1903893 (Refugee)

1903893 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 3425 (2 July 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Pablo Ramirez
CASE NUMBER:  1903893
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:           Fiji
MEMBER:Paul White
DATE:2 July 2024
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the
applicants protection visas.

Statement made on 02 July 2024 at 3:38pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa – Fiji – a victim of a case of police brutality – wrongfully accused and charged with assaulting a police officer – imputed political opinion – be perceived to be anti-police, anti-authority, anti-military, and/or anti-government – members of a particular social group – their family – applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 25 January 2019 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicants, a couple who married in December 2015 and their [age]-year-old daughter who was born in Fiji, are citizens of Fiji. They arrived in Australia on [date] November 2017 and applied for the protection visas (PV application) on 6 February 2018. The delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that the applicant’s claims were not linked to the grounds set out in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act and that protection was available from authorities so there was not a risk of significant harm.
The first applicant (hereafter the applicant) and second applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 23 February 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Fijian and English languages. The applicant is fluent in English so did not need to use the interpreter. The applicants were represented in relation to the review. The applicant made claims on behalf of all the applicants. The applicants gave evidence about their background, migration history, and presented arguments relating to the issues under review. A second hearing was required to discuss issues pursuant to s 425 as relevant issues arose in the applicant brother’s case before the Tribunal. The second hearing took place on 21 June 2024.
The applicant’s younger brother, [Mr A] was involved in the same incident in Fiji that forms the basis of the applicant’s claim. He is now in Australia on a bridging visa linked to his own protection visa application. Because aspects of the claims are the same, intricately linked, and constituted to the same Member of the Tribunal, I have used evidence given in one as evidence in the other where it applies to the commonality of the claim in accordance with s 424 of the Act.
Background
The applicant is [age] years of age. The applicant did not finish College in Fiji but joined the army. He worked with the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) from January 2011 to December 2017. He was deployed by RFMF [in] [a country] for over one year. When he returned to Fiji, he was a [rank] working with [a] Unit. Later he was attached to [a company] as part of his military training. He resigned from the army after he arrived in Australia in November 2017 and was officially discharged.
In Australia the applicant works [in] areas where [works] are in progress. The second applicant worked between 2013 and 2015 as a [occupation]. The third applicant is a student in Australia.
In Fiji the applicant has two older sisters, [both working]. The applicant has a younger brother in Fiji who is a [rank] in the army. The applicant’s father was an [occupation] with the RFMF. He served [as] a [occupation]. He was asked [to] retire from the RFMF after 30 years with the Military.
The applicant has a brother in Australia [Mr A] who was an infantryman with the RFMF from March 2016 until he resigned in 2021 to travel to Australia. He arrived in Australia on [date] February 2021 on a [visa].
The applicants have family in Australia. The second applicant’s father and her older sister live in Australia. The applicant also has relatives on his father’s side who have been citizens in Australia for some 10 years. At the second hearing the second applicant said her daughter arrived in Australia when she was [age] and is now [age].
Movement record
The applicant first arrived in Australia on [date] July 2017 and departed for Fiji on [date] July 2017. He arrived again in Australia on [date] November 2017. His wife and child came with him on the second occasion. They all applied for protection visas on 6 February 2018.
All applicants have Fijian passports. The applicant’s passport expired in [2023]. The second applicant’s passport expired in [2021]. Their daughter’s passport expires in [2027].
Claims to Immigration
The applicant provided substantial detail to the Department in his PV application.
I had left Fiji with my family for the following reasons. I have been a victim of a recent case of police brutality in Fiji. I am a soldier in my home country holding the rank of [rank] in the Republic of Fiji Military Forces. I was brutally assaulted with my younger brother [Mr A], following a night out with him to celebrate his return to Fiji from [Country 1] where he played for [a] club.
The night was Saturday 30th September 2017. I had arranged later that night to meet [Mr A] and a cousin [Mr B] at a [City 1] nightclub [to] have a few drinks. We came out of the [nightclub] at 4am, with their 2 female friends. We decided to walk into another nightclub nearby [Club 1] when we saw a policeman of Indian descent patrolling the streets in front of [Club 1] and talking to the bouncers. When we found out from one of the bouncers the nightclub was already closed, my brother who was a bit loud mouthed, turned on my cousin, jokingly swearing at him as to why he came late in the first place as the nightclubs were closed.
However, the policeman who heard my brother swearing, confronted us and questioned [Mr A] as to why he was swearing at him. Before any of us could answer, he charged at [Mr A] by spraying his eyes with the pepper spray. The policeman’s actions took us by surprise and my brother started yelling and swearing when his eyes were being sprayed.
The bouncers actually pushed my brother around, while the policemen hit him on the face. I managed to pull my brother away from the scene asking him not to retaliate given the big built person that he is. I tried to intervene by explaining that [Mr A] was not swearing at the policemen, but he also used the pepper spray on the rest of us. We managed to get away and went looking for a taxi to take us home. We did not stop, we kept walking up the street away from the nightclub. After a few minutes, my cousin [Mr B] looked behind us and saw that the same policeman was following us but kept talking on his mobile phone. [Mr B] warned us that the policeman could be up to something and at the same time my cousin was walking fast trying to run away from us. [Mr B] got away just seconds before a police vehicle stopped next to us and some men in civilian clothes, came out and started punching me. As I fell down on the footpath, they continued to punch and kick me. My brother [Mr A] came to my aid, trying to pull me up but he was outnumbered.
They hit him with everything they had and they threw both of us on to the tray of the twin cab vehicle, one of the policemen stepped on my neck as I lay on the tray of the ute. I woke up inside the cell at the [City 1] Police station on Sunday morning and saw that my brother and I had sustained severe body injuries. There was so much blood everywhere, my brother lay motionlessly on the floor. Police did not take us to the hospital until my father turned up at the [Police] station and asked that he take us to the hospital. My father had learnt of our ordeal through cousin [Mr B] who had managed to get away early that Sunday morning. We were later interviewed by police and remained in their custody for two days after which they charged us with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest, charges the police officers had drummed up to cover for their actions. This is a clear case of bad cops covering for each other. The case was filed in court but some of the indigenous itaukei police officers involved, later found out that the Indo-Fijian policeman in question was never assaulted and that he had only used them to do his dirty work. They then arranged to seek a traditional apology to us. My father picked us up from the village and took us to his home to wait for the police officers. They turned up and presented their traditional apology. They also informed my father they will ask the Police Commissioner to drop the case but to date this has not been so.
Reports on the injuries I sustained at the hands of the police is attached. I have suffered severe trauma both physically and emotionally as a result of this incident. Everything came to a standstill for me. I cried every night during my nights away from home and living with my grandmother. I blamed myself for what happened that early Sunday morning. I was the one who called my brother to meet me in town and go for a few drinks the night before. I kept thinking had I not called [Mr A], none of this would have happened that day. We felt we were in the wrong place at the wrong time with the policeman taking advantage of us.
I thought of my wife and daughter, what was likely to happen to them and my parents of course, none of us deserved to go through such an inhumane experience and its effects on us would remain with us for the rest of our lives. In addition, I was wrongfully accused and charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest. Following the incident, I had lived in fear for my life and family.
I had no choice but to live away from home, forcibly took leave from work to sort myself out. I was so thankful that our Australian visas came through following my wifes coordination with her family in Australia to visit her dad. My father picked me up on the early morning of [date] November 2017, to take me with my wife and daughter to Nadi airport to board our flights bound for Australia. My parents did not leave the airport until the plane left Nadi. Going through Immigration at Nadi Airport was the last hurdle, because names of accused persons with such court cases would have been registered on their Black List. Such persons were then stopped from leaving the country. It appeared that my name had not made it to that list yet and I thank God that we breezed through Immigration and we left Fiji as scheduled.
The people I hold responsible for the harm are some of the Police officers stationed at the [Police] Station in [City 1]. I believe the police officer in question had accused us of assaulting him to justify his calling the police mobile unit in to hunt us down. Just the thought of being falsely accused and my not being able to leave Fiji freely is so unfair.
I had sought assistance from the Legal Aid Office in [City 1] to represent my brother and I in court. The case was called three times before I left Fiji but the Director of Public Prosecutions lawyer kept giving the court excuses that the police had not presented a file to his office, another time police had misplaced the file so the magistrate kept adjourning the case. I could also see that the legal aid lawyer [Mr C] failed in his duty to ask relevant questions to the DPP lawyer in court as what was really happening. He seemed to accept everything the government lawyer said in court and for this we really questioned as to what his role or duty in was representing us after all. We could also see that even though [Mr C] was frustrated at what was happening, he could not do much about it. It appears that his hands were tied.
The Legal Aid lawyer later mentioned to my father that it was okay for us to leave the country and never come back as police was obviously playing with our lives. My brother [Mr A] has a [Country 1] visa and he could just go back to [Country 1] to live his life there. I had asked my wife to contact her family in Australia to at least bring us here on holidays, where we would also have the opportunity to recollect our thoughts and regroup to map out our future for our young family given the situation in Fiji.
My family in Fiji tried to seek the assistance of the UN Human Rights Office in [City 1], but they were told on the phone that we the victims should register our complaint and attend the interviews in person. This, neither of us were able to do as we were both still recovering and secondly, the UN office is closely monitored by the local authorities and in my capacity as a soldier and member of the disciplined forces, going to the UN office to seek assistance would mean committing treason.
After the incident, my father took my brother and I to our village [and] stayed with our grandmother who helped us recover. My paternal grandmother is a retired nurse who lives on her own land on the village outskirts. And she had sought assistance from our relatives in making traditional medicine and massages for us. My wife and daughter were picked up by my parents to live with them for the time I was away. We were forced to vacate our [home], fearing any more retaliation by police. I stayed with my grandmother from the 1st week of October until the day I left Fiji on the [date] of November, 2017. If I win this case, it would mean the police force will be ridiculed over the incident and it could also mean an investigation into the officers concerned. There's no guarantee on my safety should these officers retaliate. And what about my family's safety?
And if I do get a jail sentence, there's no guarantee on my safety in jail either. I have seen inmates being beaten up for no reason. What will become of my family if I do go to jail?
My brother and I have never had any police record all our lives. We were raised in a strong disciplined home given my fathers military background. He instilled in us Christian values and upbringing. The incident with police could have been avoided if the policeman in question had let us go after spraying us with the pepper spray. We dont really know as to what was his motive that day when he confronted us and sprayed us with the pepper spray. He also ordered nightclub bouncers to hold my brother down while the policeman hit [Mr A] in the face. All this time [Mr A] was swearing as he could not see as his eyes were stinging from the pepper spray. When my cousin [Mr B] and I tried to intervene, we were also sprayed with the pepper spray. And if that was not enough the policeman still ordered a police mobile unit to hunt us down like animals and take us in as if we had assaulted him to be considered a threat to police. After the incident I don’t see myself or my brother walking the streets of [City 1] again because at the back of our minds we feel we will always be marked by police. We are forced to accept the fact that we are no longer safe in our own backyard and that is the reality.
My lawyer could get this case discharged and also sue police for assaulting my brother and I but he cannot guarantee our safety during and after the court proceedings. We would like to put a stop to police brutality in Fiji but we believe we would do this better when we are overseas for our security and protection.
Given the current record of police brutality on the streets of [City 1] and a flawed legal system, its evident that authorities whom we look to for guidance and protection, cannot protect us. We fear for our lives and that of our families. I have a young family and its not fair to raise a family in such a violent and inhumane situation. I fear losing my family altogether if I do get sent to jail for the wrongful accusation.
Members of the disciplined forces usually respect each other. Given that I am a member of the Fiji Military Forces which was conveyed to the policeman in question the first time we met in front of the [Club 1] while I was pulling my brother away from the officer, what transpired next which was the attack on us, showed he had no respect for me at all.
I will not be able to relocate within Fiji because Fiji is such a small country and theres no place to hide. I had relocated to my grandmother's house in [a] province before I came to Australia, but I was not going to stay there forever as I have my family to look after and I could put her life in danger too.
And even if I relocate, I will still live in fear for the rest of my life knowing I am being marked by bad cops and they could get to me anytime. Not being able to have any freedom in my own country is quite frustrating and it’s not a good feeling to have as it creates uncertainty about my future.
Submissions to the Department
Amongst other things the applicant submitted the following to the Department:
1.Military identity document
2.Two lawyer’s letters dated 16 and 23 January 2018
3.Witness statement from a female friend, [dated] 1 October 2017
4.Witness statement from a bank security guard, [4] October 2017
5.Witness statement from a cousin, [Mr B] dated 3 October 2017
6.Witness statement from a waitress, [dated] 3 October 2017
7.Detailed medical health related documents Fiji on police medical exam forms dated [October] 2017 [deleted]
8.Letter of support from his father dated 24 December 2017
9.Character reference military Chaplin HQ RFMF [February] 2018
10.Overseas Police Clearance – National [February] 2018
Submissions to the Tribunal
Amongst other things the applicant submitted the following to the Tribunal:
1. Reply from lawyer in Fiji, 30 November 2022
2. Statutory Declaration, 28 February 2019
3. Letter of support – RFMF, Chaplain [February] 2018
4. Letter from lawyer in Fiji, 5 February 2019
5. 3rd batch of statements to Fiji Police, October 2017
6. Statements to Fiji Police, October 2017
7. Fiji police prosecution statement, [January] 2017
8. Letter from lawyer in Fiji, 23 January 2018
9. 2nd batch of statements to Fiji Police, October 2017
10. Claim letter from lawyer in Fiji, 16 January 2018
11. Fiji Police Clearance Certificate, [February] 2018 and photos
12. Submissions for the applicant [16] September 2021.
13. Letter of support father dated 20 July 2021
14. Letter from Legal Aid 30 May 2024
Statements
I have reviewed the witness statements on police forms that were submitted by the applicant, [deleted].
A letter dated 24 December 2017 from the applicant’s father indicates “We have reconciled with the police officers upon our acceptance of their traditional apologizes (sic).”
A sergeant from the Fiji Police Force wrote in January 2018:
This is to confirm that [the applicant] has a police case before [City 1] Magistrate Court. The complainant in respect of this particular case has accepted traditional reconciliation on the 7th of October 2017. The [City 1] Magistrate Court will be advice on the next call date of the reconciliation process that has transpired. This reconciliation process may enable the court to conclude the due proceedings, however the said authority is left alone for the court to exercise its discretion. Sergeant [name] Fiji Police Prosecution Department Southern Division
The applicant’s Fiji solicitors letter dated 23 January 2018 includes:
We have highlighted to the Court that you have reconciled with the complainants in the traditional manner alter you had lodged counter reports against the Police Officers for assault on you as well. Therefore, we advised the court that there was forgiveness from both sides. We have also written to the Commissioner of Police to reconsider the charges laid against you in view of your counter reports against the Police Officers for assaulting you. We await a response from the Commissioner of Police. The Court has adjourned the matter for Prosecution to file amended charges in view of the traditional reconciliation to enable the Court to dismiss the charges against you.

The applicant’s Fiji solicitors letter dated 5 February 2019 includes:
Initially the police had stated that they were going to withdraw the charges against the accused and his brother who is charged under a separate file. However, this was not done. Because [the applicant] has not been attending his case, there's a bench warrant issued for his arrest and Fiji's Immigration Department had been notified, so that the moment he enters Fiji he will be detained.
……
Given that only the Court can withdraw/dismiss the charges against the accused there is likelihood that the police are not doing enough to persuade the Court to make this decision. In light of the withdrawal by the complainant, the Divisional Prosecution Officer can formally forward the file to the DPP's office with the comment that they wish to withdraw the matter against the accused.
Solicitor’s submissions
The applicant’s solicitors in Australia provided a 39-page submission which included country information and a 3-page Statutory Declaration of the applicant. Amongst other things he made the following points:
1.In 2017 the applicant was simply out with his brother and friends. A police officer took offence to something the applicant’s brother said. According to the applicant, the comment was not actually directed to the police officer but at one his friends. The police officer who thought it was directed at him took offence. This resulted in a melee, which then resulted in the applicant and his brother being charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest. According to the applicant, the police officer assaulted his brother first.
2.The applicant fears that if he returns to Fiji, he will be arrested upon arrival and harmed by the police. The applicant claims that the Fiji police letter dated [January] 2017, and adverse travel document dated 26 March 2019 are evidence of this.
3.According to a letter from the applicant’s lawyer in Fiji dated 5 February 2019, a bench warrant was issued for the applicant’s arrest and Fiji’s Immigration Department had been notified so that the moment the applicant enters Fiji he will be detained.
4.The letters from the applicant’s lawyers in Fiji dated 16 and 23 January 2018 indicate the matters remain unresolved.
5.The applicant claims that he is unwilling or unable to return to Fiji and he will be persecuted if he returns based on his imputed political opinion. The applicant’s fear of persecution is not based on any actual political opinion held at the time of the incident described in the applicant’s statutory declaration dated 28 February 2019. The police and prosecutors are being obstructive and causing the delay in settling the case. The result of the delay is that the applicant has become a long-term target for the Fiji police, the prosecution, and the Fiji Immigration Department. The initial reason for him being charged was not political yet the long-term effects of a person awaiting trial for past crimes may become increasingly political over time.
6.Multiple government departments now have the power to arrest and/or detain the applicant. The political elements of the pending criminal case against the applicant are as follows: police brutality; and functionality of the Fijian judicial system. An out of court traditional reconciliation does not yet appear to have had any concrete effect on the legal process. The imputed political opinion also applies to the applicant’s partner and child: the applicants as a group.
7.As a victim of police brutality may be perceived to be anti-police, anti-authority, anti-military, and/or anti-government because, as in the applicant’s case, the victim of police brutality has unintentionally offended a member of a branch of the Fiji security forces. The applicant may now be perceived to be anti-police and this may equate to being anti-government due to the close association between different branches of government.
8.The applicant claims that he is unwilling or unable to return to Fiji and he will be persecuted if he returns based on his membership of a particular social group consisting of his family. The applicant’s brother [Mr A] is currently facing very similar circumstances to the applicant. The applicant submits that the above constitutes membership of a particular social group consisting of family. The social group consists of himself and his brother, [Mr A] who was also subjected to beating at the same time and place as the applicant.
9.The applicant is a victim of police brutality, and there is a high likelihood that he will be subjected to further brutality upon return. Fiji is a country with a history and climate of authoritarian rule and impunity for those who commit acts of violence against its population. This is despite being a parliamentary democracy. The climate and culture of authoritarian rule contributes to the ‘real chance’ that a member of the public in Fiji may be at risk of serious harm if they are perceived to be breaching the in any way.
Tribunal hearings
First hearing
At hearing the applicant confirmed much of what was said in his statement to the Department quoted above and in his statutory declaration.
The applicant claims he attended court three times, and the prosecutor has not updated the court with sufficient documents, so his case did not proceed. He said that someone from his family has attended courts on further adjournments that could be up to 10 times. He said no next court appearance date has been agreed and the matter remains before the court. His brother and himself were both charged. Last time it went to court was sometime in 2022.
I put to the applicant that Fijian authorities and Fijian police were described by DFAT as capable and impartial:
The Fiji Police Force is generally seen as capable and impartial. Fiji has a police-to-population ratio comparable to Australia, and its police force has been assessed as being among the more capable in the Pacific. The Fiji Police Force is generally considered a professional, albeit under- resourced, law enforcement organisation. It is generally seen to be impartial and has some ability to protect individuals from societal harassment, discrimination, and violence, and is relatively accessible. Recently, there has been an improvement in training, accountability, and regional cooperation.
However, there are reports of police violence and corruption. Impunity is a serious problem in cases with political implications. Fijian law provides immunity from prosecution for members of the security forces for any deaths or injuries that occur while enforcing public orders. Police assaults in custody occur and convictions often rely on forced confessions. DFAT notes that police misconduct is regularly investigated, and, in most cases, reasonable action is taken when a complaint is recorded. However, USDOS and Freedom House report that investigations into police abuse often takes years to complete and seldom result in convictions. There is no independent oversight for the police force; the police commissioner must approve all investigations involving police officers. Information on the number of complaints, investigatory findings and disciplinary action is not publicly available. DFAT reported in 2017 that credible contacts had also made allegations that the Police Intelligence Bureau was routinely involved in monitoring and occasional harassment of opposition activists.
The applicant said he disagreed with it because they went for a traditional ceremony, talked about it, agreed on a compromise but it did not go to plan. When I asked why it did not go to plan, he said charges were laid and police might consider that they look bad because there were eight or nine police officers involved. He indicated that they must have some motivation; the judicial system and the police might face interference from government. Police were influenced by politics, covered up and the political situation was different. I asked him what the motivation of the police might be. He said because of their bad actions.
The applicant said the new government in Fiji seemed to be making advances. He didn’t consider it to be same as the old, yet there are still problems in Fiji. I put to him that the facts were matters for decision by the Fijian judicial system. The magistrate could dismiss charges if police didn’t act appropriately. He said the police were delaying as long as they could. The applicant submitted that the letter from the solicitor indicates it’s possible to have a hearing in absentia. I put to the applicant that the difficulty is that he is not there so the case can’t be finalised. A bench warrant has been issued to enable the applicant to appear before the court.
The adviser submitted that the history of dictatorships can lead to an imputed political opinion without the applicant having an actual political opinion; the lines between police military and judiciary were blurred because of many years dictatorships whose cronies are still in power and change was not easy in the short term. Even if a new government had taken positive steps in the adviser’s submission it states that it takes some time to sort out. Political appointments, corruption, brutality, and cronyism are ingrained. The advisor submitted the applicant was imputed with a political opinion.
Second hearing
At the second hearing I tried to ascertain why the applicant was not on the Cause List of the Fiji Courts Department like his brother. He said his lawyer had told him his charges were dropped. When pressed further on this he said he still had a real chance of serious harm because even if he had no charges as there was a bench warrant for his arrest and a notification of such at the airport. In fact he did not have a clear confirmation from his lawyer that the charges were dropped but was referring to a letter indicating charges might be dropped. I explained my understanding and discussed with the applicant and his adviser that if there was no charge the warrant should be withdrawn, lapse or be cancelled but it still may require his appearance at court and pointed out that he did leave within a few months of the incident and before it could be resolved by the courts so he existence of the warrant was no surprise.
I asked the applicant about the very recently appointed attorney general Graham Leung or the persons he replaced Simoni Turaga as the applicant’s father’s letter implied the then Attorney-General under the Bainimarama regime Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum (2014-2022) may have reason to interfere. The applicant was not aware of any difficulty between the current Attorney-General and his father and had no knowledge of the recent change. He said the legal system remains the same even if the Attorney-General changes.
The applicant said his brother in Fiji remains in the RFMF. He said his parents in Fiji are well and have no major problems. His brother in Australia remained in Fiji for some years and did not encounter difficulty after his arrest and prior to leaving Fiji for Australia.
The applicant wife indicated the economy in Fiji is not strong and finding a job would be difficult. The second applicant said she gets counselling at her Church as she has had some depression but has not need medical assistance. She was also worried about the easy access to drugs in Fiji today and how this might impact her daughter as she did not want her daughter exposed to this problem. The second applicant said her daughter arrived in Australia when she was [age] and is now [age] and would have difficulty adjusting to life in Fiji, even though she is in touch with family.
In sum, it is the applicants claim that they face a real chance of serious harm because they will be imputed with a political opinion and as members of a particular social group, namely their family, should the applicant continue to be prosecuted for resisting arrest and assaulting police.
RELEVANT LAW AND PRINCIPLES
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). 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.
It is well established that enforcement of a generally applicable law does not ordinarily constitute persecution for the purposes of the s 5J, because enforcement of such a law does not ordinarily constitute discrimination. Brennan CJ stated in Applicant A:
… the feared persecution must be discriminatory. … [It] must be “for reasons of” one of [the prescribed] categories. This qualification ... excludes persecution which is no more than punishment of a non-discriminatory kind for contravention of a criminal law of general application. Such laws are not discriminatory and punishment that is non-discriminatory cannot stamp the contravener with the mark of “refugee”.
Persecution must be distinguished from punishment for a common law offence. Persons fleeing from prosecution or punishment for such an offence are not normally refugees. It should be recalled that a refugee is a victim – or potential victim – of injustice, not a fugitive from justice.
More generally, the key difference between prosecution and persecution in refugee cases lies in the motivation and fairness behind the legal action taken against an individual. Prosecution generally refers to the lawful criminal proceedings initiated by a government against someone for an alleged violation of the law. Mere prosecution alone, if carried out through legitimate and fair legal processes, does not constitute persecution. Persecution, on the other hand, involves the infliction of serious harm, violation of fundamental human rights, or disproportionately harsh treatment by the government or groups the government cannot control, motivated by the individual’s race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
Prosecution can amount to persecution if (a) it involves severe punishment disproportionate to the offence, (b) it is a pretext for persecuting the individual based on a protected ground (c) any penalty of the courts may constitute persecution as excessive, or the motives are related to the individual’s political opinions. The context, motives, and proportionality of the prosecution are crucial in determining if it crosses the line into persecution based on a protected ground under refugee law.
For the purposes of s 5J(4), s 5J(5) provides that the following are instances of serious harm: (a) a threat to the person’s life or liberty; (b) significant physical harassment of the person; (c) significant physical ill-treatment of the person; (d) significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist; (e) denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist; (f) denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
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, 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.
Analysis, reasons, and findings
Based on the applicants’ places of birth and their Fijian passports presented to the Department, and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I accept that the applicants are nationals of Fiji. I consider Fiji as the country of nationality and the receiving country for the purpose of assessing the applicant’s claims against the refugee and complementary protection criteria respectively. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
The applicant has produced substantial evidence in relation to events that took place on and following 30 September 2017 and in the early hours of the morning on 1 October 2017. It is apparent from the police and other statements and evidence presented to the Tribunal that the facts related to the events on the night in question are complex and unclear. For example, the applicant claims that the police charges are false and ‘trumped up’. He claims that he is being charged for something he did not do. His cousin in her police statement is reported as saying she “saw [name] fell down on the road and could not react as he was also so drunk.” Differences of opinion exist, amongst other things, about levels of intoxication, how events proceeded, who assaulted whom first or at all, and the intended and actual impact of the traditional ‘healing’ that took place. I do not need to decide on specific facts of what occurred on the night in question; that is the task of the courts in Fiji should the matter need to go to trial.
I accept the applicant’s departure from Fiji about six weeks after he was released from police custody and while he was before the courts well before the case against him could be finalised triggered a bench warrant which in turn resulted in an entry onto the Adverse Record and Travel Restriction list of the Fiji Immigration Department. I accept that the applicant may still face arrest upon arrival in Fiji. Following his arrest, he will be brought before the court. There would appear to be no reason once the applicant is before the court that he cannot apply for bail and have his matter dealt with by the Magistrate in accordance with the law. It is standard practice all over the common law world to issue a bench warrant if a person does not attend at a criminal court. Where warrants for arrest are issued it is not uncommon for courts or police to advise authorities at airports and other exit points from a country of the existence of a warrant. I note the applicant’s solicitor in Fiji indicates that because the applicant has not been attending his case the bench warrant was issued and Fiji’s Immigration Department were notified. I do not accept as submitted by the applicant that the bench warrant or the adverse record is evidence that he will be harmed by police or that these matters give rise to fear of persecution. The fact that there is a power and procedure to detain a person for not appearing to answer criminal charges in itself does not give rise to a well-founded fear of persecution or a real chance of serious harm. I am satisfied that the issuance of the bench warrant and entry onto the adverse record list is evidence that the judicial system is operating in a normal manner. I find the issuance of the bench warrant and the adverse record listing do not give rise to a real chance of serious harm for the applicant.

I accept as submitted by his solicitor that criminal charges against the applicant remain unresolved. However, the letters from police, statements of those involved in traditional reconciliation, and the applicant’s solicitors in Fiji do not indicate the matters are unresolvable. I do not accept that the fact that the matter is unresolved or that it has not been dealt with in absentia or if the court requires the presence of the applicant to finalise the matters gives rise to a real chance of serious harm for the applicant. The prosecution relates to lawful criminal proceedings for an alleged violation of the law. Mere prosecution alone, if carried out through legitimate legal processes that may involve proportionate punishment, does not constitute persecution. It falls within a state’s sovereign right to enforce its laws. I draw these conclusions because I am satisfied that the legal action taken against the applicant amounts to a valid criminal proceeding and does not cross the line into persecutory conduct based on any ground covered by s 5J(1) of the Act.
Further I am satisfied that the applicant does not face any pretextual prosecution whether for his political opinion – imputed or otherwise - or membership of a particular social group or for any other reason covered by the Act. Given the treatment of his brother, who remained in Fiji for some years after the events without difficulty, there no evidence of ulterior motives of authorities beyond enforcing the law in relation to the charges he faces. I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the applicant faces any disproportionate or excessive punishment should he be convicted or that any punishment would violate international human rights standards.
The applicant makes no claim that he ever faced past mistreatment for the same or any offence. Indeed, he has an unblemished career in government service and with the UN while serving in the RFMF. I am satisfied that the applicant is not being prosecuted for violating any laws that infringe on basic human rights. I do not accept on the evidence before me the police are influenced by politics to delay the applicant’s case. The overall context and motives behind the prosecution lead me to conclude the difficulties faced by the applicant are not part of a broader pattern of oppression and do not give rise to a real chance of serious harm for the applicant.
The applicant is not being prosecuted for reason of any political opinion or imputed political opinion; he served in the army and was appropriately and formally discharged at his request. He is not perceived as a dissident or one who is fleeing due to political views. I accept as DFAT indicate that the Fiji Police Force is generally seen as capable and impartial. I note the protagonist of whom his father wrote – the former Attorney-General – is no longer in power or a position of influence. Prosecution for a criminal offence under a law administered fairly is not considered persecution and I find there is no reason the current Attorney General would adversely interfere in the prosecution. I do not accept the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm for reason of a political opinion or a political opinion imputed to the applicant.
I do not accept that the evidence suggests the police and prosecutors are being obstructive. Nor that the delay makes the applicant a long-term target for the Fiji police, the prosecution, and the Fiji Immigration Department. The new government and the Attorney General appear to be committed to the rule of law. The applicant decided to come to Australia about six weeks after the event that led to his arrest, leaving his matter unresolved. The bench warrant was issued sometime after the applicant departed for Australia in about February 2019. His brother remained in Fiji for some years and encountered no difficulty from police, courts, or other government departments during his stay, although his matter relating to this incident also remains unresolved.
The applicant submits that the political elements of the pending criminal case against the applicant are police brutality and the functionality of the Fijian judicial system. He claims a victim of police brutality may be perceived to be anti-police, anti-authority, anti-military, and/or anti-government because, as in the applicant’s case, the victim of police brutality has unintentionally offended a member of a branch of the Fiji security forces. I have considered the applicant’s claims that what may have started out as one-off police beating, has developed political aspects, even if the police officers, other security forces, and the applicant had no intention of this becoming political. I do not accept this.
As mentioned above persecution generally involves the infliction of serious harm, violation of fundamental human rights, or disproportionately harsh treatment by the government or groups the government cannot control, in the applicant’s case it is claimed this is for reason of or motivated by the applicant’s political opinion and/or membership of a particular social group. Whether the applicant is a victim of police brutality or a perpetrator of violence or the truth lies somewhere in between is a matter for the courts of Fiji who, should it be necessary, can take evidence from all available witnesses. I do not accept based on the evidence before me that there is any more than a very remote chance the applicant will be subjected to any harm upon return for any reason. I do not accept the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm. In making this finding I note the applicant is a respected retired member of the of the RFMF who has never previously been charged with an offence in Fiji. There is no evidence to indicate he is or will be perceived to be anti-police or anti-government.
I find that that the bench warrant is typically issued when a person fails to appear in court as in the case of the applicant. And although it is possible it has been cancelled it probably remains active until executed or cancelled by the court. I do not accept it will result in a real chance of serious harm for the applicant whether the underlying charges are withdrawn or not. It the responsibility of the applicant and his lawyer to take proactive steps to address the outstanding warrant with the court, even if the original charges are no longer being pursued.
The applicant’s wife and child made claims at the second hearing. The second applicant claims that she suffers some depression for which she seeks assistance from her church in Australia, and she would have difficulty finding employment in Fiji as the economy is not as good as it was previously. On mental health in Fiji DFAT report
2.13 The law provides for public mental healthcare but, in practice, it may not be available. Some support is available from nursing stations, health centres, general practitioners and hospitals. A public psychiatric hospital, St Giles, is located in Suva. Sources told DFAT there was an inadequate number of mental health professionals to meet demand. Telephone counselling and mental health CSOs provide services, and online resources from Australia and New Zealand might be used by Fijians. Drug and alcohol services are available at St Giles. The US Department of State 2021 Human Rights Report describes St Giles as ‘underfunded’. Sources told DFAT that facilities and treatment are basic and medication might be unavailable.
2.14 Like many countries, including Australia, there can be a societal stigma against mental health conditions in Fiji. This may limit support options from family. These attitudes are less common among the wealthy and the more highly educated. In spite of these challenges, people with intellectual and mental disabilities are more likely to be cared for at home than in a medical facility.
2.15 Other services for mental health patients might be available. There is an increasing number of counsellors (who are not psychologists or psychiatrists) and some non-government organisations provide counselling services. In practice, counselling services are not available in more remote areas and there is a lack of mental health services generally.
I am satisfied facilities are available and that the second applicant can find assistance should it be necessary to treat any problem relating to depression or related issues and that she has no real chance of serious harm for reason of her mental health.
On employment DFAT report
2.18 Most Fijians work in the informal sector, especially in the tourism, agriculture and aquaculture industries. According to estimates by the ILO, about two thirds of Fijian workers are not employed formally; this number might be rising due to reduced hours and job losses following COVID-19 disruption.
2.20 The tourism sector was significantly disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Some staff were retained during the pandemic, but many lost their jobs or returned to home regions. About 60 per cent of workers in the sector (pre-pandemic) were women. Relocation to work in tourist areas is common. The sector re-opened to international visitors in December 2021.
I accept as the second applicant said the economy is not doing as well as it had previously. I am satisfied the second applicant could find work should it be available and that if she does encounter difficulty due to generalised economic circumstances in Fiji that this does not meet the requirement of systematic and discriminatory conduct in the absence of other considerations and does not constitute persecution or discrimination within the meaning of s 5J(4).
It was submitted on behalf of the third applicant that she may have difficulty adjusting to life in Fiji as she has been in Australia since she was [age]. The 20 May 2022 DFAT Country Information Report states
5.28 DFAT is not aware of any official or societal discrimination against failed asylum seekers. Emigration and return to Fiji are common in Fijian society. Many Fijians have cultural and family links to Australia, and a return would be unlikely to be seen as unusual or attract attention from authorities.
Based on this information I am not satisfied the third applicant will face a real chance of serious harm within the meaning of the Act upon return. I accept adjustment may take some time but do not accept it gives rise to a real chance of serious harm.
I note the second applicants concern about the potential exposure of her daughter to drugs in Fiji. I have noted already that DFAT considers the Fiji Police Force is generally seen as capable and impartial and I do not accept that her concern gives rise to a well-founded fear of persecution for the third applicant. Notwithstanding a chance of facing some difficulty I am not satisfied that the third applicant will face a real chance of serious harm within the meaning of the Act should she return to Fiji now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
I appreciate that all the applicants may encounter some difficulty readjusting to life in Fiji after such a long period however I am not satisfied that any applicants will face harm that amounts to serious harm within the meaning of the Act should they return to Fiji. I find that neither the applicant’s wife or child or the applicants as a group face any real chance of serious harm should they return to Fiji now or in the foreseeable future.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicants do not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicants satisfy s 36(2) based on 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 applicants do not satisfy any of the criteria in s 36(2).
For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.
Paul White
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.
…

[2024] AATA 3425

2 July 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction