1906278 (Refugee)

1906278 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 1344 (22 March 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1906278
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Fiji
MEMBER:Suseela Durvasula
DATE:22 March 2024
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 22 March 2024 at 2:20pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa – Fiji – does not fear any harm in Fiji – applicant has now married an Australian citizen – separation from his wife and her children – not satisfied that a separation from his wife and her children would amount to serious or significant harm – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
SZRSN v MIAC [2013] FCA 751
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 20 February 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Fiji, applied for the visa on 16 March 2018. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant was not a person to whom Australia owes protection obligations.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 7 March 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received evidence from the applicant’s wife and Pastor [A].
The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
Background
The applicant is a [age]-year-old iTaukei (Indigenous) Fijian national, born in [Town 1], Fiji.
In his protection visa application, he states that he has never been married and has no children. His most recent residential address was in Suva. He does not provide any information about his family composition, address history or employment history.
The applicant arrived in Australia on [date] June 2017 on a Subclass 408 Temporary Activity visa. He has previously travelled in and out of Australia on 3 occasions on a tourist visa between [date] December 2009 and [date] June 2011. He lodged the protection visa application on 16 March 2018.
With the visa application, the applicant provided a letter of support from Reverend [B] from the Northern Territory, describing the applicant’s previous missionary work and contribution to remote communities in [Area 1] and the Northern Territory. He also provided a letter of support from community members.
After lodging the review application, the applicant provided:
·     A marriage certificate showing that he had married [in] January 2022.
·     A letter from his wife stating that they live in Queensland with her two children from another relationship, aged [age] years and [age] years. She supports the family financially, as the applicant cannot work due to his visa not giving him any work rights. The applicant is a valued member of the community and is involved with the church and the Indigenous community.
·     Evidence that the applicant’s wife is an Australian citizen; birth certificates for her children; and a letter from Centrelink showing that she receives Centrelink payments and has 100 per cent care of her 2 children.
·     Character reference from Pastor [A], a senior pastor at [Church 1], stating that the applicant is a pastor of [Church 1] Church in [City 1]. He looks after the administration and running of the church. He has been doing ministry work with local communities in Sydney, Brisbane and regional areas for the last 5 years. In particular, he and his wife help new settlers from Fiji who have arrived through the Pacific Seasonal Workers Scheme.
·     Character reference from [a] senior pastor of [an organisation], describing the applicant’s previous work with Indigenous people in [Area 1].
At the hearing, the applicant provided further information about his background. His mother, brother and sister live in Fiji. His brother and sister live and work in Suva. His mother lives in the family home in [Town 1] with extended family.
In Australia, he has not been working as his bridging visa does not give him permission to work. He applied online twice for permission to work but it was rejected. He is a senior pastor at his church and works there on a voluntary basis.
The applicant has made enquiries about lodging a partner visa application as his wife is an Australian citizen. He was waiting to see what would happen with his protection visa application before lodging an application.
Pastor [A] gave evidence by telephone and told the Tribunal that the applicant is an active and important member of the church in [City 1]. He spoke of his contribution, hard work and good character.
Evidence of applicant’s wife
The applicant’s wife told the Tribunal that she had met the applicant in [City 1] in 2021 and they married in 2022. She had two children from a previous relationship, aged [age] and [age] years. Her children do not have contact with their biological father and the applicant is like a father to them. She receives Centrelink payments and her children are home schooled. The applicant does not work so her Centrelink payments have to support the whole family. They have obtained some legal advice about lodging a partner visa application but at the current time, they cannot afford to pay the visa application fee. She does not want the applicant to return to Fiji as they may have to wait up to 5 years before he can return to Australia.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issues in this case are whether there is a real chance, if the applicant returns to Fiji, that he would be persecuted for one or more of the following reasons: race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. If not, the Tribunal must decide whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to Fiji, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Country of nationality
The applicant has provided a copy of his passport to the Department, which shows he is a Fijian citizen. The Tribunal finds, based on the applicant’s passport, that he is a national of Fiji and has assessed his claims on this basis.
Claims in protection visa application
In his protection visa application, the applicant stated that he came to Australia on a tourist visa and his church organisation [lodged] the application for him. He borrowed money to come to Australia and has spent all the money so he does not know how to repay the loan. He does not have a job to support himself and his family back in Fiji. He ‘might end up as a prisoner of not paying all [his] expenses’. He does not know how to pay back his loan.
At the hearing, the Tribunal asked the applicant how his protection visa application was prepared. The applicant told the Tribunal that he met a man at church who helped him. He does not know his name. He does not know what was written in the application. About 3 weeks after the application was lodged, the man called him and told him what he had written in it. The applicant had not told him to write those things and they were not true.
His trip to Australia in 2017 was paid for by a Mr [C]. He had met Mr [C] in Darwin and he had invited the applicant to [work]. The applicant did not have to borrow money to come to Australia. He had wanted to extend his stay in Australia but Mr [C] was unable to sponsor him. He then had to explore other options so he applied for a protection visa.
When asked what harm he feared if returned to Fiji, the applicant stated that he does not fear any harm in Fiji and he has a good reputation there. Originally, he did not intend to stay in Australia. Initially, he thought he was not allowed to leave Australia until a final decision had been made on his protection visa application. In the meantime, he got married and now wants to support his wife and her 2 children.
Based on the applicant’s evidence at the hearing, the Tribunal finds that he is resiling from the claims made in his protection visa application. He stated they were not true and not related to his situation. The Tribunal therefore finds the applicant did not borrow money to come to Australia and does not have a fear of harm of the consequences of not repaying the loan. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied there is a real chance the applicant will face serious or significant harm if he returns to Fiji, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, on the basis of having to repay a loan.
Economic claim
The Tribunal asked the applicant about the claim in his protection visa application that he does not have a job to support himself and his family in Fiji. The applicant stated that he was concerned he may not be able to find work as it has been a long time since he worked in his trade and he may have to go back to the village to do farming. If he has to go back, he may have to do missionary work and help out in the church if there is an opportunity to do so.
At the hearing, the applicant gave evidence about his educational and employment background. He completed high school and then went to Suva to complete [a] course. After this, he worked at [a] business for 2 years and did further practical courses in this field. He then worked in a government department (public works) for 3 years. Between 2009 and 2011 he visited Australia 3 [times]. He was sponsored by the church. After returning to Fiji in 2011, he volunteered at the church for 5 and a half years. He then worked on [boats]. He came to Australia in 2017 to undertake further religious work in the Northern Territory.
At the hearing, the Tribunal explained the concepts of persecution, serious harm and significant harm to the applicant. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant that given his qualifications and broad work experience, the Tribunal may not accept that he would be subject to significant economic hardship or be denied the opportunity to earn a livelihood of any kind, to a level that would threaten his capacity to subsist. The applicant repeated that he may not find work and would be worried about his family here.
The applicant has claimed that if he returned to Fiji, he would experience economic hardship and would be unable to find work. Having considered the evidence about the applicant’s education and work experience, the Tribunal is satisfied that he would be able to find a suitable job in Fiji that would be sufficient to support himself. The applicant is educated and has completed [qualifications]. He has broad work experience doing missionary work in [various fields]. His character references attest to his leadership skills and positive work ethic. The Tribunal is satisfied that given the applicant’s previous experience and skills, he would be able to find work in Fiji to support himself. The Tribunal is also satisfied that he could either live in Suva, where he lived previously and where his siblings live, or in his hometown of [Town 1] in his mother’s family home.
As discussed with the applicant at the hearing, while serious harm can involve significant economic hardship, this must threaten a person’s capacity to subsist. The Tribunal is not satisfied that if the applicant returned to Fiji, he would experience significant economic hardship or be denied the capacity to earn a livelihood, such that it would threaten his capacity to subsist, within the meaning of s 5J(5)(d) or s 5J(5)(f) of the Act. While the applicant’s financial circumstances and standard of living may not be the same in Fiji as they are in Australia, the Tribunal is not satisfied that this amounts to serious harm.
Noting that what constitutes serious harm is not limited to the examples in s 5J(5), the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant fears serious harm, having considered the evidence as a whole. At the hearing, the applicant acknowledged that he did not fear serious harm. Therefore, the applicant does not meet s 5J(4)(b) of the Act.
Separation from family members
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has now married an Australian citizen and that he cares for his wife’s two children from a previous relationship. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has indicated his intention to lodge a partner visa application in Australia, and it is open to him to do so. The Tribunal accepts that if the applicant were to return to Fiji he would be separated from his wife and her children. While this may be emotionally difficult for the applicant and his wife, the Tribunal is not satisfied that this amounts to serious harm if he returns to Fiji. The Federal Court has previously found that mental harm to an applicant caused by separation from family members arising from the applicant’s removal from Australia would not of itself amount to persecution.[1] Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant would face serious harm if he returned to Fiji, due to separation from his wife and her children.
[1] In MIAC v SZQOT (2012) 206 FCR 145
The Tribunal has also considered the character references and the evidence of Pastor [A], and accepts that the applicant has made a significant contribution to his local church community in [City 1]. The Tribunal is not satisfied, however that this demonstrates the applicant would face serious or significant harm, if he returns to Fiji.
Overall assessment
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively. Having considered the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal is not satisfied that if the applicant returns to Fiji, now or in the foreseeable future, he faces a real chance of serious harm.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the reasons set out in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant meets the definition of refugee in s 5H(1) of the Act.
Complementary protection
The Tribunal has also considered whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Fiji, there is a real risk he will suffer significant harm (s 36(2)(aa) of the Act). The Tribunal takes into account the above findings of fact in relation to the ‘real chance’ test and its view of the applicant’s future conduct and circumstances if he were removed from Australia to Fiji. The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant would be able to live in Suva and find a job.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that a separation from his wife and her children would amount to serious or significant harm. The Federal Court in SZRSN v MIAC and the Federal Family and Circuit Court in GLD18 v MHA, have confirmed that separation from one’s family members in Australia or another country, where the claimed harm arises from the act of removal itself, will not meet the definitions of ‘significant harm’ in s 36(2A).[2]
[2] SZRSN v MIAC [2013] FCA 751 at [47]–[49] and GLD18 v MHA [2020] FCAFC 2 at [36]–[58]
On this basis, the Tribunal is not satisfied there is a real risk that the applicant will experience significant harm as defined in s 36(2A) of the Act.
The Tribunal is not satisfied, on the evidence, that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Fiji, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). 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 applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy any of the criteria in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Suseela Durvasula
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 1344

22 March 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice

Remedies