1831290 (Refugee)

1831290 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 4579 (9 November 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER: 1831290

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Malaysia
MEMBER:Member Nathan Goetz
DATE:9 November 2023
PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 09 November 2023 at 11:52am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – employment – higher education – period of unlawful residence – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 425, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2; r 1.12
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for merits review of a decision made s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) by a delegate of the Minister refusing to grant the applicant a protection visa.
BACKGROUND
On 21 March 2017 the applicant was offshore and granted an electronic travel authority visa to come to Australia. [In] March 2017 the applicant arrived in Australia holding that visa. That visa expired [in] June 2017 and the applicant became an unlawful non-citizen.
On 19 April 2018 the applicant applied for the protection visa. On 24 April 2018 the applicant was first granted a bridging visa to regularise his migration status in Australia pending his protection visa application being finally determined. The applicant continues to hold a bridging visa to allow him to temporarily remain in Australia.
On 23 October 2018 the delegate refused to grant the applicant the protection visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy either s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act.
On 24 October 2018 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for merits review of the decision.
On 18 October 2023 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant by email and invited the applicant under s 425(1) of the Act to appear at a Tribunal hearing scheduled for 1:30pm on 8 November 2023 so the applicant could give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review. The Tribunal had to invite the applicant to appear at a Tribunal hearing because none of the exceptions to the hearing obligation applied: s 425(3) of the Act.
On 8 November 2023 the applicant appeared at the Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Malay and English languages.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Sections 36(2)(b) and (c) provide as an alternative criterion that the applicant is a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen mentioned in s 36(2)(a) or (aa) who holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant. Section 5(1) of the Act provides that one person is a ‘member of the same family unit’ as another if either is a member of the family unit of the other or each is a member of the family unit of a third person. Section 5(1) also provides that ‘member of the family unit’ of a person has the meaning given by the Regulations for the purposes of the definition. The expression is defined in reg 1.12 of the Regulations.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND FINDINGS
The Tribunal considered all the material relevant to the protection visa application and the review application. At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant said that all the claims and details in the protection visa application form were true and that he had no protection claims other than those raised in the protection visa application form.
The issue in this review is whether the applicant is either a ‘refugee’ or a person who meets the requirements for ‘complementary protection’ or a person who is a member of the same family unit as a person as a ‘refugee’ or a member of the same family unit who meets the requirements for ‘complementary protection.’
If the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant meets s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b) or (c) of the Act, then the correct or preferable decision is to set aside the decision of the delegate refusing to grant the protection visa, and to remit the visa application back to the delegate for reconsideration with a permissible direction about the criteria the applicant satisfies.
If the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant meets s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b) or (c) of the Act, then the correct or preferable decision is to affirm the decision of the delegate refusing to grant the protection visa.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
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 (DHA), and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
The most recent DFAT Country Information Report on Malaysia is dated 29 June 2021 which the Tribunal has considered.
Identity and country of reference
Evidence
According to the protection visa application form, the applicant is a citizen of Malaysia who was born on [date] in [District 1 in] Sabah, Malaysia. Prior to coming to Australia, he resided in [a location], Sabah, Malaysia. The applicant claimed to have no other citizenship or right to enter a third country.
The form identified the applicant as ‘female’ but the applicant provided details of a Malaysian passport issued in the applicant’s name [in] 2017 expiring [in] 2022. The review application form identified the applicant as male.
At the Tribunal hearing, and in the protection visa application form, the applicant did not raise gender or gender identity as a reason for claiming protection. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant identifying himself as female in the protection visa application form was a typographical error.
Consideration and finding
Based on the applicant’s passport, the Tribunal is satisfied as to the applicant’s identity and his citizenship. In the absence of any evidence that the applicant is a citizen of any other country, or has a right to enter and reside in any third country, the Tribunal is satisfied that the country of reference for the protection visa assessment is Malaysia.
Member of the same family unit
Evidence
In the protection visa application form, the applicant declared that there were no members of his family unit included in the visa application. He declared that he was making his own claims for protection. He did not claim to meet the requirements for the grant of the protection visa on the basis of membership of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act.
The applicant declared that he had no partner, parents, siblings or children in Australia or overseas. In the form, he identified his parents as living in Malaysia, but identified no siblings. This was strange, because in the section of the protection visa application form about past employment history, the applicant wrote that he had undertaken babysitting duties in Malaysia for his sister.
At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant told the Tribunal that he had [number] siblings. He told the Tribunal that he did not identify his siblings in the protection visa application form because he did not know he had to do so.
Consideration and finding
Based on the applicant not claiming to meet the requirements for the grant of a protection visa on the basis of membership of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a member of the same family unit as a person who meets s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act.
Protection claims
Relevant evidence from the protection visa application form
In the protection visa application form, which declared that it was completed by the applicant with no assistance, the applicant declared that he left Malaysia because he had ‘no job after looking after my nephew. So I make a choice to move to another country.’ He claimed that the ‘Malaysian Government have a problem with [my] boss has been close his [business 1] in Sandakan. So I have to find another job to survive. It’s very stressful when I can’t found the job. I choose Australia because Australia have a biggest farm in Asia. When I has been in Australia I found one girl but the girl is already married and have [number] kids. I like that girl and I want to marry her.”
He wrote that he had not experienced harm in Malaysia, but at the same time, claimed to have moved or tried to move, to another part of Malaysia to seek safety. However, the details of those moves were detailed as ‘moved to Australia.’ The applicant wrote that if he returned to Malaysia, ‘the same thing will happen again.’ He claimed that he ‘don’t have any job and be a stress person maybe’ and that he would be harmed or mistreated in Malaysia because ‘I am crazy thinking about how to survive in my country if the corruptor still in Malaysia.’ He did not believe that the authorities in Malaysia could or would protect him in the ‘event I have to die to survive.’ He did not believe he would be able to relocate within Malaysia to an area where he would not be harmed because ‘in that means time I really like Australia.’
In the protection visa application form, the applicant declared that he was employed from [June] 2015 until [May] 2016 as [an occupation 1] at ‘[Business 1]’ a [business 1] in Bandar Sandakan, Sanadakan, Sabah. After that time, he was a baby sitter for his sister.
Relevant evidence provided at the Tribunal hearing
At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant told the Tribunal that he applied for the visitor visa to come to Australia for work. He looked for a job and applied for the protection visa so he would be granted a bridging visa that permitted him to work, as he was not allowed to do so on the visitor visa. He started work about three months after he arrived in Australia. He told the Tribunal that he has held his present job, which was [job description], for approximately two years.
Concerning his decision to apply for a protection visa, as opposed to any other visa, once he was in Australia, the applicant attributed this to having no knowledge of what to do, and asking someone for help. He asked a person to assist him to apply for a visa so that he could stay in Australia longer for work. He did not know why this person did not declare the assistance provided to the applicant in the protection visa application form.
The applicant told the Tribunal that he had not returned to Malaysia because it was hard for him to get a job. He said that he still had commitments to look after his family in Malaysia and that he sends back money to his family when he can. He claimed that he had difficulty finding work in Malaysia because he has no higher education. The protection visa application form details that the applicant completed higher education in Malaysia in [year].
The applicant told the Tribunal that if he returned to Malaysia he would be unemployed because it is difficult to find a job in Malaysia.The applicant was asked whether his work experience in Australia would assist him to gain employment in Malaysia. He did not answer this definitively and responded that the Malaysian economy is not stable but agreed that the economic conditions in Malaysia were conditions faced by all Malaysians.
At the Tribunal hearing, the Tribunal identified the statutory requirements for the applicant to be granted a protection visa. Given the applicant had applied for a protection visa, it was reasonable to expect that the applicant would be able to identify which criteria (if any) the applicant claimed to meet. The applicant said that he had no idea and just asked someone to help him get a visa so he could work in Australia.
Consideration and findings
According to the DFAT Country Information Report at 2.11, Malaysia’s economic performance over several decades has led to a significant reduction in poverty, with the share of households living below the national poverty line (MYR2,208 (AUD700) per month in 2020) falling from over 50 per cent in the 1960s to less than 1 per cent in 2021. However, persistent inequalities remain for indigenous peoples and the poorest 40 per cent of the population, the so called ‘B40’ who are the recipients of government assistance. Poverty rates are higher in rural areas, especially in Kelantan, Sabah, Sarawak and Kedah states. Furthermore, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty gave the view in 2019 that Malaysia’s official poverty line is artificially low and that a more accurate measurement results in a poverty rate of around 16-20 per cent. The UNDP’s Human Development Index ranked Malaysia 62 of 189 countries in 2020, placing it in the ‘very high human development’ category.
The Tribunal found the applicant to be a reliable witness about his reasons for coming to Australia. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant completed high school in Malaysia in [year] and that his employment history is that contained in his protection visa application form, namely that he was most recently employed in Malaysia as [an occupation 1] at a [business 1] between June 2015 and May 2016 in Sanadan, Sabah. The Tribunal accepts that prior to this employment, he looked after the children of his siblings as a means of employment. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant being unemployed in Malaysia would be stressful and that looking for employment would cause the applicant stress and it was for this reason he left Malaysia to seek employment opportunities overseas.
However, the applicant did not claim that he would be denied employment in Malaysia due to his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The applicant told the Tribunal that he had difficulty finding employment because he did not have higher education qualifications. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s inability to find employment or a worry that he may not be able to find employment upon his return to Malaysia because a lack of higher education is systematic and discriminatory conduct that amounts to persecution.
Concerning the fact that the applicant would return to Malaysia without employment, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant would end up destitute. The applicant has a large family in Malaysia and given his employment history in Australia, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant would be able to subsist in that country upon his return and would be able to find some form of employment to survive in that country. The Tribunal is not satisfied that being stressed over lack of employment is serious harm or significant harm.
The applicant did not claim that he would be arbitrary deprived of his life in Malaysia nor that he would be subject to the death penalty. The applicant did not claim that his inability to find employment previously, or his belief that he may not be able to find employment in Malaysia upon his return, was cruel, inhuman treatment or punishment, or degrading treatment or punishment, or torture. The Tribunal is not satisfied that difficulty finding employment upon return to Malaysia amounts to torture or cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or degrading treatment or punishment.
In the Tribunal’s assessment, the applicant came to Australia not because he had been subjected to persecution or experienced significant harm as defined by the Act. Rather, the applicant came to Australia to seek work. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant did not return to Malaysia because he feared persecution or feared that he would be subjected to significant harm in that country. Instead, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant came to Australia in order to find employment and having secured employment in this country, decided to remain here. He did not decide to remain in Australia for reasons connected with Australia’s protection obligations.
CONCLUSION
Refugee
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Malaysia due to his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.
Therefore, the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
Complementary protection
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant’s removal from Australia to Malaysia, there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm.
Therefore, the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Member of the same family unit
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act.

Therefore, the applicant is not a person who satisfies s 36(2)(b) or (c) of the Act.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Nathan Goetz

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

[2023] AATA 4579

9 November 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice