1837470 (Refugee)

1837470 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 5119 (22 October 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1837470
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Albania
MEMBER:Paul Windsor
DATE:22 October 2021
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 22 October 2021 at 4:45 pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Albania – ‘blood feud’ with another family - brother’s failed relationship – threatened and beaten – other family’s connections to authorities – mental health – credibility – inconsistent claims and evidence - no corroborating evidence – brother returned to home country – delay in applying for protection – application made after student visa refused – country information – authenticity of letter from organisation attesting to feud – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1), 5J(1)(a), 36(2)(a), (aa), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
MIEA v Guo Wei Rong and Pam Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445
MIMA v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220
Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
Selvadurai v MIEA (1994) 34 ALD 347
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 12 December 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Albania, applied for the visa on 16 April 2018.
In his Protection visa application the applicant indicated he was born on [Date] in Lezhe, Lezhe county Albania, is ethnic Albanian, a Catholic and has never married. He indicated he departed Albania legally [Date 1] June 2016 and arrived in Australia on [Date 2] June 2016, entering on [a Specified] visa.[1]
[1] See the Departmental file.
In his application, the applicant claimed he came to Australia because, after his brother [Mr A] came to Australia, he was threatened and physically beaten by the brothers of a Muslim girl named [Ms B] who [Mr A] had fallen in love with.[2]
[2] See the Departmental file.
The delegate refused to grant the visa, finding that, in the absence of any substantive evidence (the applicant did not attend an interview with the delegate scheduled for 20 November 2018), he was not satisfied that the applicant’s brother [Mr A] had been in a relationship with a women named [Ms B] in Albania or that the relationship was opposed by her family, or that the applicant had ever been threatened or beaten by her brothers for the reasons claimed.
The applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of this decision on 20 December 2018. He provided the Tribunal with a copy of the delegate’s decision record.[3]
[3] See the Tribunal file.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal by video-link on 20 October 2021. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Albanian and English languages. The applicant was represented by his Registered Migration Agent.
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 the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs (the Department), 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.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The applicant’s claims for protection, as set out in his protection visa application, are summarised as follows:[4]
[4] See the Departmental file.
·He left Albania because he had been threatened by the brothers of [Ms B], who is the girl that his brother, [Mr A], had fallen in love with. Because [Mr A] left to go to Australia, they kept on threatening the applicant.
·He suffered psychological harm, threatening phone calls to his mobile phone, his father's workplace. When he left his father was crying and told him that he had now lost two sons, but they had no choice.
·He has been beaten physically by [Ms B]'s brothers and threatened verbally many times by them as well.
·He sought help with his father. His father told him that he spoke to someone in the government and as soon as they heard about [Ms B]'s father, the police dropped off the call. That was a sign that the police were not willing to help [an Occupation 1] against [an Occupation 2], or let alone their two brothers who work as [Occupation 3] at the [Workplace]. Unfortunately, he had no other choice but to leave the country.
·He strongly believes that [Ms B]’s brothers work in the government, in other words they are part of the authority system in Albania. Therefore, he is afraid of returning to Albania.
·He went to Tirana where he studied for one year but even there [Ms B]'s brother found him. He has read news where a whistle-blower was speaking against the government and the next day he was kidnapped by the intelligence officers and killed, his name was Kosta Trebicka and he was going to reveal government corruption in the arms trade. Nothing happened to the intelligence officers because they are protected by the government of the day and they are powerful.
·Albania is a very small country and wherever you go you will be found easily. [Ms B]'s brothers work in the government and they have got access to the computer data and can see all the movement of their citizens within the country and when they leave the country.
·He fears if he returned [Ms B]'s father and brothers might kill him because according to them his brothers and her family are linked with current political parties that are in power in Albania but also they are very Muslim. He was scared to live there anymore as the police and legal system is fully corrupted and he had no choice but to leave.
·He believes he would be physically harmed by [Ms B]'s brothers but thanks God that he managed to leave Albania.
The applicant was invited to attend an interview with the Department on 20 November 2018 but advice was received by email from the applicant’s representative on 18 November 2018 that the applicant was sick and would be unable to attend the interview. The representative included a psychologist’s report. The representative advised that he had informed the applicant of the importance of the interview but the applicant was happy for the decision to be made based on the representative’s written submission, the psychologist’s report and other supporting documentation included in the email.[5]
[5] See the Departmental file.
Relevant additional matters raised in the representative’s written submission are summarised as follows:
·The applicant came to Australia in June 2016 on [a Specified] visa. He did not return to Albania but sought to extend his visa in Australia until April 2018 when he applied for protection due to threats he had received from a family in Albania that has a feud with his brother, [Mr A], who is in Australia and has sought asylum as well.
·His brother had to flee to Australia because he was in love with a girl in Albania named [Ms B] and her family was against it. Her two brothers apparently work as [Occupation 3] in Albania with [Employer 1] and have used their power to intimidate and threaten to kill the applicant before he left Albania.
·Her family are also Muslims who are the majority in Albania and have the status quo in the power of running the country, while Catholics are a minority and the applicant’s family do not work in the government.
·The applicant feels Albania is not a safe place to live as the government is linked to organised crime and killings happen everyday but no arrests are made. Many Albanians are leaving because of this. The crime rate is very high, the situation is unstable and the government and judiciary are corrupt.
·Revenge killings are also a big problem due to Albanian blood feuds based on the Lek Dukagjini Kanun – a local tribal law practised mainly in Northern Albania, where the applicant comes from.
The psychologist’s report, prepared on 16 November 2018 by [Mr D], indicates that the applicant was referred to the psychologist by the applicant’s representative on 14 November 2018. It states that the applicant’s mental status was assessed during a two hour clinical interview during which the psychologist also administered two self-report tests: the Personality Assessment Screener (PAS), a measure of adult personality and psychological functioning; and the DASS Test, a standardised review of depressive, anxiety and stress symptoms. The psychologist opined that the applicant has suffered depressed mood for a long time and currently meets the diagnostic criteria of Persistent Depressive Disorder with Melancholic Features (Dysthymia); and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) super-imposed on Social Anxiety Disorder. Based on his assessment, the psychologist opined that the applicant would have problems when being interviewed by government officials or at Tribunals as he would be inconsistent. He commented that he noticed the applicant had problems with memory, concentration and attention span during his interview with him.
On 26 November 2018 the representative provided further information about the state of Albania, commenting that it is not safe due to a high level of corruption of government officials linked with organised crime. Included were documents regarding organised crime, drugs and corruption in Albania, including among politicians; Ethnic Albanian fighters in Iraq and Syria; and the November 2016 European Asylum Support Office (EASO) Country of Origin Information report for Albania.[6]
[6] See the Departmental file
On 21 September 2021 the representative provided a pre-hearing submission and various supporting documents (some of which previously had been provided to the Department).[7] In his submission he indicated that the applicant’s brother, [Mr A], who had returned to Albania because his father was very ill, had been involved in a car accident where a woman named [Ms C] had been killed. He claimed this has given rise to a blood feud with the [C] family and that [Mr A] and the applicant’s father had gone into hiding in Albania due to a threat to take revenge received from the [C] family. He also commented that the level of political insecurity, corruption and killings in Albania has increased. Included was a copy of a press report of [April] 2021 regarding an automobile accident which resulted in the death of [Ms C]. The report indicates that the driver of the vehicle, ‘citizen [Initials]’ was escorted to the Lezha Police Station for ‘further actions’.
[7] See the Tribunal file.
On 7 October 2021 the representative submitted a copy of a ‘Mendim’ (opinion), and English language translation, ‘On the danger of life of [the applicant] and his family because of blood feud’, by [Mr D], Chairperson of the [Organisation 1]. This refers to there being a threat to life due to ‘the state of multiple blood feud’.
On 12 October 2021 the representative provided a further psychological assessment dated 11 October 2021 by [Mr E]. This indicated that [Mr E] had seen the applicant again on 29 April and 5 October 2021 and had again administered the DASS Test. The psychologist indicated he considers the applicant is still facing the challenges he had listed in his previous report.
Findings and reasons
Identity
On the basis of the copy of his passport submitted to the Department,[8] the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a citizen of Albania and that his identity is as claimed. The Tribunal accepts that Albania is his ‘receiving country’ for refugee criterion purposes and for complementary protection purposes.
Issues
[8] See the Departmental file.
The issues in this review are whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for one or more of the five reasons set out in s.5J(1) and if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to his receiving country of Albania, there is a real risk he will suffer significant harm.
For the following reasons the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Credibility
The Tribunal is aware of the importance of adopting a reasonable approach in the finding of credibility. In Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and McIllhatton v Guo Wei Rong and Pam Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445 the Full Federal Court made comments on determining credibility. The Tribunal notes in particular the cautionary note sounded by Foster J at 482:
…care must be taken that an over-stringent approach does not result in an unjust exclusion from consideration of the totality of some evidence where a portion of it could reasonably have been accepted.
The Tribunal also accepts that ‘if the applicant's account appears credible, he should, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, be given the benefit of the doubt’. (The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, Geneva, 1992 at para 196). However, the Handbook also states (at para 203):
The benefit of the doubt should, however, only be given when all available evidence has been obtained and checked and when the examiner is satisfied as to the applicant's general credibility. The applicant's statements must be coherent and plausible, and must not run counter to generally known facts.
When assessing claims made by applicants the Tribunal needs to make findings of fact in relation to those claims. This usually involves an assessment of the credibility of the applicants. When doing so it is important to bear in mind the difficulties often faced by asylum seekers. The benefit of the doubt should be given to asylum seekers who are generally credible but unable to substantiate all of their claims.
The Tribunal must bear in mind that if it makes an adverse finding in relation to a material claim made by the applicant but is unable to make that finding with confidence it must proceed to assess the claim on the basis that it might possibly be true (see MIMA v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220).
However, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any or all of the allegations made by an applicant. Further, the Tribunal is not required to have rebutting evidence available to it before it can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been made out (see Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451 per Beaumont J; Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347 at 348 per Heerey J and Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547.
Assessment of claims
Evidence from the hearing
At the start of the hearing the Tribunal indicated it had read the psychological assessments provided by [Mr D] and asked the applicant if he was currently taking any medication. He indicated that he takes Lexam (Lexapro – a brand of Escitalopram used to treat depression and anxiety). When asked what it is for the applicant said he takes it to calm him down, indicating that it helps him sleep and reduces stress. He said he takes one tablet a day. When asked, he indicated he had not taken any medication that morning prior to the hearing. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he was seeing a counsellor . He indicated that he had seen [Mr D] at the start of October. When asked if he was seeing a counsellor on an ongoing basis the applicant said [Mr D] has suggested he do this but he had not found anyone at this stage.
The Tribunal advised the applicant that the hearing was scheduled to go for three hours and that he should let the Tribunal know at any stage during the hearing if he would like to take a break. The hearing actually went for just over two and a half hours. While a break was taken after one and a half hours, this was at the request of the interpreter. Neither the applicant nor his representative requested a break during the hearing. The Tribunal’s observations of the applicant during the hearing were that he was not overly anxious and did not appear to have any problems with memory, concentration and attention span. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant was able to give meaningful evidence at the hearing.
The applicant indicated that he had lived with his parents and two brothers in Lezhe city in Albania. He indicated his father was an [Occupation 1] but is now retired. He indicated that, before he came to Australia, his brother [Mr A] was a [Occupation 4] and was also studying [Subjects] at university in the Albania capital, Tirana. Contrary to what was stated in his protection visa application, he indicated that his other brother, [Mr E], has been living in [Country] since 2011. He commented that the reference in his application to [Mr E] residing in Albania was a misunderstanding/mistake.

The applicant indicated that while he was in Albania he had worked as [an Occupation 4] and had also been studying [Subjects] at university in Tirana. He indicated that he did not complete the course because he left to come to Australia when he was in the second year of the course. He indicated that he did not live in Tirana while he was studying there but commuted from Lezhe, indicating it took 50 minutes by bus.
The applicant indicated he had been working as [an Occupation 5] in [work sector] in Australia but stopped in 2018 because he lost his work rights. He said he supports himself through assistance from his family and from savings. When asked, he said he had been living alone but is now living with an international student.
When asked, the applicant indicated that his brother [Mr A] came to Australia in 2013. He said [Mr A] did not have a visa but came on a asylum seeker boat. He indicated that [Mr A] had been detained and held in immigration detention. He said [Mr A] sought protection in Australia. He suggested that was granted when [Mr A] came out of detention after about three months. When queried that it usually takes longer than that for a protection visa decision to be made, and whether he was referring to a bridging visa, the applicant agreed that it was a bridging visa that [Mr A] held at that time. When asked if [Mr A] was ever granted a protection visa the applicant indicated he was not and that he was always on a bridging visa while he was in Australia. The Tribunal asked the applicant when and why [Mr A] departed Australia. He said it was in February 2021. He said he returned to Albania to look after their parents, as their father got very sick and also got COVID-19. When queried about the nature of his father’s illness, the applicant said he had high blood pressure and diabetes.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if his brother was concerned about the issues with his previous girlfriend when he left Australia and returned to Albania, observing that the applicant had indicated in his protection visa application that her brothers are [Occupation 3] who work at the [Workplace] and have access to computer data about people’s movements. The Tribunal asked if his brother was worried they would know he had returned to Albania. The applicant indicated his brother was concerned but he risked his life as their parents needed some care. Noting the representative had indicated that [Mr A] and the applicant’s father had gone into hiding in Albania, the Tribunal asked if [Mr A] was still in Albania. The applicant said he was. When asked, he said he was living in the family home in Lezhe city. The Tribunal asked if he had experienced any problems with [Ms B]’s brothers or other family members. The applicant indicated that [Mr A] had not experienced any issues with them, adding that he is not going out as much to be visible in the community.
The Tribunal asked the applicant how he was able to obtain a [Specified] visa in 2016 on the basis of being [an Occupation 6] when he had indicated that the only work he had done in Albania was as [an Occupation 4]. The applicant said he also worked part time as [an Occupation 6]. He indicated he came to Australia to [do something] as part of a [group]. The Tribunal asked if he actually [did Occupation 6] in Australia, He said he did but added that some events were cancelled.
Observing that the applicant had indicated [Mr A] came to Australia in 2013, while he arrived on [June] 2016, the Tribunal asked the applicant what happened to him in Albania over the time after [Mr A] left. He said he suffered more psychological harm and threats after [Mr A] left. The Tribunal asked why that would be the case if [Mr A] had left Albania and therefore was no longer in a relationship with [Ms B]. The applicant said it was because of the old customary law in Albania, the law of Kanun. He added that [Ms B]’s family felt [Mr A] had shamed their family and therefore they are seeking revenge.
The Tribunal asked the applicant what they did to him. He said he received calls from her little brother [Mr F], asking him where [Mr A] is. He said they indicated they knew where he was and told the applicant that he (the applicant) would be paying. The Tribunal asked if they said how he would be paying. The applicant said they told him a lot of bad things and he was terrified. He added that they said they would take him hostage and kill him afterwards. The Tribunal asked how long these calls went on for. He said he received two phone calls and another time [Mr F] met him face to face. He said he changed his phone number so he could not contact him anymore. When asked when the two phone calls were, the applicant said the first was in August 2014 and the second was in December 2015.
The Tribunal asked when he met [Mr F] face to face. He said it was at university a few months before he came to Australia, maybe in February 2016. When asked what happened, the applicant said the two brothers came, he was getting off the bus and they stopped their car in front of him. He said they asked him where he was going and said they will catch and kill him. The applicant said he ran away into a university building.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if there were any other incidents. He said nothing else happened afterwards but he was really traumatised. When asked, he indicated he did not go to the police because when they threatened him that day they said to him that he knows very well where they work and that they have connections to the police, so he was scared to go to the police. The Tribunal queried the applicant that in his protection visa application he indicated his father sought help. The applicant said that was previously, in relation to [Mr A]. He said the police did not help because Albania is corrupt and if someone works in [Employer 1] and has a connection with the police they give favours to one another. When asked about the reference in his application to [an Occupation 2] the applicant indicated that [Ms B]’s father is in the [Employer 2] and is [a Rank] in the [branch of Employer 2], so everyone respects him.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why this matter would be seen as a blood feud when there has not been any killing involved. The applicant replied that when [Ms B] and [Mr A] were together she indicated she was expecting his child but [Mr A] did not accept this and she told her family. He said the family considered [Mr A] had taken their honour away and they are willing to kill or do anything for the honour of the family. The applicant commented that Albania is corrupt and [Ms B]’s family have power and strength against his family because her father works for the [branch of Employer 2] and her brothers work for [Employer 1]. He added that people from [Employer 1] have been accused of killings but nothing ever happens about it.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why he had a false driver’s licence in the name of [Alias] (as indicated in the delegates decision record, a copy of which he provided to the Tribunal). He commented that he realises he made a very big mistake. He indicated that he received a 3 month good behaviour bond when the matter went to trial in February 2019. When queried further he indicated another person paid him to do it in relation to renting a storage area. He indicated he later found out it was being used to store cutting tools used in the cultivation of marijuana. He indicated he thought the area was to be used to store furniture and initially was unaware of the real purpose because all the boxes were closed. When asked, he indicated he has not been charged with any other offences.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why, given his claimed circumstances, he did not make a protection visa application in July 2016, when his [Specified] visa was to cease, rather than apply for a student visa (which was refused). The applicant said his plan was to study for a little bit until it all calmed down. He added that he also wanted to learn and study and do something new.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about the claimed automobile accident involving [Mr A] in April 2021. He said a girl died and it has resulted in a really bad situation for his family. The Tribunal asked what the circumstances of the accident were. The applicant indicated that [Mr A] was driving to Lezhe to get some food when another car turned in front of him. When asked, he indicated [Mr A] was alone, driving a [Vehicle], while a daughter and her mother were in the other car, which the daughter was driving.
When asked if there was a police investigation, the applicant said [Mr A] was arrested and is now under house arrest. He indicated [Mr A] has been under house arrest since the accident [in] April 2021. When asked why [Mr A] was arrested, the applicant said he has not been charged yet but is waiting for the police report to be released. He added that [Mr A] is innocent. When asked, he indicated [Mr A] was not drinking alcohol or speeding at the time. He indicated that the daughter turned her car into [Mr A]’s path to enter another road.
The Tribunal asked why such an accident, where [Mr A] was not at fault, would give rise to a blood feud. The applicant replied that it is due to Albanian tradition. He added that his father wanted to go to have coffee with the family but they told him he owes them blood.
The Tribunal asked the applicant how the opinion by [Mr D] from [Organisation 1] was obtained. The applicant replied that [Mr D] is aware of his family’s story and there are a lot of blood feuds in Albania. He said [Mr D] is a mediator for these issues. The Tribunal asked the applicant who asked [Mr D] to issue the opinion. He replied that one of his family members did. When asked which family member, the applicant said [Mr D] was in contact with his brother ([Mr A]) by phone and then his brother sent someone to pick it up, but he is not sure who that was.
The Tribunal queried why [Organisation 1] had not issued an opinion previously, given the opinion mentions two blood feuds, including one involving [Ms B]’s family, which dates back many years. The applicant commented that they were not aware previously that such opinions could be obtained but now they have an opinion and the previous matter has been added as evidence that what they are saying is true.
The Tribunal indicated that it wanted to discuss some relevant country information with the applicant and give him the opportunity to comment on the information. The Tribunal indicated this information is from the November 2016 European Asylum Support Office (EASO) Country of Origin Information report for Albania submitted by his representative;[9] a Country Policy and Information Note on Blood Feuds in Albania issued by the UK Home Office in February 2020;[10] and advice from the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board (CIRB).[11]
[9] See the Departmental file.
[10] ‘Country Policy and Information Note, Albania’: Blood feuds, UK Home Office, February 2020.
[11] ‘Response to Information request ALB104752E’, Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 28 February 2014, Responses to Information Requests - Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (irb.gc.ca)
The EASO report indicates that the blood-feud phenomenon in Albania dates back centuries to the customary law Kanun of Lek Dukagjin, a code regulating communal life as well as private matters. During the communist regime of Enver Hoxha, the blood feud was outlawed and harshly punished. However, the collapse of the regime in early 1990s, combined with the absence of a functioning state, especially in the remote northern areas, left space for the revival of revenge killings.
The report comments that cases of blood feuds still occasionally occur, mainly in the rural northern areas of Albania. It notes that the parliament adopted a resolution and recommendations to end blood feuds following a special report by the Ombudsman and that recommendations included a coordination council on blood feuds, education and social programmes in the affected areas and increased police investigations, and investments to prevent conflicts.
The EASO report also notes that statistics on blood-feud cases vary considerably according to sources and are therefore very hard to assess. It comments that in 2013, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions concluded that the phenomenon had decreased steadily and that in 2010, 2011 and 2012, there were 10 cases or less, compared to 33, 12, and 13 murders in 2001, 2002 and 2003, respectively, but the problem had not yet been eliminated. The Rapporteur found that killings ‘continue to occur in part due to a tendency of the judiciary to impose lighter sentences on perpetrators, despite the fact that the Criminal Code of Albania provides for serious penalties for blood feud murder or threat’.
The ESAO report also comments that the Albanian Helsinki Committee reported that in 2015 no deaths had occurred due to blood feuds and in a special report on blood feuds (2013) the Ombudsman also mentioned no more than 5 cases per year in 2010, 2011 and 2012, although non-governmental organisations presented higher figures (189). The report also notes that successive Albanian governments have taken measures to eliminate blood feuds and revenge killings. The Criminal code was amended in 2013 or 2014 and includes lifetime penalties for blood-feud murders.
In relation to the consideration of documentary evidence, The UK Home Office report indicates that the Upper Tribunal in a country guidance case (EH (Blood Feuds) Albania CG[2012] UKUT 00348 (IAC) (October 2012) found, inter alia, that attestation letters from Albanian non-governmental organisations should not in general be regarded as reliable evidence of the existence of a feud; and unless factual, prompt and consistent, Albanian press reports will add little or no evidential weight in considering whether a feud exists.
The UK Home Office report also notes that Cedoca, the Documentation and Research Department of the Belgian Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons, carried out a fact-finding mission to Albania in March 2017, meeting with both state and non-state stakeholders. They were told that several proceedings had been initiated against NGOs, and even police officers and village heads, who had falsely produced letters or certificates attesting to a blood feud. In 2016, having investigated the blood feud phenomenon in Albania through field visits and a wide range of both state and non-state contacts, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) stated that, ‘Vested interests and criminality play a key role in inflating the sense of the scale of the phenomenon [of blood feuds].’ They noted that the Albanian government no longer recognises blood feud certificates from NGOs, police or local government offices. They commented that almost all interlocutors viewed blood feud certificates, whether produced by NGOs or by local officials, as ‘largely pointless’ and other embassies in Tirana take the same view and noted that such certificates are ‘easily available for a price’. The British Embassy further noted that the Albanian press have misrepresented murders as being the result of blood feuds, and journalists have accepted money to publish such reports for the family’s use in a bid for asylum.
The UK Home Office report further notes that statistics for claimed blood feuds vary widely. Both Cedoca and the British Embassy in Tirana were told that some NGOs and other individuals with a vested interest in inflating the claimed prevalence of blood feuds gave much higher figures than those provided by the police or the judiciary. In 2016, the British Embassy in Albania reported that the blood feud is a phenomenon in sharp decline in Albania, ‘largely restricted to remote pockets in the mountain[ous] north of the country’. After having considered all the available evidence in the country guidance case of EH, the Upper Tribunal found that whilst there remained a number of active blood feuds in Albania, they are few and declining.
The CIRB report indicates that, in October 2011, Balkan Insight conducted an undercover investigation that found that some NGOs were "routinely" selling documents to Albanian asylum seekers in Europe, claiming that the holders were involved in a blood feud even if a real conflict did not exist (27 Oct. 2011). In December 2011, media sources reported that [Mr D], the head of [Organisation 1], and a member of [Organisation 2], were charged with selling falsified certificates that claimed people were the victims of blood feuds.
The CIRB report notes that in a fact-finding mission to Albania about blood feuds conducted in April 2013, the Swedish Migration Board reported that NGOs that issue attestation letters do not have any legal authority to do so; many of them make money by selling attestation letters and some NGOs exaggerate the number of blood feuds because of this; and [Organisation 1] has issued attestation letters but has no legal authority to do so; and the statistics that they claim of the number of blood feuds - 10,000 in the last 20 years - is nowhere close to reality. The Swedish Migration Board states that [Organisation 1] was the organization most frequently mentioned by the sources they consulted in Albania as being linked to ‘accusations of corruption and the issuing of false attestation letters’. The report further comments that In a 2012 decision by the UK Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal, the judges stated, "We consider that [Organisation 1] and [Mr D] are wholly unreliable and that no weight can be placed on the attestation letters they produce".
The Tribunal commented that what comes through in the reports is that blood feud is a phenomenon that is in decline in Albania and that there seems to be something of a fraud industry around suggesting blood feud is much more common than is actually the case.
The applicant commented that he lives in the north of Albania where there is still a lot of killings happening due to blood feuds. He said if you live there and watch the news you see how many die every day. He commented that in Albania there is no special place opened by the government regarding blood feuds so there is nowhere else to go to get blood feud paperwork other than [Organisation 2]. The applicant commented that the situation in Albania is quite severe because the government is very corrupt and cannot provide security. He said two seeks ago he saw on the news that a police officer had been killed by a twenty year old. He said he fears for his life if he has to return to Albania.
In an oral submission at the hearing the representative commented that while he fully understands the points made by the different institutions, if the Albanian government no longer recognises attestation letters it should ban them and put [Mr D] in front of a court, adding that these were unproven accusations. He commented that reports indicate that the Prime Minister is corrupt and the President has millions in the UK. The representative said the applicant had no option but to go to [Organisation 1]. He added that there is no protection from the government, adding that the Prime Minister had been reporting as commenting in relation to killings, ‘let them kill each other’. The representative stated that the applicant is from the north of Albania where Kanun is still prevalent and his story is very solid. He commented that the Albanian government is spreading propaganda because Albania wishes to be accepted as a member of the EU and is seeking to obtain funding, which keeps the government in power. He added that it should also be taken into consideration that over 700,000 people have left Albania since 2007, which he asserted would not be the case if Albania was a safe place to live.
Assessment
Fear of harm from the family of [Ms B]

Having carefully considered the available evidence, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant ever suffered treatment amounting to persecution involving serious harm from the family of [Ms B] and/or their agents. This is for the following reasons, considered cumulatively.
Firstly, apart from the opinion from [Organisation 1] provided shortly before the hearing, the applicant has provided no corroborating evidence to indicate that he or his brother were ever threatened or harmed by members of the [B] family. He has not provided any statements from family members, such as his brother [Mr A] and his father. Given the country information discussed with the applicant regarding the unreliability of letters by Albanian NGO’s attesting to the existence of a blood feud, and particularly the advice regarding the activities of [Mr D] and [Organisation 1] outlined above, the Tribunal gives no weight to the opinion provided by [Mr D] in September 2021.
Second, while the applicant indicated in his protection visa application that he had been beaten physically by [Ms B]’s brothers and threatened verbally by them many times, at the hearing he indicated that he only had contact with the brothers on three occasions over the period from 2013, when [Mr A] left Albania and came to Australia, and June 2016, when the applicant left Albania. He did not indicate that he was ever beaten by the brothers. He indicated that two of the contacts were by phone, but indicated that he was able to avoid further phone contact by changing his phone number. In this regard, the Tribunal considers that if the brothers worked for [Employer 1] as claimed, they would likely have been readily able to obtain his new phone number. The applicant claimed the brothers physically blocked his path and threatened him when he was going to university in February 2016, but it seems highly improbable that, if they had gone to the trouble of locating him at his university in Tirana, he would have been able to run away from them, or they would not have detained and harmed or killed him on some other occasion over the three year period from 2013 until 2016, if there really was a blood feud in existence between the [B] and [A] families. In this regard the Tribunal also notes that the applicant indicated that, rather than relocate to Tirana as he stated in his protection visa application, he continued to live at the family home in Lezhe city over this period, so would have been easy to locate.
Third, if the applicant really was terrified and traumatised by his experiences in Albania after his brother left in 2013, and feared he might be killed by [Ms B]’s father and brothers if he returned, the Tribunal considers he would have followed his brothers lead and applied for protection when he arrived in Australia in June 2016, rather than seek a student visa and then pursue merits review of the decision in November 2016 to refuse him that visa, and not seek protection until after that decision was affirmed by the Tribunal on 22 March 2018 (as indicated in the delegate’s decision record). The Tribunal found unconvincing the applicant’s statement at the hearing that his plan was to study for a little bit until it all calmed down, given the claim that this matter had given rise to a blood feud under the Kanun.
Fourth, the applicant indicated that [Mr A] returned to Albania in February 2021, has been residing at the family home in Lezhe city (rather than he and his father going into hiding as claimed by the representative), and has not had any issues with the [B] family. The Tribunal considers that would be highly unlikely if there was a blood feud between the [B] and [A] families and the [B] brothers worked for [Employer 1] as claimed. In his protection visa application the applicant claimed that [Ms B]'s brothers have got access to computer data and can see all the movements of their citizens within the country and when they leave the country. If this was the case it would be expected that they would have arranged for an alert to be sent to them if [Mr A] ever re-entered the country, and would have sought him out.
The Tribunal concludes that there is no blood feud between the [B] and [A] families and finds that the applicant was never threatened either by phone or face to face by [Ms B]’s brothers, and therefore never suffered psychological harm, and was never beaten by them.
As the Tribunal does not accept the applicant was ever threatened or harmed by members of the [B] family and that there is no blood feud between the families, the Tribunal finds there is not a real chance that the applicant would suffer treatment amounting to persecution involving serious harm from [Ms B]’s father or her brothers or other family members and/or their agents and/or associates, including in the Albanian government, should he return to Albania, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Fear of harm from the family of [Ms C]
While the Tribunal notes the advice in the relevant country information indicating that press reports in Albania regarding blood feud may be false, having been produced by bribing journalists, having carefully considered the press report provided in relation to the death of [Ms C] as a result of a motor vehicle accident in April 2021, the Tribunal accepts that report may be genuine and the ‘citizen [Initials]’ referred to in the report may be a reference to [Mr A].
The Tribunal does not accept, however, that this accident would have given rise to a blood feud between the [C] and [A] family as claimed. In this regard, the Tribunal gives no weight to the opinion provided by [Mr D] of [Organisation 1], for the reasons noted above, and notes there is no other independent evidence to corroborate the claim of blood feud.
The Tribunal also notes the country information indicating that blood feud is a phenomenon in sharp decline; that while they ‘still occasionally occur’, this is mainly in remote or mountainous areas of the north of the country; and that blood feuds are few – with credible reports of only new 5 cases a year from 2010-2012, and no deaths due to blood feud reported in 2015. The Tribunal notes that the [A] family do not live in the remote or mountainous north of the country but live in Lezhe city, a coastal city.
The Tribunal considers it is very clear that there is a criminal industry in Albania with a vested interest in perpetuating a false sense that blood feud is a common if not inevitable response to any death, whether accidental or due to cold blooded murder. The Tribunal does not accept this is the case. The Tribunal notes that road traffic accidents are one of the leading causes of death in Albania, with 415 deaths (or 12.77 per 100,000 people) recorded in 2019.[12] Given the very small number of new cases of blood feud reported in recent years, the Tribunal considers that only very rarely would a road accident death result in blood feud in contemporary Albania. Noting the applicant’s evidence that his brother was not at fault in the accident, and the evidence that the police are investing the matter but [Mr A] has not been charged with any offences, the Tribunal does not accept that this death has resulted in a blood feud between the [C] and [A] families. The Tribunal does not give any weight to the applicant’s uncorroborated oral evidence that his father was told by the [C] family that they want blood.
[12] World Health Rankings, Albania: Road Traffic Accidents, >
As the Tribunal does not accept that there is a blood feud between the [C] and [A] families due to the death of [Ms C] the Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance that the applicant would suffer treatment amounting to persecution involving serious harm from members of the [Ms B] family should he return to Albania now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Does the applicant have a well-founded fear of persecution if he returned to Albania?
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds there is not a real chance that the applicant would suffer persecution involving serious harm from members of the [B] or [C] families and/or their agents and/or associates, including in the current government, because of his family being involved in a blood feud, his Catholic religion, actual or imputed political opinion, or for one or more of the other reasons mentioned at s.5J(1)(a) of the Act, should he return to Albania, now or in the foreseeable future.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).
In reaching its conclusions the Tribunal has considered the psychological reports provided. The Tribunal notes that, unlike the Tribunal, it is not the role of the assessing psychologist to undertake an inquisitorial assessment of the applicant’s claims and to make findings of fact regarding the veracity of his evidence. The psychologist has accepted the applicant’s claims at face value but for the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal does not accept them. The Tribunal also notes that the psychologist’s initial assessment of the applicant’s mental health was made based on a single two hour consultation, and the consideration of the results of two self-report psychometric instruments. As noted above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was able to participate meaningfully in the hearing and give reliable evidence which was not affected by problems with memory, concentration and attention span.
Complementary protection
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa).
In considering whether there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to Albania, the Tribunal has noted that in MIAC v SZQRB, the Full Federal Court held that the ‘real risk’ test imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in relation to the ‘refugee’ criterion.[13]
[13] MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33 (Lander, Besanko, Gordon, Flick and Jagot JJ, 20 March 2013) per Lander and Gordon JJ at [246], Besanko and Jagot JJ at [297] and Flick J at [342].
Having regard to the findings of fact set out above, the Tribunal also finds that there are not substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to Albania, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm, as set out in s.36(2A), from members of the [B] or [C] families and/or their agents and/or associates, including in the current government, or anyone else.
In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has considered the representative’s comments that Albania is afflicted by crime and corruption and has a very high murder rate. Having considered the documents submitted by the representative, the Tribunal accepts that organised crime and government corruption are issues in Albania, but does not accept that the applicant is a target of organised crime or corrupt politicians or officials that puts him at a real risk of suffering significant harm should he return to Albania. In relation to the risk of being murdered in a non-targeted incident, the Tribunal notes that in 2019 the homicide rate in Albania was 2.3 cases per 100,000 population, and has tended to decrease over the period since 2000.[14] The Tribunal finds that this does not amount to a real risk that the applicant would be arbitrarily deprived of his life as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed to Albania.
[14] ‘Albania – Homicide rate’, Knoema, Albania Homicide rate, 1990-2020 - knoema.com
Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
Member of the same family unit
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Paul Windsor
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.
…

[2021] AATA 5119

22 October 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction