1904333 (Refugee)

1904333 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 1068 (20 January 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE: Mr Tahsin Malek
CASE NUMBERS: 1904333; 1922328; 2206843.

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Algeria
MEMBER:Louise Nicholls
DATE:20 January 2023
PLACE OF DECISION: Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 20 January 2023 at 11:27am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Algeria – political opinion – opposition to the government – protests by veterans – particular social group – retired servicemen – persons with mental health conditions – fear of killing – detention – absent without leave from the military – restriction from travelling outside Algeria – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5AA, 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 46, 91, 116, 411, 427, 473, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
DBB16 v MIBP (2018) 260 FCR 447
DFQ17 v Minister for Immigration (2019) FCAFC 64
MICMSMA v CBW20 [2021] FCAFC 63
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v CQZ15 [2017] FCAFC 194
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

The applicant claims to be a citizen of Algeria and is [age] years old. He was born in [Town 1], Mila Province Algeria. The applicant has applied for protection.
There are three applications for review made by delegates of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[1] to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
[1] Later the Department was restructured and renamed. It is now referred to as the Department of Home Affairs.
The Tribunal has set out the procedural history in the following paragraphs. The procedural history explains why the applicant has three applications for review before the Tribunal.
Procedural history
According to Departmental records, the applicant arrived in Australia by sea at the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands (Ashmore) [in] 2013. At the time it was thought that he was an unauthorised maritime arrival (UMA) as defined in s 5AA of the Act due to the manner in which he arrived and thus was subject to s 46A of the Act.
Following the Full Federal Court judgment in DBB16 v MIBP (2018) 260 FCR 447, the applicant is not an ‘unauthorised maritime arrival’ (as was defined in s 5AA of the Act) due to this arrival method. Accordingly, the applicant is not a ‘fast track applicant’ (as defined in

s 5(1)) and the subsequent decisions to refuse to grant the applicant protection visas are not ‘fast track decisions’ (as defined in s 5(1)). Instead, they are Part 7-reviewable decisions able to be reviewed by the Migration and Refugee Division of the Tribunal under s 411 of the Act.
The applicant was previously granted a Temporary Safe Haven (Subclass 449 - Humanitarian Stay (Temporary)) visa on 4 September 2013 by the Department, the effect of which was thought to trigger a statutory bar against the making of other types of visa applications in Australia under s 91K of the Act because the applicant was considered to be a UMA at that time. However, following the Full Federal Court judgment in MICMSMA v CBW20 [2021] FCAFC 63, the s 91K bar does not apply to applicants who arrived in Australia by sea at Ashmore.
The applicant’s Bridging Visa E (WE 050) was granted on 4 September 2013 but was cancelled on 9 April 2014 pursuant to s 116 of the Act. The applicant sought review of the cancellation but was outside the time limits for making the application for review.
On 25 August 2015 the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (the Minister), purported to lift the s 46A bar, and the applicant was granted a Subclass 449 Temporary Safe Haven visa.
The applicant was invited to make an application for either a Temporary Protection visa (TPV) or a Safe Haven Enterprise visa (SHEV) on 1 September 2015.
The applicant’s first visa application for a TPV was said to have been made on 1 September 2015[2] and refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 31 July 2017. As the applicant was thought to be a UMA at the time, his application was referred to the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) where the decision to refuse the application was reviewed, and a decision made to affirm the delegate’s decision on 8 November 2017.
[2] The application for the TPV was made on 24 September 2015 and not 1 September 2015. The delegate appeared to have made an error as to the correct date of application in the decision record of 31 July 2017.
On 12 February 2019 the Department re-notified the TPV visa refusal made on 31 July 2017. On 25 February 2019 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the TPV refusal decision.
On 18 April 2019, the Full Federal Court handed down a judgment, DFQ17 v Minister for Immigration (2019) FCAFC 64 (DFQ17) which found that a Department of Home Affairs notification letter failed to clearly state the time in which the application for review may be made.
On 12 August 2019 the applicant again sought review of the refusal of the TPV made on 31 July 2017 following the decision in DFQ.
On 15 August 2019 the Department re-notified the client of the TPV refusal again as it was affected by the judgment in the DFQ17. The re-notification referred to the application for the TPV having been made on 24 September 2015.[3]
[3] The correct date of the TPV application is 24 September 2015.
The Minister purported to lift the s 91K bar on 23 October 2020 and lifted the s 48A bar against the making of a further protection visa application in Australia. The applicant then made an application for a SHEV on 12 November 2020 and the application was refused on 9 May 2022 by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs.
The third application for review was made on 11 May 2022.
Thus, the Tribunal has three applications for review before it, that is, the application for review (and the duplicate application) both of which relate to the TPV refusal decision made on the 31 July 2015 and the application for review of the later SHEV visa refusal decision made on 9 May 2022.
The Tribunal invited the applicant to a combined hearing of the applications for review pursuant to s 427(2) of the Act. Section 427(2) provides:
….(2) The Tribunal must combine the reviews of 2 or more Part 7-reviewable decisions made in respect of the same non-citizen.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 23 October and 7 November 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearings were conducted with the assistance of interpreters in the Arabic and English languages. The Tribunal has reviewed the audio recordings of the hearings.
The Tribunal is aware of the applicant’s poor mental health. Various health professionals have diagnosed the applicant as suffering anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Further the applicant has a history of severe alcohol problems.
At the Tribunal hearings the applicant answered questions responsively and was quite voluble. While some aspects of his evidence were generalised and vague, other aspects were detailed and coherent. He was eager to give evidence and was able to respond to questions where evidence needed clarification. The Tribunal has taken into account the applicant’s mental health and has not ascribed significance to minor inconsistencies or omissions. However, the applicant was able to meaningfully participate in the hearing and the Tribunal has considered his evidence in that context.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearings.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Material before the Tribunal
The material before the Tribunal is variously contained in Departmental files [numbered] and in Tribunal files 1904333; 1922328 and 2206843. The digital Departmental files provided to the Tribunal are not arranged in a logical order and there is some overlap and repetition of some material in these files. The decision records for the applications for protection made on 24 September 2015 and 12 November 2020 have been provided to the Tribunal by the applicant.
Documents relating to the application for a TPV made on 24 September 2015
Department file [number] includes:
·Copies and translation of Identity documents.
·Invitation to apply for a TPV or a SHEV dated 1 September 2015.
·Application for TPV lodged on 24 September 2015.
·Report prepared by a mental health practitioner. The applicant was interviewed on 18 July 2017 at the [Agency 1] office.
·Letter from [Agency 2] dated 12 August 2019.
·Email correspondence from the applicant’s caseworker at [Agency 3] dated 23 August 2019.
·Email correspondence from the applicant’s caseworker dated 8 November 2019.
Tribunal Files 1904333 and 1922328 include:
·Submissions made on the applicant’s behalf by his representative dated 22 October 2022.
·Several photographs of individuals and groups. The applicant states that the photographs show his friends and former military servicemen protesting in the streets of Algeria.
·Letter (English language) sent to the applicant by a friend in Algeria dated 23 October 2022.
·‘Summary of Assessment and Treatment’ by a counsellor from [Agency 4] dated 24 October 2022.
·Several media articles about the security and political situation in Algeria.
Documents relating to the application for protection (SHEV) made on 12 November 2020
Departmental file [number] includes:
·Statement made by the applicant on 19 April 2019.
·Submissions made by the applicant’s representative dated 27 April 2022.
·Reports by [Agency 4] dated 14 January 2021.
·Report prepared by a mental health practitioner. The applicant was interviewed on 18 July 2017 at the [Agency 1] office.
·Medical report by [a named doctor] dated 2 March 2021 and a follow-up confirmation dated 3 May 2022.
·Screenshots of medications prescribed for the applicant and dispensed at the [named] Detention Centre.
·Transcript from videos taken from [social media] which is said to be a transcript of the applicant addressing former military colleagues on a number of grievances posted [in] May 2017. ([This] account is not in the name of the applicant.)
Tribunal file 2206843 includes:
·Delegate’s decision record dated 9 May 2022.
·Representative’s written submissions dated 22 October 2022.
·Several media reports and articles on the security and political situation in Algeria.
·Letter sent by friend dated 23 October 2022 (repeat of earlier document).
·Summary of Assessment & Treatment [Agency 4] dated 24 October 2022.
·Several photographs (some of which had been previously provided).
CONSIDERATION
The applications have complicated procedural histories, and the applicant has had the assistance of several migration representatives from the time of his first application in 2015, as well as caseworkers from charitable agencies and the Department.
Nevertheless, the substantive issue for the Tribunal is whether the applicant meets the refugee criterion and, if not, whether he is entitled to complementary protection.
The relevant law is set out in Attachment 1 to this decision record.
Non-disclosure certificate
The Tribunal notes that the delegate had placed a non-disclosure certificate on the Department’s [file number] pursuant to s 473GB(5) of the Act. This section applies to Part 7AA matters, that is, “fast track” matters referable to the Immigration Assessment Authority pursuant to s 473CA. As noted earlier in this decision, the applications for review being considered by the Tribunal are not “fast track” decisions.
The reason given for the restriction of information in certain folios is because the documents were given to the Department in confidence.
The Tribunal is of the view that s. 473GB(5) does not apply to Part 7 reviewable decisions and does not restrict disclosure or give rise to any obligations on the part of the Tribunal other than procedural fairness obligations.
The documents which are covered by the certificate are a mental health report completed by a mental health practitioner engaged by the [Agency 1] agency. There is no information in that report which is not known by the applicant and the report is consistent with his claims of poor mental health. The other document was prepared by NSW Police and related to the applicant’s homeless situation in 2017 and an alleged assault on him whilst living on the streets. The applicant has claimed that he has been homeless and assaulted on the streets when he had no fixed abode and was aware of his situation. The report also notes that the applicant had been charged with an offence, but that charge had been dismissed.
Even though the Tribunal does not consider that the certificate applies to, or is relevant for the purpose of these reviews, the Tribunal considers the material referred to in the certificate does not prejudice the interests of the applicant and does not undermine the prospects of a favourable decision by the Tribunal.[4] The Tribunal finds that the applicant has not been deprived of the possibility of a successful outcome by the consideration of this information as it is consistent with claims he has made about his mental health and homeless situation.
[4] Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v CQZ15 [2017] FCAFC 194 at 72.
Country of reference
The applicant claims he was born in [Town 1], Algeria and is an Algerian citizen. When he arrived in Australia by boat, he provided his Algerian passport which was issued [in] 2010 in Algeria as well as other identity documents. The applicant has since lost his identity documents whilst he was homeless. However, the Department have kept digital copies of his identity documents on their files. He has consistently claimed that he is of Algerian nationality, speaks Arabic and French fluently and he is familiar with the geography and culture of Algeria.
Taking into account the available evidence, and noting there is no issue as to identity or nationality, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a citizen of Algeria and that Algeria is the receiving country for the purpose of s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Background and personal history
The applicant is a citizen of Algeria and is now [age] years old. He was born in [Town 1], Mila Province in Algeria. [Town 1] is [distance] from Mila City. According to the 2008 census it had a population of almost 14,000. It is located near [a geographic feature].[5]
[5] [Source deleted.
The applicant’s father is [retired], and the applicant is one of [number] siblings. His siblings all live in Algeria. The applicant can speak, read and write in Arabic as well as being competent in French. He is of Arabic ethnicity and a Sunni Muslim.
The applicant left school when he was about [age] years old.
The applicant joined the regular Algerian People’s National Army (the Army) and was a serviceman [between specified years].
After he was discharged from the Army in [year], he returned to the family home in [Town 1] and worked in the markets selling [products 1]. It was not a full-time job, but it was all he could do at the time. In 2000 he moved to Algiers but did not have a regular place to live. He stayed with friends and would sometimes sleep on the streets.
The applicant stated that his [Relative A] was his teacher at his school, and he knew his wife and her family in the 1990s because they were neighbours and lived close by.
In the early 1990s his wife married her first husband and moved away, and the applicant joined the Army. His wife and her first husband lived in [Town 2] in her husband’s family home. Her first husband was later kidnapped and killed by extremists.
After his death she and her [child A] went back to [Town 1] to live with her family.
The couple caught up with each other again and married [in] March 2004 in Algeria. His wife was some years older than the applicant but both wanted some stability in their lives.
After they married in 2004 they moved to his wife’s house in [Town 2] which was in a mountainous area in Algeria. It was close to the area in which extremist groups operated and as a consequence the area had been quite dangerous. His wife’s former in-laws lived in an adjacent house in [Town 2]. Her first husband’s siblings were not happy with the applicant staying in that house and they made it hard for him. He had no problems with his wife. He feared extremist activity in [Town 2] as the residents were not protected in the same way as residents in the cities.
In one instance he claimed “they” came and occupied the house. They took him out of the house and beat him and shouted at him. His wife came out and was screaming at them. She stated that her first husband had been kidnapped and killed. When asked to identify the perpetrators, the applicant stated he was not sure who came to the house and threatened him. It could have been extremists or someone from his wife’s late husband’s family. He claimed the perpetrators asked him if he had been in the Army. When asked how “they” had known of his history he stated he was not sure. He claimed they told him that this time they would leave him but next time he would have to go with them. He did not know why they left him without killing or harming him and he reiterated that he did not know whether these people were from his wife’s first husband’s family or someone else. If they were locals, they knew where people lived.
He claimed that the incident possibly took place in 2005. He told his wife that this place ([Town 2]) was not safe for the family, and he was particularly concerned about his wife’s [child A]. In about 2006 they returned to live in [Town 1] and through 2007 and 2008 they lived with her mother and from time to time with her sister. His own father was worried about his family’s safety and did not want them to live with them.
His wife eventually went back to work as [an occupation 1], and he moved from place to place to carry on his [products 1] business, but he regularly returned to [Town 1] to spend time with his wife and her [child A].
Between 2008 and 2012, he lived in different parts of Algeria, either with former Army friends, on the streets or in [Town 1] with his wife. He continued to sell [products 1] on a small scale and often went to [Country 1] for his business.
The applicant claimed he had obtained a passport when he first left the Army but that the police had confiscated it around that time. In about 2010 he met up with a colonel who knew him from his time in the Army. His colonel friend knew some officials and made a few phone calls and managed to help the applicant get a new passport.
The applicant left Algeria in 2012, travelling first to [Country 2], then to [Country 3], then [Country 4] where he stayed for some time and then to Indonesia. He arrived at Ashmore in 2013 and was taken to [a city] and was detained until he obtained a bridging visa in September 2013. His bridging visa was cancelled in April 2014. He was granted a further bridging visa in November 2015. Recently he was held in criminal detention until [March] 2022 then transferred to immigration detention in March 2022.
When he arrived in Australia, the authorities copied his passport and other identity documents. He also had a copy of the passport in his backpack but since then his original identity documents have been lost.
Since he has been in Australia, he has had several surgeries on his [body parts] at [named hospitals]. He has not worked since he arrived in Australia and relies upon payments from the government for his support. He has had counselling and psychological support from a number of agencies.

His wife is currently living in Algiers in the house rented by her [child A] and [their spouse]. He keeps in contact with family members about once a fortnight.
Background country information
The applicant’s claims should be considered against the history of conflict in Algeria, particularly from 1991 to 2002.
The Tribunal has set out a summary of country information which gives some context to the claims made by the applicant. This information is contained in Attachment 2 of this decision.
The Tribunal notes that there is no country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes in relation to Algeria.
What are the applicant’s claims?
The applicant’s claims are set out in his applications for protection, in various documents he has given the Tribunal, discussed at interviews with the delegates and referred to in statements made by the applicant and summarised in his representative’s submissions.
The applicant gave oral evidence concerning his claims at the Tribunal hearings held on 23 October and 7 November 2022.
Essentially the applicant claims if he returns to Algeria he faces serious harm from the Algerian authorities because of his strong anti-government political views and expression of these opinions; his membership of a particular social group, being retired Special Forces serviceman in Algeria and or ex-servicemen who have had problems in the military including leaving the country without permission and seeking asylum and persons who belong to a particular social group, being persons with significant mental health conditions. He also fears significant economic hardship and denial of capacity to earn a livelihood, threatening his capacity to subsist.
He claims the risk of serious or significant harm can be attributed to his real and imputed anti-government political opinion.
He had previously claimed that he feared harm from extremist groups due to his military background. His claim was that he feared serious harm at the hands of the extremists or that he might be forcibly recruited. During the hearing held on 7 November 2022 he stated that he no longer feared the extremist groups. He claimed that he feared government authorities because he had been involved in protests and had left Algeria without permission.
The applicant also claims to fear arbitrary deprivation of life; significant physical harassment and ill-treatment; torture, imprisonment, cruel or inhuman treatment and punishment and other problems amounting to serious and significant harm pursuant to ss 5J(4)–(5) and 36(2A) of the Act.
He fears this harm from the ruling party in Algeria (the People’s National Assembly) and their supporters, including situations in which individuals in an official capacity act beyond their lawful authority; criminal gangs; and conservative members of Algerian society.
Assessment of claims
The Tribunal has considered the evidentiary material which is contained in the three applications for review of protection visa refusals. As previously noted much of the material overlaps, including the evidence provided by the applicant and his representatives to support his claims.
The Tribunal has considered his claims individually, cumulatively and collectively as a unified account of his claims and the evidence on which he bases those claims.
The Tribunal has also considered and taken note of country information provided by the applicant as well as other country information available to the Tribunal.
Was the applicant a member of the Special Forces Unit of the People’s Algerian National Army (the Army)?
The applicant has consistently claimed in all applications, statements, in interviews with Departmental officers and in oral evidence to the Tribunal that he joined the Special Forces Unit of the Army in [specified year] and was discharged in [year].
The applicant told the Tribunal he joined in about [year] when the extremist internal conflict was escalating. He was not a conscript and had voluntarily served in the Special Forces Unit where he was trained in the use of parachutes and counterinsurgency tactics. The photographs he provided did not appear to be staged and some of the photos showed the applicant in training exercises and serving in this unit. At the time he served in the Army, Algeria was going through the extremist insurgency of the 1990s known as “the black years”. Reuters noted in 2014:
Algeria’s conflict, where Islamist extremists massacred villages and more than 200,000 people died, is still a deep trauma for many Algerians, and even a decade later, a memory fresh enough to keep them wary of uncertainty.
“What I saw then, I never want to see again,” said Kerchach, a security guard who worked in a morgue in a town hit by Islamist strife. “I am not saying everything is right here. There are problems. Is it enough? No. But it is something.”[6]
[6] ALGERIA’S BLOODY PAST, ENERGY WEALTH KEEP STATUS QUO FOR NOW, 17 APRIL 2014, REUTERS JP.REUTERS.COM/ARTICLE/US-ALGERIA-ELECTION-IDUSBREA3F14J20140416
The applicant was able to describe in some detail the nature of his role in the Special Forces Unit, the various places he was stationed, and the tasks undertaken by the Unit. The manner in which he gave evidence on this topic indicated that he was recalling events from his own memory.
The applicant stated that his unit moved around quite a bit depending on where they were needed. The unit carried out patrols and dealt with extremist activities in various parts of the country. He was able to tell the Tribunal where his unit served during the period of his service.
The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence that he was a member of the Special Forces Unit of the Algerian Army and that he served between [specified years]. It accepts that the unit undertook patrols in areas of Algeria affected by violent extremist activity in those years. The evidence of his role in the Army has been consistent in the various statements he has made and in his oral evidence.
Was the applicant punished by the Army for taking leave without permission?
The applicant claimed, and the Tribunal accepts, that during his service he was punished by the Algerian Army for being absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit.
To give context to this incident, the applicant told the Tribunal that towards the end of his period of service he was on patrol with his unit when five of his colleagues were killed in an explosion. There were other things that he witnessed which he would find it hard to talk about. He stated that this incident affected him psychologically and as a result he asked for permission to take leave and visit his family. He was refused leave and was told to consult a physician for medical treatment. He told the Tribunal that the Army did not have psychiatrists to assist with mental illness. He saw an Army doctor but was not prescribed any medication to assist him to deal with this traumatic event.
Despite not having permission to be absent, the applicant returned to his family home for [number] days. When he went back to his unit he was questioned, charged, and imprisoned for six months. He told the Tribunal that his treatment in prison was appalling and worsened his psychological problems. He was stressed but he received worse treatment by the prison leadership. He received regular beatings and was abused by the prison authorities. One of the officers hit him on his head with a large spoon.
After six months he returned to his unit but decided he did not want to continue and was voluntarily discharged from the Army in [year] and he returned to his family home. It was difficult to find work because at this time there was high employment in Algeria. Further his discharge certificate included details of his imprisonment which made it hard for him to find work. He claimed that when he returned to [Town 1] he started selling [products 1] in a market.
Was the applicant targeted by military or state authorities after he was discharged?
When the applicant left the Army in [year], he stated he returned to the family home in [Town 1] where he lived until 2000. The applicant claimed that after his discharge the military authorities kept chasing him and following him to annoy him. He claimed that when he was selling [products 1] in the market they harassed him.
He claimed he left the family home in 2000 because he worried about his family and did not want to put them at risk due to his profile. Also, his father did not have the financial resources to support him, particularly given his fragile mental health. After he departed his family home, he did not have a fixed address but spent time with friends in Algiers, he also stayed in [a named town] and other areas close to the Algerian border. If he could not find accommodation he would live on the streets. During this period, he would take on any job he could find.
When the Tribunal questioned the evidence about being followed and harassed by military or state authorities, he asserted that people did follow him and knew his whereabouts. For example, he claimed that he applied for a passport and after he received it, a police officer came to his home and his passport was confiscated.
He was told that people who have been members of the special forces were not allowed to leave Algeria. The applicant claimed that he was told the reason for the travel restriction was to prevent members of the special forces disclosing the secrets of the unit. He claimed that former military members who have left cannot return to Algeria and that two members of the special forces went to [another country] some time ago and on their return were sent to prison.
While there is no other evidence or country information to support the applicant’s evidence that his passport was confiscated the Tribunal accepts that former members of the armed forces may have been restricted from travelling overseas during the period of the insurgency in the 1990s. The Algerian authorities may have introduced this restriction to ensure they could mobilise former members during the insurgency, if necessary.
While the Tribunal accepts the military authorities may have been aware of the applicant’s home address in [Town 1], it does not accept that he was being followed or harassed as claimed. The applicant could not explain specifically who was harassing him or give any contextual detail. In contrast with his earlier evidence which appeared to be based on his memory and was specific and coherent, his evidence on the claimed harassment at the hands of the military or state authorities was vague and lacked plausible detail. Further he could not explain the motivation for such harassment and the claim was made as a very general observation.
The country information indicates that Algeria experienced a serious insurgency in the 1990s which resulted in the deaths of thousands of citizens and military personnel and the engagement of the military with various extremist groups throughout the country. The Tribunal does not accept that in these circumstances that members of the military or their representatives would be following him or harassing him in the market for undefined reasons.
Was the applicant threatened or harmed by extremist groups after he was discharged from the Army?
After the applicant and his wife married, they moved to his wife’s house in [Town 2] in 2004. His wife’s first husband’s siblings lived in an adjacent house. His wife’s first husband’s siblings were not happy with the applicant staying in that house and they made it hard for him. He had no problems with his wife.
[Town 2] is located in a mountainous area and had been quite dangerous due to the town’s proximity to the operation of extremist groups. The applicant stated that he feared extremist activity as residents in these areas were not protected in the same way as residents of the cities.
In one instance he claimed “they” came and occupied the house. They took him out of the house and beat him and shouted at him. His wife came out and was screaming at them. She stated that her first husband had been kidnapped and killed. When asked to identify the perpetrators, the applicant stated he was not sure who came to the house and threatened him. It could have been extremists or someone from the family of his wife’s first husband.
He claimed the attackers asked him if he had been in the Army. When asked how they had known of his history he stated he was not sure. He claimed they told him that this time they would leave him but next time he would have to go with them. He did not know why they left him without killing or harming him and he reiterated that he did not know whether these people were his wife’s former in-laws or someone else. If they were locals, they knew where people lived. He claimed that the incident possibly took place in 2005.
He told his wife that this place ([Town 2]) was not safe for the family, and he was particularly concerned about his wife’s [child A]. In about 2006 they returned to live in [Town 1] and through 2007 and 2008 they lived with his wife’s mother and from time to time with [another relative]. His own father was worried about the rest of his family’s safety and did not want them to live with them in [Town 1]. In due course his wife went back to work as [an occupation 1], and he moved from place to place to carry on his [products 1] business, but he regularly returned to [Town 1] to spend time with his wife and her [child A]. He explained that he lived near [a named region] and used to visit there to buy goods for his business.
During the second Tribunal hearing the applicant was questioned about the incident in [Town 2]. He stated he was not sure if the perpetrators were from extremist groups or his wife’s former in-laws. He stated that her in-laws had firearms, but he did not know who had threatened him. The incident took place in 2005 or 2006.
He claimed they came to his wife’s house in [Town 2] and knocked on the door and they got him out of the house and started beating him. They were wearing masks at the time. His wife was screaming and told them that they killed her first husband and now they were attacking her second husband. Due to his wife’s screams they left. He claimed they stated that next time they would take him with them. He claimed that this could have just been a threat, or they wanted to take advantage of his military experience. After this incident he, his wife and [her child A] returned to [Town 1].
The Tribunal put it to him that in the interview with the delegate he stated that his wife’s former in-laws were upset because he was living in the property. He also told the delegate the property had now been sold and the proceeds distributed to his wife’s former in-laws. He told the Tribunal they sold the property without his wife’s knowledge.
He also claimed he regularly received threats and abuse on his mobile phone. When questioned about these threats and how people would know his mobile telephone number, he stated he did not know how they would get his number and he had changed his mobile telephone several times, but these people were capable of getting his number.
He claimed that the extremist groups targeted people who worked for the government but were indiscriminate in their violent conduct. He told the Tribunal he moved from town to town but always lived in fear.
In the delegate’s decision record dated 9 May 2022 (given to the Tribunal) the delegate noted that the applicant had previously stated that he feared harm from his wife’s former in-laws. He told the delegate that one brother had died and the other had taken over the land and house in which his wife had been living in [Town 2] and he no longer feared his wife’s former in-laws.
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was attacked or threatened by members of an extremist group while he lived in [Town 2] with his wife and [her child A]. While the country information indicates that there were some remnants of extremist groups operating in mountainous areas in 2004–2006 their activities had been significantly curtailed due to effective government action together with the loss of public support for these groups. The applicant gave evidence that he was uncertain of the identity of those who attacked and threatened him and acknowledged that his wife’s former in-laws may have been responsible. He noted they had masks and that members of the family owned firearms.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant may have been threatened by his wife’s former husband’s family members after he and his wife moved into her former home in [Town 2]. This is consistent with the applicant’s evidence that the family were unhappy with him moving into the family home and that they may have been responsible for threats made against him while he lived in [Town 2]. In contrast with earlier coherent and detailed evidence about his Army service this evidence was vague and lacked commitment. The Tribunal noted that he was equivocal about the details of the incident and the identification of the perpetrators. This supports the Tribunal’s finding that the applicant was not harmed or threatened by members of extremist groups operating near [Town 2].
Did the applicant participate in protests or demonstrations when he was living in Algeria?
During the first Tribunal hearing the applicant referred to demonstrations held in 2010 to 2012 by former soldiers outside the Ministry of Defence to protest their poor treatment by government authorities.
He stated that retired soldiers would protest outside the Defence Ministry every week and asked for their rights and entitlements. The police would attend and push the protestors, swear at them and beat them.
He stated that the retired soldiers were aggrieved because the police officers would have been young children when the soldiers were fighting the extremist groups. The former soldiers thought their conduct was highly disrespectful and they did not appreciate the sacrifices made by former soldiers to fight extremist terrorism. The police told the protestors they were only implementing government directions.
As it was not clear in the first Tribunal hearing whether the applicant was talking generally about the protests by former soldiers or whether he had been involved, the Tribunal asked him to expand on his earlier evidence when he gave evidence at the second hearing.

100. He stated that former soldiers were asking for their legitimate entitlements and that he joined the protests in 2011 and 2012. He claimed he was arrested and beaten four times. Sometimes they would be on their way to Algiers and police stopped them on the way to protest. He was also detained in Algiers and at a police checkpoint.
101. The Tribunal asked him whether he had previously made any claims he had been arrested and detained in 2011 and 2012. He stated he thought he had mentioned it before. If he had not, he had been taking medication and was under pressure and forgetful.
102. He provided the Tribunal with several photos, some of which showed him in training in the Special Forces Unit and others which were taken at demonstrations which showed persons demonstrating and injuries sustained by some demonstrators. Many of the protestors were amputees. He stated that the police would hit protestors with sticks, use tear gas and plastic bullets. He stated an old friend sent him photographs of protests which took place in 2017 and 2018.
103. The country information indicates that protests against the government of Algeria took place and gathered strength in 2019 and continued until pandemic restrictions were introduced in 2020. The information indicates that while the government originally tolerated the massive but peaceful protests that they have recently restricted freedom of assembly and freedom of opinion.
104. The Tribunal put it to the applicant that the country information indicated that many hundreds of thousands of Algerians protested in 2019. Other than for some high-profile activists’ ordinary residents were not arrested, harmed or threatened.

105. The applicant claimed that he and others started protests in 2010 to 2012 over the poor treatment ex-soldiers received from the government. He claimed that about 20 former soldiers started protesting outside the Ministry of Defence. He claimed that later they were joined by persons in the Hirak Movement.
106. Country information indicates that retired soldiers mounted protests in 2017 and 2018 and that those protests were later subsumed by the Hirak protests from 2019 onwards.
107. The Tribunal has considered the photographs provided by the applicant which show groups of men gathering on the streets. Some appear to be injured and others are amputees. The applicant gave evidence, which the Tribunal accepts, that these photographs were taken in 2017 and 2018 some years after the applicant had departed Algeria. The Tribunal accepts that the photographs were taken in 2017 and 2018 and this evidence is also consistent with country information.
108. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has provided an English language transcript of an extract of a [social media] video in which the applicant is said to be complaining about the treatment of former servicemen by the government. The Tribunal has considered this extract but given that it is not posted in the applicant’s name and has been anonymised considers that the applicant will not face a real chance of suffering harm as a result of these postings.
109. In the applicant’s statement dated 19 April 2022 he stated that many retired servicemen have protested against the government to demand better treatment for ongoing medical issues, trauma and mental health problems. He stated that many of his friends from the Special Forces Unit have protested because they have been mistreated by government authorities. He stated he had photos of his friends who were attending protests and were beaten by police and some were detained. He stated that if he was in Algeria and it was safe to protest, he would protest for better treatment. The Tribunal notes that in his written statement the applicant has not made any claims which might indicate that he attended demonstrations in Algeria in 2010 to 2012 or at any time he lived in Algeria.
110. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claims that he and others protested outside the Ministry of Defence in 2010 to 2012 and that they were the leaders of the protest movement relating to the poor treatment of former soldiers. He did not raise these claims at an earlier stage in the processing of his visa applications or in the applications for review. There is no reliable evidence to support this claim. As I do not accept that the applicant participated in protests, I do not accept that he was detained and beaten by police on at least four occasions during the protests.
When did the applicant leave Algeria and what was the manner of his departure?
111. In about 2010 the applicant claimed that he met up with a colonel who knew him from his time in the Army. His colonel friend knew some officials and managed to help the applicant get a new passport. That officer knew about the death of his friends in the bomb blast and later helped him get out of Algeria.
112. The applicant felt he had little prospect for the future and the only way out for him was to leave Algeria. He worried that he was a liability for his wife and had no hopes for the future. He claimed at one stage he felt suicidal.
113. His colonel friend advised him to talk to a travel agent and he found he could get a visa to [Country 3]. He purchased a ticket to leave Algeria by air. When he got to the airport the customs officer asked him if he had been to [Country 3] before. The officer took his passport, so the applicant called his colonel friend who made a few phone calls, and the applicant was allowed to leave with his passport.
114. The Tribunal finds that the applicant left Algeria on his own validly issued and legitimate passport and travelled first to [Country 3], then to [Country 4], Indonesia and by boat to Australia. There is no country information which indicates that retired servicemen could not leave Algeria and it does not accept that his departure was illegal. It does not accept that his departure was facilitated by his colonel friend or that his departure needed any facilitation.
Mental health issues
115. The applicant gave evidence that he suffered a number of mental health issues which arose after his service in the Army.
116. He gave evidence, which the Tribunal accepts, that he saw five of his good friends and fellow soldiers blown up in front of his eyes while they were on patrol. This experience was horrific for him. He did not receive psychological help or support after this incident but told the Tribunal that it still affects him. He also witnessed atrocities in his Army years including seeing decapitated bodies and mass killings in regional villages and towns.
117. While in the Army, he sought leave to return to his family for a break, but his request was refused. Notwithstanding, he went back to his family for [number] days. When he returned to his unit, he was punished with six months’ imprisonment as a result of this act. He says his condition was made worse by the appalling conditions in which he was held and the abuse suffered at the hands of the prison staff.
118. He returned to his unit after he served his prison term but was increasingly unhappy, so he sought a voluntary discharge. After he left the Army, he felt that he needed psychological help, but his family did not have the financial resources to provide that assistance.
119. He has had treatment for his mental health problems in Australia. He was using alcohol and medications to help with stress, anxiety and sleeping problems. He received counselling from [Agency 4] and medical assistance from a mental health specialist and an alcohol specialist. The applicant provided reports from [Agency 4] and other health workers which supports this evidence. He stated, and the Tribunal accepts, he has serious alcohol dependency problems, major depression, anxiety and chronic PTSD.
120. In his written statement dated 19 April 2022 he stated that his ongoing mental health issues have resulted in gaps in memory, poor concentration, social withdrawal, claustrophobia, emotional numbing and a sleep disorder. He takes medication for his mental health issues. He was admitted to [a named facility] in 2019 for treatment for alcohol dependency.
121. Since he has been in detention, he has not had any alcohol and only has medication for stress and to help him sleep. He told the Tribunal that the medications were not helping him.
122. When questioned about the reason he has been in detention for the last seven months he stated that he was involved in an incident one night when he was drunk. He was on a train and had been drinking that night; he was not conscious. The first thing that he remembered from that night was that he woke up in hospital with a police officer near his bed. He claims he was accused of sexual harassment, but he does not remember anything about the incident which gave rise to the charge. He was convicted and sentenced to [period] imprisonment. He appealed and the magistrate hearing the appeal reduced his sentence to [shorter period]. When he was being released from criminal detention, immigration officers attended, and he was taken to immigration detention.
123. The Tribunal discussed the country information on the public health system in Algeria. It noted that Algeria had a good public health system and medication is readily available in pharmacies. The applicant stated that he did not accept this country information. He stated that the country information was not correct and that reputable agencies are forbidden to visit and report on conditions in Algeria.
124. The Tribunal has considered the country information on health care in Algeria and considers that health care is satisfactory and available for those who are unable to pay for health care.
Representatives Submissions
125. The applicant’s representative made written and oral submissions on matters of fact, country information and the law. He referred to the media articles he had provided to the Tribunal about the political and security situation in Algeria.
Does the applicant meet the refugee criterion?
126. Taking into account the findings set out above and the country information referred to in this decision, and having considered the claims singularly and on a cumulative basis, the Tribunal is not satisfied that if the applicant returns to Algeria now or in the foreseeable future he faces a real chance of persecution by state authorities or by extremist groups for reasons of his strong anti-government political views and expression of these opinions by participating in protests; his membership of a particular social group, being a retired Special Forces serviceman in Algeria; and/or ex-servicemen who have had problems in the military including leaving the country without permission and seeking asylum; and persons who belong to a particular social group, being persons with significant mental health conditions.
127. Despite the applicant recently withdrawing claims that he fears harm by extremist groups, the Tribunal has considered this claim as it was one of the claims initially made by the applicant. Given that the applicant has some mental health vulnerabilities it is prudent to consider these claims in the context of his other claims.
128. The Tribunal does not accept that members of these groups will seek to recruit him as a member due to his status as a retired serviceman of the Algerian military who could provide insider knowledge.
129. While Algeria experienced an insurgency in the 1990s which resulted in the massacre of civilians and Army personnel, the government authorities have largely eliminated terrorist activity with a large, capable security apparatus. The applicant himself stated that there is a good level of security in the cities and towns and he no longer fears either serious harm from these groups or that he will be forcibly recruited.
130. Country information indicates that groups operating in the 1990s such as the GIA and GSPC no longer operate in Algeria but that other groups related to Al Qaeda or ISIS are present in small numbers in isolated or mountainous areas. The Algerian government has repelled and effectively destroyed those groups which operated in the 1990s.
131. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was a serviceman with the Special Forces Unit of the Army [between specified years] and was trained in the use of parachutes and other military equipment. It accepts that the unit moved to different areas of Algeria according to where they were needed. It accepts that he was punished for being AWOL and spent six months in prison before later being discharged in [year].
132. The applicant claimed, but the Tribunal does not accept, that he cannot return because he is a former military serviceman who has fled the country and would be punished by detention and abuse on his return. There is no country information before the Tribunal which would support such a conclusion. Even though there is no country information which would suggest that there were such restrictions, the Tribunal accepts that restrictions may have been imposed on serving members of the military during the civil conflict in the 1990s. There would also have been restrictions on those men who had not completed their national service. However, it has been [number] years since the applicant left the Army and the security situation in Algeria has significantly improved for civilians since the 1990s.
133. There is no country information which indicates that returned asylum seekers would face serious harm on their return to Algeria the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant would face serious harm for that reason alone if he returned to Algeria now or in the foreseeable future.
134. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant would face a real chance of serious harm from Algerian authorities for reason of attending protests near the Defence Ministry in 2011 and 2012. The country information indicates that there have been many large protests against the government since at least 2019. Many thousands of Algerians have attended these protests and have not been detained or harmed for reason of their participation in these protests. One of the protests resulted in President Bouteflika withdrawing his candidacy for the presidential elections. The government authorities were reasonably tolerant of this protest activity in 2019 but it appears that there has been a significant “push back” from government authorities in recent years. Authorities have arrested some participants and broken up protests by force. However, the evidence indicates that many thousands of people attended protests and only a small number of high-level activists were arrested and most were released after a short period in detention.
135. The applicant claimed and the Tribunal accepts that he and some of his friends felt aggrieved by the poor treatment they received from the government authorities given the sacrifices they made and injuries sustained during the civil conflict. There is country information suggesting there was significant protest activity by retired servicemen. The substance of their protests related to the adequacy of pensions, availability of low-cost housing and medical assistance. However the country information indicates that these protest took place after the applicant left Algeria.
136. When asked why he would be targeted by government authorities the applicant claimed he was one of the leaders of the protest and was well known. The protest movement grew from this group of ex-servicemen. The Tribunal does not accept this claim.
137. Before the applicant left Algeria, the applicant was a retired serviceman with mental health issues running a small itinerant business selling [products 1] in markets in various locations. In May 2022 when the applicant made a statement setting out his claims he talked about his friends joining a protest in 2017 and 2018 and being beaten and threatened by police. This evidence is consistent with country information and his own written claims. The claim made by the applicant that he was involved as a leader in protests by retired servicemen is one which arose at the Tribunal hearing. The applicant claimed he had not mentioned it before because of his memory issues. The Tribunal does not accept this explanation. It does not consider that the applicant would have been perceived to be a leader or activist by the Algerian authorities. The country information indicates that the retired servicemen protests took place in 2017 and 2018 and the photos provided by the applicant have been given to him by friends in Algeria. When asked about the photographs he provided, the applicant stated that his friends had sent him photographs taken during protests in 2017 and 2018.
138. There is no doubt that the applicant and his friends have good reason to feel aggrieved. As he stated in one of his letters the soldiers in the 1990s made huge sacrifices and some of his friends had limbs amputated and many had mental health issues arising from what they had observed or been asked to do. However, the applicant had left Algeria long before the servicemen started their protests.
139. The applicant stated that a friend told him not to return and he provided copies of a letter supporting this claim. However, the applicant was not able to provide any independent or reliable evidence that indicated that a person of his profile would be subjected to serious harm by government authorities if he returned to Algeria.
140. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant would be arrested on his return after almost 10 years. There is no country information or other reliable evidence which supports this claim. As the Tribunal pointed out to the applicant most of the protests against the Algerian government have taken place while the applicant was in Australia. He stated he was one of the people who started the protests, but the Tribunal does not accept this evidence.
141. He also claimed that military personnel were forbidden from protesting or commenting on government conduct. The Tribunal pointed out that he had been voluntarily discharged from the Army in [year] well before these protests took place.
142. The Tribunal put it to him that he had been able to leave Algeria on his own passport. He stated his colonel friend helped him leave. If he had not helped him, he would not have been able to leave. The Tribunal does not accept this evidence. There is no country information indicating that there were restrictions on former servicemen leaving the country by air and the Tribunal does not accept that he would have been prevented from leaving if his colonel friend had not helped him using connections at the airport. There is country information that young men who were eligible for national service could not leave Algeria without authorisation.
143. For reasons set out earlier in this decision the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the reasons set out in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act.
Does the applicant meet the complementary protection criterion?
144. Having found that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion, the Tribunal has considered whether on the evidence before it, there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Algeria.
145. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant fears arbitrary deprivation of life, torture, imprisonment, cruel or inhuman treatment and punishment and other problems amounting to serious and significant harm pursuant to ss 5J(4)–(5) and 36(2A) of the Act.
146. As set out earlier in this decision the Tribunal accepts that the applicant served in the Special Forces Unit of the Army [between specified years]. After his discharge he had a small itinerant business selling [products 1] in different markets in Algeria. He is married and his wife is [an occupation 1] living in Algiers. His parents and [number] siblings live in Algeria.
147. The applicant was punished for leaving his Army unit without leave. He was sentenced to [period] imprisonment but after his sentence was served he returned to his unit and there was no further punishment. He chose to seek a discharge in [year] and was suffering significant mental illness at that time. After he left the Army he married his wife and was able to operate a small itinerant [products 1] business.
148. He claimed that he was being followed by people from the military or the government but for reasons set out above the Tribunal does not accept that he was being followed. However, given his mental health issues he may truly believe that he was being followed for many years.
149. The applicant departed Algeria in 2013, [many] years after his Army service.
150. As set out earlier the applicant has significant mental health issues. The country information indicates that Algeria has a good public health system with treatment options for mental illness. Medications are accessible through pharmacies. There is no evidence or any reason why the applicant would not have access to those mental health services in Algeria. The Tribunal does not accept that mental health services would be intentionally withheld from the applicant for any reason.
151. Even though he has good access to mental health services in Australia he has spent a large amount of time without a fixed abode, he has been assaulted while living on the streets and has been convicted of an offence in 2022 where he claims he was so affected by alcohol he had no memory of what had happened. The trauma suffered during the years of civil war in Algeria have had a continuing harmful effect on his health.

[12] Algeria: Easing the Lockdown for the Hirak? 27 July 2020

174. In its Executive Summary ICG noted:
Although the Algerian government has taken emergency measures on social and economic issues, politically it appears to have called an end to its détente with the Hirak, in effect since Abdelmadjid Tebboune’s election on 12 December 2019. Thus, despite the promises of constitutional reform made in response to the Hirak’s demands, there has been a noticeable security clampdown. Moreover, Algeria is facing a wide range of social and economic challenges due to the global economic slump and tumbling oil prices.

175. There are a number of media articles reporting on protests by army retirees, demanding higher pensions, access to employment, low-cost housing, mental health services and social security. These protests continued in 2019 under the umbrella of the widespread protest movement known as the ‘Hirak’.[13]
[13] ‘As Algerian army retirees protest, NGO urges restraint’, Anadolu News Agency, 24 September 2018, 20220429084659; ‘Algeria: Several Wounded in Crackdown on March of Retired Army Officers’, Morocco World News, 21 May 2017, 20220429090237; ‘Algeria: retired soldiers clash with security forces at entry of capital’, Middle East Confidential, 25 September 2018, 20220429090721 ‘Algeria’s anti-regime protests: 7th Friday, strong presence of Army retirees’, DZ Breaking, 05 April 2019, 20220429085554; 20220429091226 Voices from the Middle East: The Future of the Hirak Movement in Algeria - MERIP.
176. A 2017 Morocco World News article reports that thousands of former members of the Algerian army were arrested during a protest just outside of Algiers.[14] A 2018 Middle East Confidential article reports that thousands of former soldiers clashed with security forces outside of Algiers.
Information on the current security situation in Algeria
[14] ‘Algeria: retired soldiers clash with security forces at entry of capital’, Middle East Confidential, 25 September 2018, 20220429090721.
177. In its 2020 Crime & Safety Report for Algeria, published on 9 June 2020, the US Department of State’s Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) provided the following information regarding counter terrorism efforts in Algeria:
The government continues to eliminate terrorist activity with a large, capable security apparatus. Through numerous sweeping operations, the National Army reportedly killed 30 terrorists in 2018. The most significant operation occurred in Khenchela in January, when authorities killed eight terrorists, including prominent AQIM leaders from Tunisia attempting to unify factions still in Algeria. Similarly, the group suffered a significant loss in January with the elimination of their propaganda chief in Jijel province. In addition to those notable losses, reporting indicated police arrested 56 terrorists nationwide, and a record number (129) of militants laid down arms and surrendered, the majority of whom operated in the south of the country.
Despite positive indicators, reports warn against the immediate cross-border threats to Algeria, including the possible presence of 4,000 Libyan violent extremists near the border. The security situation in Tunisia also remains of concern, highlighted by an attack on a military patrol close to the Algerian border causing the death of six Tunisian soldiers in July and provoking an emergency Algerian military deployment. Overall, the combined Algerian security services apprehended more than 250 terrorist supporters in 2018, but the number of terrorists reportedly killed decreased in comparison to 2017, when authorities eliminated 90 terrorists.
Authorities continued to foil terror plots throughout 2018. The western wilaya of Tlemcen was at the center of multiple major anti-terror investigations. Authorities dismantled an ISIS-affiliated network planning to target oil facilities in the south in February, as well as a terror support network in May. Authorities in March thwarted a terror plan in Mascara by a dormant cell of 11 intended terrorists named “the Lone Wolves.” Most recently, authorities dismantled a dormant ISIS-affiliated cell in Tamanrasset through the arrests of two former Algerian soldiers dismissed from service in 2016; both former soldiers were reportedly in touch with active ISIS chiefs aboard, who instructed them via social media to collect detailed information regarding foreigners living in Algeria and monitor their activities.
Weapon seizures increased in 2018, with the army recovering almost 700 firearms and additional dangerous materiel, including explosives, grenades, and RPGs. The security forces destroyed more than 500 hideouts in various regions throughout the year—particularly in the border regions of the southern desert in Adrar and Tamanrasset. Authorities seized heavy artillery as recently as December in the deep desert, including air-to-surface missiles smuggled for local terror groups through regional weapon[1]smuggling networks. Increasing military action at the border reportedly cut the main trafficking routes, with the summer 2018 establishment of additional watchtowers, patrols, and trenches. This corresponds with the record number of terrorists surrendering, increased seizure of weapons, and high number of terrorist hideouts located and destroyed in 2018.5

Information on health care in Algeria
178. With respect to the availability of health care the 2020 UK report on background information notes:
12.1.1 The Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, on his visit to Algeria, stated in April 2017: ‘The Ministry of Health, Population and Hospital Reform manages the hospitals and the public health sector. There are five health regions across the country, with five regional health councils, five regional health observatories and 48 health and population directorates (one in each wilaya). The country is divided into 185 health districts.[…] 'The health-care system has posted impressive results in making care available and accessible, with strengthened infrastructure, equipment and workforce. The population has financial coverage for most of the basic health services, which has contributed to a significant improvement in health indicators over the past decades. ‘Public investment in the national health system is among the highest in the region. In 2014, per capita health expenditure amounted to US$ 932 [GBP 74571]; total health expenditure was 7.2 percent of gross domestic product compared to 5.6 percent in Egypt, 5.9 percent in Morocco and 7.0 percent in Tunisia. General public expenditure on health in 2014 was 9.9 percent of total public expenditure. Out-of-pocket expenditure represented about 26.5 percent of total expenditure on health in 2014.’72 12.1.2.
With respect to mental healthcare the report notes
12.2.2 The source further stated: ‘The updated Mental Health Policy 2016-2020 covers prevention, treatment and rehabilitation with an intersectoral and a life course approach, in line with WHO Mental Health Action Plan (2013-2020) […] Previous mental health policies reportedly faced challenges in their implementation[…] 73 UN Human Rights Council, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur...’ (paras 23-24), 20 April 2017 74 US Embassy, ‘Algeria Specific Information’, 25 July 2020 75 UN Human Rights Council, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur... (paras 115-116), 20 April 2017 Page 26 of 51 ‘The mental health sector in Algeria is excessively reliant on psychiatric hospitals and inpatient care. Instead of building new psychiatric hospitals, each general hospital should have an inpatient psychiatric unit to make mental health care more accessible to all and avoid stigmatization. Although the availability of mental health services in primary-care centres has increased in recent years, with 129 centres providing such services, additional steps should be taken to reinforce outpatient services within general hospitals and reduce dependency on hospital care. There should be a shift in mental health services and public investments in the community, with initiatives grounded in human rights and modern principles of mental health policy and based on quality services and the empowerment of users.’

179. A 2017 journal article[15] provides some information on psychiatric services in Algeria, including in-patient services and out-patient facilities. This states:
The state provides psychiatric care free of charge. There are no private psychiatric hospitals in Algeria (Kacha, 2005, 2010). Most psychotropic drugs – even atypical antipsychotics – are available free of charge for people who have a chronic mental illness. Under an agreement on social welfare between the Ministry of National Solidarity and the public national insurance company, people with chronic mental disorders with insurance coverage receive a disability pension. No mental health services are available for the elderly, who are generally cared for by their families.
[15] ‘Psychiatric services in Algeria’, Zoubir Benmebarek, Cambridge University Press, February 2017.

Restrictions on departing Algeria for retired military personnel
180. A 2014 query response by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada quotes the Director of the Centre d’Études Maghrébines en Algérie18 who states that ‘[a]nyone belonging to a military corps needs permission to leave the country.’[16]
[16] Maghrib Studies (AIMS), which is a member of the Council of American Overseas Research Centers (CAORC). 19 DZA104922.E Algeria: Treatment of failed refugee claimants returned to Algeria; whether low-ranking police officers or members of the security forces would be subject to any reprisals from state authorities (2007–July 2014), Canadian IRB: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 11 August 2014.
181. A 2006 query response by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada[17] states:
[17] ALGERIA; WHETHER THERE EXISTED AN “INTERDICTION DE QUITTER LE TERRITOIRE NATIONAL” (NATIONAL TRAVEL BAN) IN ALGERIA BETWEEN 1992 TO 1994 RESEARCH DIRECTORATE, IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD OF CANADA, 8 MAY 2006 DZA 101151E.
Specific information as to whether an "Interdiction de quitter le territoire national" (National Travel Ban) existed in Algeria between 1992 and 1994 could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate. In correspondence dated 20 March 2006, an official of the Algerian Embassy in Ottawa stated that, [translation] "to our knowledge, there is no prohibition on leaving Algeria." Police officers and security officials, as with other state officials or government employees, present a document from their employer in order to leave the country, i.e. leave of absence, medical leave (Algeria 20 March 2006). According to the official, restrictions or prohibitions on leaving Algeria can only be issued by judicial authorities, following prosecution, and in such a case, the passport would not be revoked (ibid.).
Regarding measures to monitor border activity, the official also indicated that the Border and Aviation Police would maintain files on exits from the country (ibid.). In a 9 March 2006 telephone interview, a journalist from Jeune Afrique provided the following information. From 1992 to 1994, there were no formal restrictions or prohibitions on leaving Algeria. The journalist stated that the only exception would have been if a person was subject to some kind of judicial restriction, which could have been for various reasons, in which case the passport would have been revoked to ensure that the person did not leave the country (Jeune Afrique 9 March 2006). The journalist stated that such cases were rare and that this restriction would still be applicable in 2006 (ibid.). The journalist indicated that he was not aware if a passport would be issued to someone who was forbidden to travel for such judicial reasons (ibid.).2

[2023] AATA 1068

20 January 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction