1830724 (Refugee)

1830724 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 6421 (28 August 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1830724
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   China
MEMBER:Roslyn Smidt
DATE:28 August 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.

Statement made on 28 August 2019 at 11:30am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – China – religion – Christian – claimed Christian family members in China persecuted – did not fear returning to home country – failed to promptly apply for protection – obtained passport to return to home country – secondary applicant’s migration history indicative of determination to remain in Australia – children born out of wedlock not denied household registration in China – inconsistent evidence – credibility issues – claims concocted to support protection application – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 36, 65, 499
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 Immigration on 15 October 2018 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicants, who are citizens of China, applied for the visas on 21 September 2018.
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 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).
Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration and relevant 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.
BACKGROUND
[Name deleted] (Applicant A) is [an age] year old woman from Fuqing City, Fujian Province in China. Her parents and [siblings] remain in China. Prior to leaving China she was a high school student. She arrived in Australia on a student visa [in] February 2008.
Applicant A has a daughter, born on [date] (Applicant C). The child’s father is not named on her birth certificate. At the hearing she said that Applicant C’s father was a Chinese citizen. They separated before she realised she was pregnant and she had not been able to locate him since that time. She gave birth to a second child on [date].
[Name deleted] (Applicant B) is [an age] year old man from Fuqing City in Fujian Province. His parents and one sibling remain in China. Prior to leaving China he was a high school student. He arrived in Australia [in] March 2008.
Applicant B is Applicant A’s de facto spouse. They met in 2013 and lived in the same house from October 2014 until April 2016, but did not become a couple until early 2018. He is the father of her second child.
Applicant A obtained a passport from the Chinese Consulate in [City 1] in April 2017.
SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
The applicants claim that they are Christians and that they are at risk of harm on return to China for reasons of religion. They also claim that Applicant C would be denied household registration because Applicant A is unmarried.
COUNTRY INFORMATION
The following information is intended to provide a context for consideration of the applicants’ claims. It is based on the DFAT Thematic Report, Fujian Province, People’s Republic of China dated16 December 2016, DFAT Country Information Report, People’s Republic of China dated 21 December 2017, the US Department of State International Religious Freedom Report 2018, published on 21 June 2019 and the US Commission on International Religious Freedom 2019 Annual Report (USCIRF Report).
Religion
Christianity has millions of followers in China and Catholicism and Protestantism are two of five religions officially recognised religions. Government regulations require that followers of these religions worship at a church registered with one of the government’s Patriotic Associations and comply with restrictions on the manner in which they practise and promote their religion. Despite these requirements, reports suggest that between half and two-thirds of Protestants people worship at unregistered churches. In December 2017 DFAT reported that friends and family were permitted to hold small and informal prayer meetings without official registration, which had resulted in the spread of unregistered Christian congregations in many areas.
Revised regulations implemented in February 2018 include provisions allowing members of unregistered religious groups to seek approval to participate in religious activities, but also require that they affiliate with a registered church. In addition, the new regulations expand the role of local authorities and party officials in controlling religious activities and provide for criminal or administrative penalties including large fines for organising illegal events or fundraising. Many unregistered house churches have refused to register or affiliate with state sanctioned churches.
The US State Department Report notes that regulations continue to vary by province and some local governments permit certain unregistered religious communities to carry out religious practices. It also notes that the State Administration for Religious Affairs website advises that family and friends continue to have the right to meet at home for worship, including prayer and Bible study, without registering with the government.
Reports indicate that thehe government intensified its crackdown on groups that refused to join the state-run churches in 2018. According to religious freedom advocates, more than 5,000 Christians and 1,000 church leaders were arrested because of their faith or religious practices. Most were short-term detentions that did not lead to criminal charges. Authorities closed down or demolished thousands of churches or religious sites and there were numerous reports of authorities attempting to replace crosses, pictures of Jesus, and other symbols of the Christian faith with images of Xi Jinping.
Freedom of religion and treatment of unregistered house churches has long varied significantly across China depending on the nature of the church and the attitude of local authorities. In some areas, unregistered churches have been tolerated in a number of areas provided they operate discretely, do not become too large and do not engage in practices seen as challenging the authority of the government. In the event that a particular church group is seen as a problem or there is a general crackdown on religion, it is more likely to affect leaders than individual worshippers.
Sources consulted by DFAT indicate that there are more than 1.5 million Protestants and over a million Catholics worshipping at unregistered churches in Fujian. Some unregistered churches operate openly, including some with large congregations. Local authorities have historically been relatively tolerant of unregistered churches and those who attend them, provided they operate in the manner described above.
No specific information on the impact of the 2018 regulations in Fujian Province is included in the USCIRF Report. The US State Department Report notes that the Vatican-appointed bishop of Mindong in Fujian was detained overnight for refusing to jointly lead an Easter ceremony with a government-approved bishop. However, he was allowed to lead the ceremony, provided he agreed not to wear his bishop’s insignia and the celebrations were “low-key”. It also reports an incident in April 2019 when officials conducted a surprise inspection of a kindergarten operated by a local, unregistered house church and tried to confiscate materials and shut down the school, but they were prevented from doing so by faculty members and parents.
Family planning regulations
China has had nation-wide family planning policies since the late 1970s. Until 2015, the state encouraged late marriage and childbearing and mandated one child for most couples. Authorities enforce compliance through incentives and punishments. Social compensation fees are the most common disincentive. Reports suggest that authorities in some areas also used coercive practices such as forced abortions and sterilisations to force compliance.
From 1 January 2016 most couples have been permitted to have two children, although rules regarding health, age and timing requirements remain in place. Social compensation fees remain the most common disincentive.
Single mothers must pay social compensation fees and all medical expenses associated with giving birth.
Social compensation fees vary according to the nature of the offence and the place of origin and income of the parents and the attitude of local officials. They can usually be paid in instalments. Awareness of the fees is widespread and, in many cases, couples wishing to have an additional child will save the required social compensation fee in order to do so. In these cases, social compensation fees operate as an additional tax, rather than as a punitive arbitrary measure.
In the past parents were unable to obtain household registration for children born in contravention of family planning registration until their parents paid the social compensation fee. Household registration is necessary to access state provided services such as health and education. This requirement was also abolished in 2016. In Fujian Province local authorities are prohibited from requiring payment of social compensation fees as a prerequisite for household registration.
Earlier reports suggested that children born out of wedlock were unable to obtain or had difficulty obtaining birth certificates and household registration. However, according to DFAT advice provided in May 2018[1] it has been policy in Fujian province since 2014 not to deny birth certificates or registration to children born out of wedlock, even if the father does not acknowledge paternity. Advice from the Fujian Public Security Department confirmed that a foreign birth certificate may be used to support an application for household registration in Fujian.
[1] Country Information Request CI180403115513613 - Hukou for single mothers and unmarried parents 3/05/2018
FINDINGS OF FACT: APPLICANT A
In essence Applicant A claims that she comes from a Christian family in China, that she was a practising Christian before arriving in Australia, that she and other family members experienced problems because of this, that she has attended churches in Australia since soon after her arrival in 2008 and that she had attended [Church 1] regularly since 2015. For the reasons set out below, I find many of these claims to be lacking in credibility.
Migration history and failure to apply for protection in a timely fashion
Claims and evidence
Applicant A arrived in Australia on a student visa [in] February 2008 and became unlawful in March 2010. She applied for a further student visa in October 2010, but her application was refused in November 2010. That decision was affirmed by a differently constituted Tribunal in June 2011. Applicant A sought Ministerial intervention in July 2011, but this was not successful. She continued to hold a Bridging visa until 13 January 2012 when she again became unlawful. She applied for a protection visa on 21 September 2018 after she and her de facto spouse were located by the Department of Immigration.
During Applicant A’s interview with the delegate on 3 October 2018 she said that the school she attended after arriving in Australia in 2008 closed down shortly after she arrived so she could not study. She decided not to return to China because her family had experienced problems because they attended a house church and because she would have no religious freedom in China. The delegate noted that she had not sought protection until 2018, which appeared to suggest that she was not fearful of returning to China at that time. She said that she had not been aware that she could apply for protection at that time and claimed that she had been told that she would be arrested if she went to the Department of Immigration. She said that after Applicant B was detained some friends from her church helped her to find a migration agent and she lodged an application.
The delegate noted that Applicant A had claimed that she had attended church for much of the time she had been in Australia (see also below) and asked if she had spoken to anyone at church about her fear of returning to China. She said that she had told people that her parents were Christians, but she had been afraid to tell people at her church about her situation because she did not know whether they could help and because she found it difficult to talk to people about her circumstances.
Later in the interview Applicant A claimed that she and Applicant B had discussed applying for protection prior to his detention, but they did not do so because they did not have any evidence to support their claims. The delegate observed that this was at odds with her earlier evidence. The applicant then said that Applicant B had heard from others that it might be possible to seek protection, but they had not been sure.
Applicant A attended a hearing of the Tribunal on 5 December 2018. I asked her about her intentions when she first arrived in Australia. She had come to Australia to study. She said that she did not leave Australia when her visa expired in March 2010 because she did not have any money and an agent had told her that she needed money to extend her visa and she did not know that she could contact the Department to resolve her situation. She added that there was no religious freedom in China.
I asked Applicant A why she had not applied for protection until after Applicant B was detained in September 2018. She said that she had not been aware that this was possible. I advised her that I had difficulty accepting this claim and observed that she had applied for a student visa while in Australia and also sought Ministerial intervention when this application failed, which suggested she had some knowledge of migration processes. She said that she had heard that only people who came on boats or practised Falun Gong could apply for protection.
I advised Applicant A that her failure to apply for protection until late 2018 suggested that she was not fearful of returning to China. She maintained that her claims were true and she was fearful of returning to China.
Findings
For the reasons set out below, I do not accept that the applicant failed to seek protection in Australia until some eight years after she arrived in Australia because she was unaware of this possibility or did not understand the requirements and procedures involved.
In the first place, the applicant’s evidence regarding her failure to apply for protection in a timely fashion was confused and contradictory. She claimed that she had not been aware of the possibility until September 2018, but also said that while she had been aware of the possibility prior to that time, but she had not applied because she did not understand the procedures, because she did not have evidence to support her claims and because she believed that only people how arrived by boat and Falun Gong practitioners could apply.
Second, and more significantly, knowledge of the possibility of seeking protection in Australia is clearly widespread in the Chinese community and the fact that Applicant A was able to lodge a student visa application in 2010 and to pursue a review of that decision and request Ministerial intervention indicates that she had or could access the knowledge and assistance necessary to apply for protection. In addition, while I have significant doubts about Applicant A’s claims regarding her attendance at church, it is clear that she had been attending a church with a Mandarin speaking congregation on occasion for a least a year before Applicant B was detained and it is not plausible that she would have failed to seek advice or assistance from anyone at church if she feared returning to China because of her religion. In these circumstances I do not accept that she was unaware of the possibility of seeking protection or that she was deterred from doing so due to confusion about the procedures, about who could apply or because she feared she would be detained if she approached the Department of Immigration.
I find Applicant A’s failure to seek protection in Australia until after Applicant B was detained in September 2018 a strong indication that she was not fearful of returning to China at that time and that her application was lodged because she wished to remain in Australia for other reasons. In addition, her failure to provide honest evidence regarding her failure to apply for protection prior to September 2018 reflects poorly on her credibility.
Decision to obtain a passport in April 2017
Claims and evidence
Applicant A obtained a new passport at the Chinese Consulate in [City 1] in April 2017. She told the delegate that she had planned to return to China at that time, but her parents had told her not to return until there was religious freedom in China.

At the hearing I asked Applicant A why she had obtained a new Chinese passport in April 2017. She said she had intended to return to China because her parents could no longer send her money and she was facing economic difficulties. However, she was unable to get a passport for her daughter because she could not provide information about the child’s father, so she could not leave Australia. She also claimed that her family had warned her not to return to China because of developments during the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China [held in mid-October 2017].
Findings
I find Applicant A’s decision to obtain a passport in order to return to China in 2017 a clear indication that she was not fearful of returning to China at that time. In reaching this conclusion I have noted the claim that she said that she had no choice but to leave Australia because her parents were no longer able to support her financially. If she feared harm in China at that time she had the option of seeking protection in Australia. As discussed above, I do not accept that she was unaware of this possibility prior to 2018.
I also note that she gave differing reasons for not returning home in 2017, stating that she was unable to obtain a passport for her daughter, but also claiming that her family warned her not to return because of developments following the Congress of the Chinese Communist Party held that year. While these explanations are not mutually exclusive, I note that the Congress was not held until some six months after Applicant A obtained her passport in April 2017. It appears that her decision to remain in Australia was related to problems obtaining a travel document for her daughter rather than a warning or advice from her parents.
I accept that the applicant was unable to obtain a passport for her daughter because she was unable to provide details of her father. However, there is no suggestion that this was done because Chinese authorities had an adverse interest in her or her daughter for any reason.
Attendance at church in China and problems faced by Applicant A’s parents
Claims and evidence
In a statement provided to the Department on 24 September 2018, Applicant A said that she had grown up in a Christian family in Fujian, but due to the repression in China she was prohibited from attending church and she was only able to do so for a brief period. The statement is somewhat confused but suggests that she remained in Australia after she ceased studying in 2008 in part because her parents had experienced problems as a result of their Christian religion. It also states that her mother had had an accident at some time and had recovered with the help of prayer. To give thanks her father had spread the gospel, but he was accused of being involved in a cult and repressed by the government. This repression was particularly strong from 2018 onwards due to the imposition of stricter rules by the government, and the applicant’s family was constantly raided and confined to the local area so they could be monitored. As a result they were unable to leave their town to go to work. Some of her family members and relatives were detained. To escape these problems her father left and he is now in [Country 1].
During her interview with the delegate Applicant A again claimed that her parents were Christians who had participated in house church gatherings in China. She said that her father was the leader of the group and claimed that he had fled to [Country 1] three days before Applicant B was detained. Her mother remained in China because she was unwell with a medical condition.
The delegate found Applicant A’s claim that her family were practising Christians and that she had also practised Christianity in China to be lacking in credibility, largely because she had not applied for protection in a timely manner.
At the hearing Applicant A confirmed that she had resided with her parents in Fuqing City prior to coming to Australia. She said that she attended a boarding school while at middle school and high school, but returned home on the weekends. She said her family had some fields and grew some crops. She said that her father did not have a profession, but did casual jobs in the rural sector, sometimes in the local area and sometimes elsewhere and her mother also did some casual work. While she was growing up her father lived away a lot of the time and she only saw him a few times a year at family gatherings. She said that her family had paid for her study in Australia and that some of the money had been borrowed.
I noted that Applicant A had a [number of siblings]. She confirmed that this was correct and said that they continued to live in the same city. She said that her sisters were married and did not work. Her brother sells home renovation products.
Applicant A said that for as long as she could remember her family had been Christians. They did not attend a formal church but attended a family church where people gathered every week to read the Bible and pray. There was no priest and the location of the gatherings changed.
When asked about her involvement with religion in China, Applicant A said that she had attended church for a bit more than a year while she was at high school. She said that she had not been able to attend prior to that because the government did not allow children to go to church. I observed that it appeared that her parents attended an underground church and the authorities were unaware of its existence and asked how the government’s ban was relevant in her case. She confirmed that the government had not been aware of the existence of her family’s church, but said that they were afraid that they would be discovered. She said that she was taught about Christianity and how to pray at home.
I asked Applicant A why she had stopped attending church in China. She said that she had been forced to stop because, despite being told by her parents to keep the gatherings secret, she invited some of her school friends to attend the services and the government found out and warned her to stop. Nobody else from the church experienced any problems at that time.
I asked Applicant A if anyone in her family had experienced problems because of their religion since she left in 2008. She said that in early 2011 the police found out about her parents’ attendance at religious gatherings and they were fined. Her siblings did not face any problems because they were under 18. She said that was the first time anyone in her family had experienced problems because of their religion. After that her mother seldom went to church. Sometime in 2011 her mother fell ill with a [medical] condition. She was in hospital for about 10 days and after this she rested in bed until about 2014.
Applicant A said her family next experienced problems at the end of 2013 when her father was arrested and detained for three months and told to stop attending religious gatherings. She said that she had become aware that her father had been detained in March 2014. After his release her father continued to attend gatherings and sometimes went to other cities to spread the gospel. Her mother did not return to the religious gatherings until 2015 because of her health issues.
I asked Applicant A about her family’s current involvement with Christianity. She said that they did not go to religious gatherings because her father had been arrested again in August 2018. He was detained for about a month and she understood money was paid to secure his release. He left for [Country 1] in September 2018. I observed that this suggested that he was able to obtain a passport and his ability to do so and leave the country suggested he was not of adverse interest to the authorities. She said that she did not know the details of his travel, but added that he had a passport prior to his arrest, and friends in [Country 1]. She said that many people from Fujian go to [Country 1] to work and her father might have gone there to work or to spread the gospel. She said that she was no longer in contact with him.
I asked Applicant A if her siblings still attended religious gatherings. She said that they had stopped because after the 2017 Congress there were more frequent raids on churches. I asked if any of her siblings had ever faced problems because of their religion. She said that one of her [siblings] had escaped to another city in 2012 after a raid on the group and they were no longer in touch. I observed that this appeared to be at odds with her earlier evidence that her siblings continued to live in Fuqing. She said that they could be in different villages in the same city.
Findings
For the following reasons, I do not accept that Applicant A comes from a Christian family, or that she was a practising Christian prior to her departure from China, or that her family has faced problems in China because they are Christians.
In the first place, if Applicant A had come from a Christian family and remained in Australia to escape problems and restrictions in China I believe she would have applied for protection soon after arriving in Australia or at the very least when her family allegedly began to face problems in 2011, or when her father was allegedly detained in 2013. As discussed above, I do not accept the reasons she has provided for failing to do so. I find this to be a strong indication that she does not come from a Christian family and was not a practising Christian prior to her arrival in Australia.
Secondly, I found her evidence regarding the problems faced by her parents and siblings inconsistent, sometime implausible and generally unconvincing.
In her written statement of September 2018, Applicant A said that her family had been repressed by the authorities because of their involvement in Christianity, but provided no details of these problems. At the hearing she claimed for the first time that her family had been warned to stop attending religious gatherings in 2011 and that her father had been detained for three months in 2013. While I acknowledge that her initial statement was brief and spoke of repression, I do not accept that she would have failed to mention the fact that her father was detained for three months in 2013 if this had occurred.
The September statement also indicates that she did not return to China in 2008 partly because her family had faced problems because of their religion. This is at odds with her evidence at the hearing that her family had not experienced any problems because of their religion prior to 2011. The claim that her sister fled her home in 2012 because of a raid on the family church is at odds with her evidence that her family did not face any problems between 2011, when she claims her parents were fined for attending church, and 2013 when she claims her father was detained. It is also at odds with her evidence earlier in the hearing that her siblings all continued to reside in the same city.
The September statement mentions that the applicant’s father was accused of involvement in an evil cult in 2018 after which her family was constantly raided and banned from leaving the local area. It also states that her father had fled to [Country 1]. At the hearing she claimed for the first time that her father had been detained for a month in August 2018 and that he had left China for [Country 1] a few days before Applicant B was detained. If Applicant A’s father had been detained in August 2018 I believe that she would have mentioned this in her submissions to the Department.
Applicant A’s father’s ability to leave China for [Country 1] in September 2018 does not sit well with the claim that her family members were monitored and banned from leaving the local area. According to evidence from DFAT, China’s major airports have a centralised system with name matching alert capabilities and security monitoring capabilities at airports are comprehensive. If Applicant A’s father had been detained and banned from leaving the local area because he was believed to belong to an evil cult, it is not plausible that he would have been able to leave the country on a passport which contained his identity details.
Thirdly I found the applicant’s evidence regarding her own involvement in Christianity in China and the problems she faced because of this confused and unpersuasive. In her initial application she said that she had only attended church for a short period prior to leaving China due to repression, but provided no details of any specific problems. At the hearing she said that she had attended church for about a year while at high school, but had been forced to stop because, despite being warned by her family to keep her attendance at religious gatherings secret, she had invited some friends to attend her church and the authorities found out and warned her to stop. If Applicant A had been prohibited from attending church in China because her attendance at religious gatherings had been discovered by the authorities, I believe that she would have included this information in her submissions to the Department. I also note that this claim is at odds with her evidence that the first time her family had experienced any problems because of their religion was in 2011, after she arrived in Australia. And I find the claim that she invited school friends to attend services at her underground church, after being warned not to do so by her parents, implausible.
While some of the matters discussed above are relatively minor and considered in isolation would not have caused me to reject Applicant A’s claims regarding her own and her family’s involvement with Christianity in China, others are more significant and after considering all of the relevant evidence I do not accept that she or any member of her family had any involvement with an unregistered Church in China or that they experienced problems of any kind for reasons of religion. I believe that Applicant A concocted these claims to support her claim for protection in Australia.
Involvement with Christianity in Australia
Claims and evidence
Applicant A’s written submissions to the Department are somewhat unclear, but appear to indicate that she was not involved with any church in Australia until her father told that her mother had recovered from critical injuries as a result of prayer [in 2015 according to her evidence to the delegate]. After that she tried a few different churches, but they were not suitable due to language and communication problems. In 2015 she began to attend [Church 1]. She was baptised [in] March 2016. According to a submission provided by her representative in September 2018, she was actively involved in church life in Australia including undertaking Bible study and evangelising.
In support of her claims, Applicant A provided a copy of a baptism certificate from [Church 1] dated [March] 2016.
Applicant A’s evidence during her interview with the delegate was somewhat confused. She said that she did not begin attending church immediately after arriving in Australia because she was studying and because she could not find a Mandarin speaking church. She said that she had attended an English speaking church and a Mandarin speaking church in the second half of 2008. Then she went to a Catholic church in 2011, but she stopped after a year when she realised it was a Catholic Church and they worshipped Mary. She also said that she stopped attending church in 2013 because she was pregnant. However, after her father told her about her mother’s recovery she started to attend [Church 1] in early 2015. She said that she had continued to attend that church every Sunday since 2015.
The delegate observed that it appeared that Applicant A had attended different churches for up to eight years while in Australia and asked if she had any other evidence, such as photographs, to confirm her attendance at church. She said that she only had her baptism certificate.
The delegate asked Applicant A to tell him her favourite parts of the Bible. She responded that Jesus said do unto others as you want them to do unto you. When asked if she had any other favourite parts of the Bible, she responded that anyone who believes in God will be saved. The delegate observed that these appeared to be things she had been told in Church and asked again if she had any favourite stories from the Bible. After some hesitation she said that her mind was blank. The delegate told her to take her time and try to recall any Bible stories she had heard. She said that there were two sisters. Maria listened to Jesus while her sister prepared food. Her sister complained to Jesus and asked why her sister was not helping her to prepare the food. Jesus said that serving was important, but so was listening to him. When asked if she knew any other stories, she said that Jesus said that new wine could only be stored in a new container, but old wine could only be stored in old containers, and her pastor had said that people needed to look at new ways of thinking.
The delegate asked the applicant if she knew the significance of Easter. She said that it was to remember that Jesus had died for people and been resurrected, which symbolised hope. She said that Christmas was the time to celebrate the birth of Jesus. She was aware that the Holy Trinity referred to God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and that they were one God.
Following the interview Applicant A provided a letter dated 6 October 2018 from the Minister in Charge of [Church 1], which states that he has known her since January 2015. It states that he had had conversations with her on several occasions and could confirm that she was an active member of the church and that she regularly attends Sunday services. It also states that Applicant B attended services at the church.
The delegate accepted that Applicant A had had some involvement with a church following 2015, but found that she had not given an honest account of her attendance at church prior to that. After considering evidence from a range of sources regarding the current circumstances of Christians in China, he concluded that there was not a real chance that she would face serious or significant harm on return to China for that reason. A copy of the delegate’s decision was provided to the Tribunal.
On 27 November 2018, Applicant A provided a letter from someone who described himself as a senior member of [Church 1]. It states that he had known Applicant A and Applicant B for a long time and believed them to be genuine Christians. It states that Applicant A had attended the church since 2015 and been baptised in March 2016; that she and her daughter regularly attend Sunday services; that she is devoted to Bible studies; and that she preaches the gospel and invites friends to attend services.
At the hearing Applicant A said that she could not return to China because she was a baptised Christian and she would be persecuted for attending an unregistered family church. She said that she would not attend a registered church because they put the Communist Party ahead of God and the Church. She also said that she wanted her child to study the Bible.
I asked Applicant A when she began to attend church in Australia. She said that she had gone to a few churches after arriving in Australia, but after her mother recovered from her long illness and her father told her to go church she began to attend [Church 1]. When asked why she had chosen [Church 1] she said that God had led her there. She also said that some of her friends already attended the church when she joined.
I asked Applicant A for details of her involvement with [Church 1]. She said that she went to church every Sunday, read the Bible with other members of the church and participated in fellowship activities at different homes every Saturday. She said that she had participated in these activities for about a year. I asked her if she had been involved in spreading the gospel. She said that she had invited some friends to attend church with her and that she had gone to a fellowship activity in [named suburb]. I asked her why Christianity was important to her. She said that in the past she had been in sin, but now her soul had been saved.

I noted that Applicant A claimed she had read the Bible and asked which parts she had read. She said that she had studied Romans and that it spoke about salvation by faith and she had also read the gospels according to Mathew, Luke, Mark and John, but she had not understood them well. She said that they spoke about miracles and also about the suffering of God on the cross and resurrection. I asked if she could name anyone in the Bible apart from Jesus, Mary and Joseph and tell me why they were important. She said that Moses had given the Ten Commandments and mentioned the 12 apostles.
Applicant A said that her daughter had been going to Church since 2015 and attended Sunday school, but she had not been baptised as Applicant A wanted her to be old enough to understand and know more about the Bible before taking this step. I observed that this seemed somewhat unusual. The applicant made no further comment.
In support of her claims Applicant A provided a number of photographs:
·     A brochure in Chinese dated May 2018, which appears to be an advertisement for the proselytising session in May 2018 at [Church 1].
·     A group of people in what may be a church in front of a cross. According to the caption this is a proselytising session held in May 2018.
·     Two photographs of groups of women and children in what appear to be private homes. According to the caption, they were taken at church fellowship gatherings in May and November 2018.
·     A photograph of people in what appears to be a private home reading the Bible. According to the caption this was a Bible study class in June 2018.
Findings
Applicant A’s evidence regarding her attendance at church prior to 2015 was vague and unconvincing. As noted above, her initial statement indicated that she had begun to attend church in Australia after her mother recovered from an illness in 2015, but she later claimed that she had first attended church in late 2008. She also claimed that she attended a Catholic church for about a year, but left after realising that it was Catholic. It is not plausible that someone could attend a church for about a year without realising that it was a Catholic Church. In these circumstances and in light of my finding that she provided dishonest evidence regarding her involvement with Christianity prior to arriving in Australia I do not accept that she had any involvement with Christianity prior to 2015.
I accept that the applicant has attended [Church 2] since some time in 2015 and was baptised at the church in 2016. However, I found much of her evidence regarding her involvement with the church unconvincing.
In her submissions to the Department and the Tribunal she claimed that she had attended church regularly since early 2015 and had attended Bible studies classes for about a year prior to her interview with the delegate. According to the supporting letter, dated 27 November 2018, she also preached the gospel. However, she made no mention of preaching the gospel in her own submissions to the Department and while she demonstrated a basic understanding of some Christian concepts and beliefs, when questioned about her knowledge of the Bible by the delegate she appeared to know little about its contents. When asked similar questions at the hearing she displayed greater knowledge, but not, in my view, the level of knowledge of someone who had studied the Bible for at least a year and preached the gospel to others. I find that she has exaggerated her involvement in Bible study and other church activities and I do not accept that she has had any involvement in preaching or proselytising.
The applicant’s motivation for joining the [Church 2] is unclear. In her evidence to the Department and at the hearing she said that she had begun to attend church in 2015 because her father instructed or encouraged her to do. As noted above, I do not accept that her family members are Christians and it follows that I do not accept this claim. I note that some of her friends attended the church prior to 2015 and it appears that it may be this rather than religious faith that motivated her to join the church and to attend services. This view is supported by the fact that she does not have a deep understanding of Christianity or the Bible and, more significantly, by the fact that she obtained a passport in April 2017 because she intended to return to China with her daughter. In my view she would not have made this decision if she was genuinely committed to Christianity and wished to practise free of the restrictions imposed by the Chinese government or if she feared that she would face serious or significant for attending an unregistered church or participating in other unacceptable religious activities in China. As noted above, she could have remained in Australia and sought protection if she was afraid of returning to China because she was a Christian. I believe that she decided to return to China rather than seek protection in 2017 because she did not wish or intend to continue to practise Christianity after leaving Australia or because she had no objection to practising Christianity in a manner which was acceptable to Chinese authorities.
In reaching this conclusion I have considered the supporting letters from the Minister in Charge of [Church 1] and a senior member of the church. The letters do little more than confirm that Applicant A has attended the church since 2015, which I accept. I find them to be of limited value as corroborating evidence of Applicant A’s claims beyond this and I have given them little weight.
I have also considered the photographs provided by Applicant A, which purport to show her participating in religious activities between May and November 2018. I note that when asked if she had any photographs or other evidence of her attendance at church during her interview with the delegate in October 2018 she said that she did not. I believe that she attended these events and that these photographs were taken following the delegate’s interview for the purpose of supporting her claim for protection.
Other claims
Applicant A claims that she could not return to China because Applicant B’s family did not want them to be together and would not allow them to marry and as a result she would not be able to register her daughter.
At the hearing I observed that she and Applicant B could get married in Australia if they wanted to do so. Applicant A agreed that she and Applicant B could get married but said that Applicant B’s parents might fall ill and this was against Christianity which said you should honour your parents.
I also advised Applicant A that it was not my understanding that her daughter would be denied registration because she was not married. She said that her family had told her that she would not be able to register her daughter.
I accept that Applicant B’s parents may oppose his relationship with Applicant A, but I am not satisfied that they have remained unmarried for that reason. If the applicants were genuinely concerned about honouring applicant B’s parents’ wishes, it is difficult to understand why they would have decided to enter into a de facto relationship. I am unaware of any plausible reason why the applicants would be prevented from marrying in Australia or China if they wished to do so. It appears that they have chosen to form a de facto relationship, but not become legally married as a matter of personal preference.
CONSIDERATION OF APPLICANT A’S CLAIMS
As discussed above, I do not accept that Applicant A fears that she would be denied the right to practise her religion in the manner she wishes if she returned to China or that she fears that she would face serious or significant harm for attending an unregistered church or participating in other religious activities not approved of by the Chinese government. It follows that I am not satisfied that she has a well-founded fear of persecution on return to China for reasons of religion.
For the sake of completeness I note that according to advice from DFAT and other evidence set out above, while restrictions on unauthorised religious practices have increased since early 2018 and Christians in some areas have faced increased pressure or repression as a result, ordinary Christians who do not participate in practices such as proselytising can practice Christianity outside the state-sanctioned system in Fujian without facing a real chance of experiencing serious or significant harm by attending a small house churches. In these circumstances, even if I accept that Applicant is a genuine Christian (which I do not) I believe she would be able to practice her religion in this manner.
As discussed above, I accept that the applicant was unable to obtain a Chinese passport for her daughter in April 2017. However, it is clear from the evidence that this occurred because she failed to provide details of her daughter’s father. Applicant A had no problem obtaining a passport herself and there is nothing in the evidence before me which suggests that her daughter was unable to obtain a passport because she or Applicant A were of adverse interest to the Chinese authorities for any reason. On the evidence currently before me I am not satisfied that Applicant A faces a real chance of experiencing serious or significant harm on return to China for any reason associated with her daughter’s inability to obtain a passport for her daughter.
After considering Applicant A’s claims singly and cumulatively, I am not satisfied that she faces a real chance of suffering serious or significant harm for any reason within the reasonably foreseeable future if she returns to China. It follows that I am not satisfied that she has a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the reasons contained in s.5J(1) or that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to China, she faces a real risk of suffering significant harm.
FINDINGS OF FACT: APPLICANT B
In essence, Applicant B claims that he has attended church in Australia since sometime in 2017 and is now a Christian.
Migration history and failure to apply for protection in a timely fashion
Claims and evidence
Applicant B arrived in Australia on a student visa in March 2008. He became unlawful in March 2010. In July 2013 he lodged a partner visa application, which was refused in March 2015. This decision was confirmed by a differently constituted Tribunal in April 2016. Applicant B sought judicial review of that decision, but was unsuccessful. He became unlawful again in July 2017. He was located by the Department and detained on 17 September 2018. He applied for protection as a member of Applicant A’s family unit on 21 September 2018.
At the hearing I noted that Applicant B’s migration history suggested that he had been determined to remain in Australia well before he became interested in Christianity and that he was aware of how to access information and assistance in relation to his migration options. He said that at the time his first visa expired he had been a victim of fraud and did not want to return to face his parents because he had no money. When his visa expired in 2017 he was in a bad emotional state after the breakdown of his marriage and he did not think about visas at that time. Following that he remained because he had begun a relationship with Applicant A and joined the church.
I advised Applicant B that I had difficulty understanding why he had not applied for protection before he was detained in September 2018 if he had converted to Christianity in 2017 and was afraid to return to China. He said he had not been aware he could apply for protection until some friends advised him of the possibility a few months before he was detained. After that he was praying to God to see which path he should take. I advised him that I had great difficulty accepting that he had been unaware that he could apply for protection as it was my understanding that knowledge of the possibility of doing so was widespread in the Chinese community. I noted that people at the church he attended spoke Mandarin and would surely be trustworthy and sympathetic to his situation and able to assist. I also noted that he had previously applied for a spouse visa, which indicated that he knew how to obtain information regarding migration. He maintained that he had only become aware of the possibility of seeking protection shortly before he applied. He said that his spouse visa application had been lodged with the help of a lawyer and he had not spoken to people at the church about his situation because he did not want people in the church to serve him.
Findings
I do not accept that Applicant B failed to apply for protection until after he was detained in September 2018 because he was unaware of the possibility of doing so. As discussed at the hearing, his ability to locate a lawyer to assist him to apply for a spouse visa and to pursue merits and judicial review after that application was refused indicates that he had the knowledge and resources needed to obtain advice regarding his options and apply for protection if he feared returning to China. Furthermore I find the claim that he did not seek advice or assistance from anyone at church because he did not want them to serve him implausible. I find Applicant B’s failure to seek protection in Australia until he was detained in September 2018 is a strong indication that he did not fear returning to China at that time.
Christian religion
Claims and evidence
In the statement provided with her initial application for protection, Applicant A said that Applicant B had attended church services with her since sometime after she was baptised in 2016. At the hearing she said he had become a Christian in 2017 and started to attend church after that, but he had not been baptised.
The letters from the Minister at [Church 1] dated 18 October 2018 and the letter from a member of the Church dated November 2018 state that Applicant B regularly attends [Church 2], but give no indication of when he began to attend.
At the hearing I asked Applicant B why he was afraid to go back to China. He said that he had joined the church and if he went back to China and spread the gospel he would be persecuted. I asked for details of his involvement with Christianity in Australia. He said that he had sometimes taken Applicant A to church when they lived in the same house, but the first time he had gone to Church was in August 2017. He said that he wanted to be baptised, but had not been able to achieve this goal because he had missed some activities and because of his recent problems. However, he hoped to be baptised soon.
I asked Applicant B why he joined the church in August 2017. He said that he had experienced some turbulence in his relationship and he wanted comfort so he had asked Applicant A to take him. I asked why he thought going to church would give him comfort. He said that church was the home of followers and he believed it would offer him mental shelter. I asked him why he continued to go to church. He said that he went for the words and the spirits of the Bible because he thought that in this way he could achieve a new life.
Findings
I found applicant B’s evidence regarding his involvement with Christianity vague and unpersuasive. In these circumstances, and in light of his failure to apply for protection until he was detained in September 2018, while it may be that he has attended [Church 1] on occasion with Applicant B, I do not accept that he has attended the church regularly since 2017 or that he has genuinely converted to Christianity. I find that he made these claims in order to support his application for protection in Australia.
In reaching this conclusion I have considered the supporting letters from the minister and a congregant at [Church 1]. However, they purport to confirm claims that I have found to lack credibility and I have given them little weight.
CONSIDERATION OF APPLICANT B’S CLAIMS
I do not accept that Applicant B is a genuine Christian. It follows that I do not accept that he would practice Christianity if he returned to China and I am therefore not satisfied that there is a real chance he would suffer serious or significant harm on return to China because he is a Christian. Applicant B does not claim to fear harm in China for any other reason.
I am not satisfied that Applicant B faces a real chance of suffering serious or significant harm for any reason within the reasonably foreseeable future if he returns to China. It follows that I am not satisfied that he has a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the reasons contained in s.5J(1) or that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to China, he faces a real risk of suffering significant harm.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS RELATING TO APPLICANT C
Applicant A claims that Applicant C will be denied registration if she returned to China because she was born out of wedlock and she and Applicant B are not married. As discussed above, according to advice from DFAT, children born out of wedlock are not denied household registration even in cases where their father does not acknowledge paternity. In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that Applicant C would be denied household registration because her parents are not married or because Applicant A is in a de facto relationship with Applicant B, but they are not legally married.
I have also noted that Applicant A was unable to obtain a passport for her daughter from the Chinese consulate in April 2017. However, it is clear from the evidence that this was purely an administrative issue related to Applicant A’s failure to provide information regarding her daughter’s father on her birth certificate. There is nothing in the evidence before me which suggests that the applicant’s daughter was denied a passport because she was born out of wedlock or for any other reason which would give rise to a claim for protection in Australia.
I am not satisfied that Applicant C faces a real chance of suffering serious or significant harm for any reason within the reasonably foreseeable future if she returns to China. It follows that I am not satisfied that se has a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the reasons contained in s.5J(1) or that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to China, she faces a real risk of suffering significant harm.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore the applicants do not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa. It follows that they are also unable to satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(b) or (c), and cannot be granted the visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.
Roslyn Smidt
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.
…
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 them 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.
..
36Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(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.
…

[2019] AATA 6421

28 August 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction