. They were in a range of occupations.
[Details deleted.] The applicant said her sister was a mother figure to her, she had sacrificed a lot for the applicant.
The applicant said she did not have a problem with her brother in law personally but he was a very strong supporter of the Ethiopian government. The applicant couldn’t accept this because she had already seen young people being killed in the street when she moved to Addis in 2005. There was a lot of ethnic conflict then and she was exposed to it. He was a member of the ruling party but she did not know if he still was. Her sister was politically neutral but would go along with what her husband did and attended Party events. In Ethiopia they didn’t argue about politics, the applicant kept her thoughts to herself but he knew her views. She herself supported the pan-ethnic EZEMA or Ethiopian Citizens Association.
In [City 1] he pressed her to pass on information about her Church community. She could not do that because they trusted her and it could get their families back in Ethiopia in trouble. Young people should be able to support whatever political party they want to. A new [Manager A] was appointed and came to the home to visit. She told the applicant’s brother in law that the applicant should be working to help [Agency 1] by getting information about the young people in the diaspora.
At first her brother in law just said think about it. But then he started nagging at her and kept on about it. Then he change his tone and asked her to help raise funds for the [project]. But she heard on ESAT that the funds were not going to [that project]. At this point they argued and he threatened to send her back to Ethiopia, he said by watching ESAT in the first place she was wrecking his life. He slapped her, her sister told her to do what he said. The applicant was afraid [Manager A] would report on her and she would be hunted down in Ethiopia. She went to [City 2], they tried to get her to return to [City 1], and the Ethiopian guy approached and threatened her in the street.
The applicant’s last contact with her sister was in January 2020, after she herself had a child her sister rang and congratulated her. The applicant wanted to talk to her more but her sister said “don’t ask me about my life”. At that stage she was still in Australia. The applicant did not know if they had extended their stay after the expiry of their [visa].
In discussing the issue of whether there was a real chance she would be harmed, the applicant said [Agency 1] had already told her if she didn’t cooperate she would never see daylight. She had lived for years with the fear of being deported to the fire. Having been on a [specified] visa, and because [Agency 1] had turned against her, puts her in danger and she has no family in Ethiopia to protect her.
Country information
DFAT’s Country Information Report Ethiopia 12 August 2020 includes the following information:
Political parties have existed in Ethiopia since the overthrow of the Derg in 1991, although the ability of parties not belonging to, or affiliated with, the EPRDF to operate freely was circumscribed. The EPRDF and affiliated parties controlled all tiers of government from 1991 to December 2019, when the EPRDF dissolved and reorganised as the Ethiopian Prosperity Party. The EPRDF was a coalition of four parties representing Ethiopia's most powerful ethnic communities…
The EPRDF was overwhelmingly voted into power in 1995, Ethiopia's first democratic election. It was re-elected in 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015, although international observers alleged voter irregularities in these elections. Opposition parties made significant gains at the 2005 election, winning 174 of 547 seats in the House of Peoples' Representatives (the EPRDF took 327 seats) on a record voter turnout of 90 per cent. Opposition parties, led by the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD, also known as Qinjit), disputed the result and launched large-scale protests in Addis Ababa. These turned violent - clashes with government forces left nearly 200 protesters dead. Around 4,000 people were arrested, including opposition leaders. In response, the EPRDF restricted the space for political opposition. In July 2007, 30 opposition leaders were handed life sentences for their participation in the 2005 protests, but were immediately pardoned. In 2009, parliament adopted the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation (the ATP), under which large numbers of political opponents, journalists and activists were arrested, effectively hobbling political opposition to the EPRDF (see also Political Opinion (Actual or imputed)). The EPRDF and affiliated parties won 546 of 547 seats in the 2010 national election, and all 547 seats in the 2015 election. The EPRDF and affiliated parties won 1,966 of 1,987 seats in the 2015 regional elections, thus retaining control of all states. National and regional elections were scheduled for 29 August 2020, but have been postponed due to the COVID-19 outbreak.
…
DFAT assesses there has been a shift toward political plurality since April 2018. DFAT assesses there is a level of political commitment at the federal level to open the space for opposition political parties and to stage free and fair multi-party elections when possible. Opposition parties were actively preparing for the August 2020 elections before they were postponed but the pressure put on the system by the COVID-19 pandemic, along with the drought and locust plague, will test Abiy’s commitment to Ethiopia’s new principles, and opposition parties’ commitment to collaboration.
In practice, political freedoms were significantly curtailed before April 2018. Members of opposition groups, human rights activists, and independent commentators such as journalists and bloggers who opposed the government’s policies were regularly harassed and detained. The ATP was used extensively to restrict political freedoms and arrest and prosecute government critics, particularly individuals with suspected affiliations to proscribed groups Ginbot 7, the OLF and the ONLF. Against this background, many opposition leaders and dissidents left Ethiopia. Individuals who were not members of the EPRDF reportedly faced discrimination in public sector employment, including impediments to career progression. Anti-government protests were often dispersed through force, and participants arrested.
…
Freedom of political expression has expanded since 2018.
…
Ethiopia witnessed large-scale anti-government protests from 2014 to 2018 in Oromia and Amhara states (which, collectively, account for 60 per cent of Ethiopia’s population). The protests began in Oromia State (Ethiopia’s most populous) in April 2014, triggered by the federal government’s plan to expand the municipal boundaries of Addis Ababa into Oromia State, which it abuts…. The federal government declared a countrywide State of Emergency in October 2016 after protesters torched farms and businesses…
DFAT understands the authorities arrested and detained around 26,000 people under the State of Emergency. This number includes journalists, bloggers, opposition party members and large numbers of people who were thought to have participated in anti-government protests, including children. Arrests and detentions were not limited to protest organisers or high-profile opponents of the government. Large numbers of detainees were subjected to a ‘rehabilitation and re-education’ program, mostly low-profile participants who were released following their completion of the program (see Arbitrary Arrest and Detention). Some of those arrested under the State of Emergency claim to have been tortured (see Torture). The majority of those arrested and imprisoned for their participation in the protests have since been released. Over 1,000 civilians are estimated to have died during the course of the protests.
Anti-government protests can and do occur. DFAT assesses that, since April 2018, participants in peaceful protests face a low risk of arrest and detention. DFAT further assesses that participants in peaceful protests, including organisers, are likely to be of little ongoing interest to the authorities.
…
Human rights groups documented extrajudicial killings in the period 2014-18, primarily in Oromia and Somali states. Most extrajudicial killings occurred in the context of the 2014-18 protests and clashes between ethnic Somalis and Oromos in Somali State… Local sources told DFAT that government forces are increasingly showing greater restraint in their use of force, including against protesters.
DFAT assesses that the federal government is genuine in its efforts to impose greater accountability and discipline on government forces. Reports of extrajudicial killings by government forces have decreased significantly since April 2018, and DFAT does not consider extrajudicial killings, where they occur, to be systematic or chronic.
…
The US Department of State and the UK Home Office have previously reported that prison conditions are harsh and, in some cases, life threatening…
…
… prior to 2018 the use of torture was widespread in police stations, prisons and other places of detention, both as a form of punishment and for the purpose of obtaining information and extracting confessions from detainees. According to human rights organisations, common methods of torture included beatings, burning, electric shocks, waterboarding, tying prisoners in stress positions, and prolonged periods of solitary confinement. Individuals belonging to groups designated as terrorist organisations and others perceived to oppose the federal government and its policies – including journalists, bloggers and civil society activists – were at particular risk of torture and other ill-treatment…. Multiple sources told DFAT they were hearing significantly less frequent claims of torture, including by the police and inside prisons, suggesting the practice is less common today.
…
In practice, prisoners have reported incidents of physical punishment. There are credible reports of individuals detained in connection to the 2014-18 protests and/or for suspected affiliations to previously-outlawed opposition groups being mistreated, including being subjected to beatings, overcrowding, extreme heat, lack of water and solitary confinement. The current federal government has committed to addressing such abuses as part of its wide-reaching reform agenda…

DFAT’s report was written at a time when there was some reason for optimism regarding Ethiopia’s direction in terms of human rights. However, the Tigray war broke out after that, leading to an authoritarian reversal. Human Rights Watch World Report states:
The human rights and humanitarian situation in Ethiopia deteriorated further in 2021, with civilians impacted by a devastating conflict in Tigray, security force abuses, attacks by armed groups, and deadly ethnic violence in other regions….
Extrajudicial killings, mass arrests, arbitrary detentions, and violence against civilians occurred in other regions facing unrest and insecurity.
Ethiopia’s sixth national elections were held in two stages, after two initial postponements. The first on June 21, was held in most electoral constituencies; the second in the Somali and Harari regions on September 30 after reported voting irregularities, and in 12 constituencies in the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People’s (SNNPR) region. Voting did not take place in Tigray, nor in parts of Oromia, Amhara, Afar, and Benishangul-Gumuz regions due to insecurity.
On July 10, Ethiopia’s electoral board declared Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s Prosperity Party the winner, after securing most seats in Ethiopia’s parliament. On October 4, Prime Minister Abiy was sworn in for a new five-year term.
More parties and candidates competed than in the past, and internally displaced persons IDPs were able to cast their vote in some areas, but the pre-electoral period was marred by violence and insecurity in several regions and accusations by opposition parties of a repressive operating environment.
Two opposition candidates, Girma Moges of EZEMA and Berihun Asferaw of NAMA, were assassinated in Oromia and Benishangul-Gumuz region in February and April.
The Netherlands Country of Origin Information Report Ethiopia February 2021 includes the following:
[Deleted].
The US Department of State 2021 report on Human Rights Practices in Ethiopia states:
Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings by the government; forced disappearance by the government; torture and cases of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention; political prisoners or detainees; serious abuses in a conflict, including reportedly unlawful or widespread civilian harm, enforced disappearances or abductions, torture and physical abuses or punishments; reports of unlawful recruitment or use of child soldiers by militia groups; serious restrictions on free expression and media, including violence or threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests of journalists, censorship, and the existence of criminal libel and slander laws; serious restrictions on internet freedoms; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly; serious government corruption; lack of investigation of and accountability for gender-based violence; trafficking in persons; crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting members of racial or ethnic minority groups…
FINDINGS AND REASONS
Based on the information in her application the Tribunal finds that the applicant is an Ethiopian national and has no right to enter and reside in a third country.
The applicant’s claims, both broadly and in their detail, were consistently stated. The Tribunal accepts that her brother in law was under pressure to portray a family united in support of the Ethiopian government, and the applicant was told to report on her Church community and help raise funds. The country information backs up her claim [and] it is plausible that family members involved with the community would be expected to assist. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant experienced such pressure.
The applicant’s articulation of her political opinions and their formation was heartfelt and authentic for her age. She understandably did not agree to do what was expected of her and there was an argument in the family, resulting in her leaving the home just over a year into her [time in Australia]. The Tribunal accepts that this occurred, and that it was because of her political opinion.
The applicant’s demeanour in describing what her sister means to her was consistent with her position that she had left [City 1] unwillingly. She was pressured to return, by her family and by someone carrying a threatening message from [Manager A]. This was also plausible, and the Tribunal accepts that it occurred.
The applicant does not have a public political profile, but she appeared genuinely afraid that she had been identified as a political opponent of the regime by someone in a position of power ([specified]), who could cause bad things to happen to her. The Tribunal thought this scenario plausible.
As this is an unusual situation is necessary to extrapolate from the country information in forming an assessment of the risk to the applicant on return to Ethiopia. The country information indicates that the human rights situation everywhere in Ethiopia is still quite dire and that political opponents of the regime do experience serious harm.
The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm such as a threat to her life or liberty or significant physical harassment or ill treatment, for reason of her political opinion, in all areas of Ethiopia.
There is no evidence the applicant can obtain effective protection measures, as she is at risk from the authorities themselves. Nor is there anything about her behaviour that she can modify, in order to avoid serious harm, as the risk is already present.
Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has a well founded fear of persecution in Ethiopia and is a refugee within the meaning of s 5H.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
Genevieve Hamilton
Member

[2023] AATA 1223

9 March 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Remedies