1908583 (Refugee)

1908583 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 2173 (12 April 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1908583
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   India
MEMBER:James Lambie
DATE:12 April 2024
PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.

Statement made on 12 April 2024 at 12:32pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – India – political opinion – member of political party – assisted friend who converted from Hinduism to Islam to marry Muslim woman – threats from vigilante groups and police inaction – house broken into and damaged while applicants in Australia – house now unoccupied and unmaintained – no supporting evidence of party membership or activities, or ownership of house – second applicant wife left Australia and current whereabouts unknown – country information – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 5AAA, 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), 65, 423A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
MIEA v Guo Wei Rong and Pam Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 3 April 2019 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicants who claim to be citizens of India, applied for the visas on 16 August 2018. The delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that they were not persons to whom Australia owed protection obligations.
[The first-named applicant] appeared before the Tribunal on 19 March 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. [The second-named applicant] departed Australia [in] February 2021 and her current whereabouts are unknown. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Gujarati and English languages.
RELEVANT LAW
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.
Complementary protection criterion
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 a protection 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 the applicant 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’).
‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s 36(2A): s 5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s 5(1) of the Act.
There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s 36(2B) of the Act.
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 expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether [the first applicant] meets the refugee criterion and, if not, whether he is entitled to complementary protection. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Background
The applicants entered Australia [in] July 2018 as holders of tourist (subclass 600) visas. They applied for the protection visas the subject of this application on 16 August 2018.
The applicants’ claims for protection, as summarised by the delegate, were as follows:
·[The first applicant] was an active member of the India National Congress (INC) and was resident at the material times in Ahmedabad, Gujarat;
·In about February 2018, [the first applicant] provided accommodation and financial, legal and moral support to his friend, [Mr A], who converted from Hinduism to Islam in order to marry a Muslim woman;
·this support was discovered by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal vigilante groups, who threatened [the first applicant] with harm if he did not evict [Mr A] from his house;
·[The first applicant] reported threats to the police but they did not assist him and instead asked him to comply with the demands that he evict [Mr A];
·The VHP and Bajrang Dal members came to [the first applicant]’s house and threatened him and his family;
·He sought assistance from the INC, which raised the matter with the police but to no avail;
·He tried to raise the matter in the media but there was no interest in publishing the story;
·[The second applicant] was stopped by four or five people on her way to work and threatened;
·While the applicants were on holiday in Australia, [the first applicant] learned that a group of ‘fringe elements’ broke into his family’s flat and damaged the furniture;
·[The first applicant] moved his daughter to his in-laws’ place in [Village] in the Vadodara district and arranged private security for her;
·He fears for his and his family’s well-being from these ‘fringe elements’;
·He believes that the Indian BJP government is unwilling to protect his family.
Evidence
The material before the Tribunal includes:
·the protection visa application, which was lodged on 20 August 2018;
·a statement from the applicants in support of the application, dated 16 August 2018;
·the delegate’s decision dated 3 April 2019; and
·a letter to the Tribunal from [the first applicant], dated 7 April 2019.
Country of reference
The applicant claims to be a citizen of India. Based on evidence provided to the Department by the applicant, and in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal finds that India is his country of nationality and also his receiving country for the purposes of s.36(2)(a) and s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
The Tribunal is satisfied on the basis of the evidence before it that the applicant does not have a right to enter and reside in any other country, therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not excluded from Australia’s protection obligations under s.36(3) of the Act.
Hearing
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 19 March 2024 to give evidence and present arguments.
After dispensing with the hearing preliminaries, including an exhaustive description of the requirements necessary to be made out for the grant of a Protection Visa, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant that to be granted a Protection Visa he must either be recognised as a refugee or be a person entitled to Complementary Protection.
The Tribunal explained that under Australian law, to be a refugee he must have a well- founded fear of persecution in India. This means the Tribunal must be satisfied that there is a real chance that he will face serious harm if he returned to India. The harm must be directed at him for one of the following Convention reasons: race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
With regard to Complementary Protection, there must be substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk he will suffer significant harm if removed from Australia to India.
The Tribunal discussed his claims as summarised in his protection visa application, written claims and the delegate’s decision. It asked if his claims were correct, complete, and up to date. He said that they were and that he did not need to add to them.
[The first applicant] said there had been no significant changes in his claim or circumstances. He said that he had not seen his daughter in six years and would have returned to India if it had been safe to do so. He said he would return to India if anything changed to make it safe.
The Tribunal suggested that another change was that his wife had left Australia in 2021. He said he and his wife had had some problems and that was why she left. He said he had no idea where his was wife now was, but that his daughter was still with his in-laws.
[The first applicant] told the Tribunal that his daughter is now [Age] years old and that she was [Age] years old when he last saw her. The Tribunal asked if he maintained contact with her. He said it was not frequent, but that he contacted her when he could. The Tribunal asked if there was some difficulty in making contact. He said she was quite young and did not understand his need for secrecy. He said he did not want to place her in danger if she inadvertently betrayed some knowledge about him. The Tribunal asked how frequently he spoke to her. He said it would be between two and four times a month. The Tribunal asked if he did video calls. He said he did. The Tribunal asked if his daughter knew where her mother was. He said she knows she is in India but does not know where exactly.
The Tribunal asked if he had records to show he was in regular contact with his daughter. He said he had no evidence of it. The Tribunal said that he had provided no material other than his own statement. He said he had no material from India. The Tribunal suggested that he had a mobile telephone call, with the capacity to display a call history and much else.
The Tribunal suggested that he had come to Australia on holiday in 2018. He said that was correct. It asked why he and his wife had left their daughter behind. He said that she had been granted a visa as well, but he and his wife decided that she would restrict their ability to do and see all that they wanted. The Tribunal asked how long they intended to holiday in Australia. He said it was two to three weeks, but he could not remember exactly.
The Tribunal suggested that he and his wife then missed or cancelled their return flight and that it was not until mid-August 2018 that they applied for asylum. He said, while they were in Australia, they received information from home that something had happened to their home which changed everything. The Tribunal asked on what date they received this information. He said it had been six years and he could not recall the date, but that it was about two weeks after they arrived in Australia. He said he a friend of his brother-in-law found out about it, who then called the brother-in-law, and the brother-in-law then called him in Australia. He said that a lot had happened in the intervening six years and he could not recall exactly when it was. The Tribunal suggested that this incident was at the centre of his claims and that it might be expected that he could provide clear evidence about it. It asked if anyone sent him a photograph. He said they did not. The Tribunal asked if anyone sent him an email. He said they did not.
The Tribunal asked if he owned or rented the property. He said he owned it. The Tribunal asked if he had sold it. He said he had not. The Tribunal asked if it was now tenanted. He said it was not. The Tribunal asked if anyone was living in it. He said there was no-one there. The Tribunal asked if he had a photograph of his home. He said he did not. The Tribunal asked when he had bought it. He said it was in 2009. The Tribunal asked if there was a mortgage on the property. He said there was not. The Tribunal asked if he had bought it outright. He said he had. The Tribunal asked how much he had paid. He said it was 2.1 or 2.2 million rupees. The Tribunal asked if this was a lot of money to tie up in an unoccupied and unremunerative property. He said it was only an ordinary property. The Tribunal asked if its value, about AUD$40,000 was not money he could use. He said he had worked hard to buy a home and the property represented his hard work. The Tribunal suggested that it had been left for years unoccupied, unmaintained, and without electricity. It asked it he was not concerned about it becoming dilapidated and losing its value. He said that, when he heard about the break-in, he called his brother and that his brother went to the property and did what was needed to repair and secure it. He said that his brother visited it from time to time, but he was a busy man and he did not know how often he visited. The Tribunal suggested that he would have needed to change the locks. He said that was right. The Tribunal suggested that his brother would have needed to tell him that and asked if he had sent an email or other written communication. He said his brother had only spoken to him on the phone. The Tribunal asked if it was the case that there was nothing in writing to support his claims at all. He said there was nothing. The Tribunal asked if there not even any text messages. He said that it was a long time ago and he was frightened at the time and had forgotten to keep records.
The Tribunal had asked if his brother had never contacted him about the cost of any repairs or maintenance. He said that he no records of that because his brother would not ask for money. He said that, in any event, his brother was upset with him about his support for [Mr A] because it had caused problems for the whole family. The Tribunal asked if his brother had ever sent him a message to that effect. He said he had not.
The Tribunal asked if there were council rates or land taxes in Ahmedabad. He said there were, but that they were never enforced. The Tribunal asked if his brother had forwarded any tax notices or anything of that nature. He said he had not. The Tribunal suggested that it seemed highly implausible that there should be no written communications at all concerning the maintenance of his property. It asked if there was even a ‘thank you’ message to his brother for his help. He said that his brother had a familial obligation to help him so thanks were inappropriate. He said that even to ask him about any bills was improper.
The Tribunal asked if he communicated with his brother at all. He said that they speak sometimes, but infrequently. They do not exchange anything written communications. The Tribunal asked if he was on [Social media]. He said he was.
The Tribunal took him to his 2018 statement, in which he mentions a brother-in-law by the name of [Mr B]. He said he was his wife’s brother, who lives in [Country], and had learnt of the incident from a friend back in India. The Tribunal asked if he had never thought to obtain a statement from him. He said he had not, and now could not because he was estranged from his wife. He said he never had any idea that he would need to keep or gather evidence. He said that, in the meantime, all his relatives had turned against him because of the situation he had described and would not help him. The Tribunal asked if there were any neighbours who could attest to at least part of his story. He said it was a political issue and no-one wanted to be involved. The Tribunal asked if anyone could even confirm that the house was broken into, without naming or even knowing of the perpetrators. He said it was a matter of political and religious sensitivity and no-one wanted to be associated with it.
The Tribunal took [the first applicant] to his claims to be a member of the Congress Party. It asked when he joined the Party. He said it was in about 2005. The Tribunal asked how he had come to join the Party. He said there was no particular procedure, just a form to complete. The Tribunal asked if there were any fees. He said there were no fees at that time. The Tribunal asked how long he was an active member of the party. He said from 2005 to 2018, he was active and attended all events he could. He said that, from late 2018, he became less active because of his family activities. The Tribunal suggested that, from late 2018, he was in Australia. It further suggested that, if he was very active, there would be many party colleagues who could support some aspects of his claims. He said he had tried, but they were scared to be associated with those claims. The Tribunal asked if there was any documentary evidence that he had even been associated with the party. He said the party did not have membership cards, or at least not while he was there. The Tribunal asked if there were any messages from colleagues, maybe asking where he was or when he might be back. He said that he hadn’t been that active following the birth of his daughter. He said that was when they started issuing cards and membership numbers, so he missed out. He said the party did not have the technology for digital documents when he joined in 2008. The Tribunal asked if the new technology only applied to new members. He said he missed out because of his reduced activity. The Tribunal asked if there was no-one, including those he claimed to whom he claimed to have reached out, who could support any aspect of his claims. He said he had cut them off when they failed to provide support when he needed them. He said they were no longer his friends. The Tribunal asked if he was speaking about the period from February to July 2018. He said he was.

The Tribunal asked if it was his case that there was not a single person in India who could support any aspect of his claims. He said that was correct. The Tribunal asked if that included his own brother. He said he did not know if his brother would be willing to help but, in any event, his brother did not have any evidence. The Tribunal asked if, in that case, his brother had not been to his house as he previously claimed. He said he had. The Tribunal said that could amount to evidence. He said he did not want to put him in danger. The Tribunal said it simply wanted to know what had happened to his house. He did not respond.
The Tribunal asked if any member of his family had been approached by anyone who was looking for him or enquiring about his whereabouts. He said that the groups that were looking for him were only interested in him, his wife and his daughter. The Tribunal asked if they would not ask his wider family where he was. He said they would not have approached them. The Tribunal asked if it was the case that there was no evidence that anyone was looking for him. He said he would be found if he goes back. The Tribunal said it was interested in any evidence that he was being sought by the militant groups. He said he was not in contact with anyone in India, so there is no-one who knows where he is. The Tribunal asked if there was nothing even from those who had been in touch with him in 2018 with information about his house. He said he had been away from India for a long time and had no idea he was expected to gather evidence.
The Tribunal asked if [Mr A] was still contactable. He said [Mr A] was in hiding. The Tribunal asked if he was not even contactable by text message. He said he tried, but he heard from someone that he was no longer in India and no-one knew where he was. He said he could not locate him on social media.
The Tribunal asked what had happened to his property where he provided accommodation to [Mr A], [Address], Ahmedabad. He said he had sold it. The Tribunal asked if there was any documentation for that. He said there was not. The Tribunal asked if there was any evidence that he ever owned it. He said he did not have it with him. The Tribunal indicated that all the evidence it had, therefore, were the two letters he had written to the Department and the Tribunal.
The Tribunal asked if he wished to comment on the Department’s assessment that he could safely relocate within India. He said it was not possible and asked if the Australian government would give an undertaking for his safety. The Tribunal reminded him that, at the commencement of the hearing, it had explained the requirements for the grant of a protection visa. It said that, if he had country information that contradicts the Department’s assessment, he should bring it to the attention of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal indicated that it was concerned that there was no independent evidence of his claims whatever, not even objective and non-controversial material such as what had happened to his house. He said he accepted it was a blunder not to collect some evidence at the time.
The Tribunal asked if there was any evidence that he had engaged private security to look after his daughter. He said ‘private security’ in India meant non-commercial security: he said he had paid money to some people to keep an eye on his daughter and watch for her safety. The Tribunal asked if there was any record of the payments or his instructions. He said the activists are only looking for him, and are not interested in other members of his family. The Tribunal asked if his claim about hiring security for his daughter was not true. He said it was true. The Tribunal asked if he had communicated with her grandparents to check how everything was going for her, for example, her progress at school, whether she was happy, her behaviour, any particular needs, and so on. He said his wife had been in constant contact about those things. Since his wife left, her parents were upset with him and he has had only limited contact with them. The Tribunal asked if it was limited contact or none at all. He said it was limited. The Tribunal suggested that there was no evidence even of that. He said he calls them sometimes and does video calls with his daughter. The Tribunal suggested that he had provided no evidence to support this claim. He accepted this was correct.
The Tribunal said it would have regard to the country information from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in assessing his claims. It said that this report assessed that the political environment in Gujarat was less heated than in most other Indian States. He said a lot of information to the contrary is not broadcast or is concealed. He was invited to provide any material that supported his claims. The Tribunal noted that the report was also that:
India has a vast media industry with thousands of media outlets operating in multiple languages … Many news services are critical of government or raise politically sensitive topics without any significant restriction.
The Tribunal asked if he had any evidence of his attempts to contact the media. He said he did not. The Tribunal asked if he had any evidence of his attempts to complain to the police. He said he tried, but it did not work out.
[The first applicant] told the Tribunal that he was not inventing his claims and that he would be happy to return to India once he was satisfied it was safe to do so.
The Tribunal allowed two weeks for the provision of submissions and any further evidence he was able to obtain. No such material was received.
Assessment of claims and evidence, and findings
The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is ‘well-founded’ or that it is for the reason claimed. Similarly, the fact that an applicant claims to face a real risk of significant harm does not establish that such a risk exists, or that the harm feared amounts to ‘significant harm’. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant himself or herself, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for him or her. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant (MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191, and Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70).
The Tribunal is aware of the importance of adopting a reasonable approach in the finding of credibility. In Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and McIllhatton v Guo Wei Rong and Pam Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445, the Full Federal Court made comments on determining credibility. The Tribunal notes in particular the cautionary note sounded by Foster J at 482:
…care must be taken that an over-stringent approach does not result in an unjust exclusion from consideration of the totality of some evidence where a portion of it could reasonably have been accepted.
The Tribunal also accepts that ‘if the applicant's account appears credible, they should, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, be given the benefit of the doubt’ (The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, Geneva, 1992 at para 196). However, the Handbook also states (at para 203):
The benefit of the doubt should, however, only be given when all available evidence has been obtained and checked and when the examiner is satisfied as to the applicant's general credibility. The applicant's statements must be coherent and plausible, and must not run counter to generally known facts.
The Tribunal is mindful of the Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility (July 2015) issued by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal which notes:
In relation to protection visa matters, if the tribunal is not able to make a confident finding that an applicant’s account is not credible, it must make its assessment on the basis that it is possible, although not certain, that the applicant’s account of past events is true.[1]
[1] Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility (July 2015) Available at es-on-Assessment-of-Credibility.pdf
However, this should not lead to “an uncritical acceptance of any and all allegations made by” the applicant.[2]
[2] Harjit Singh Randhawa v. The Minister for Immigration Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, No. NG994 of 1993, Australia: Federal Court, 11 August 1994.
Section 5AAA of the Act makes clear that it is the applicant’s responsibility to specify all particulars of a claim to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and to provide sufficient evidence to establish the claim. The Tribunal does not have any responsibility or obligation to specify, or assist the applicant in specifying, any particulars of his claims. Nor does the Tribunal have any responsibility or obligation to establish, or assist in establishing, the claim.
Section 423A of the Act provides for circumstances in which the Tribunal is required to draw an adverse inference about new claims or evidence. If an applicant raises a claim or presents evidence that was not raised or presented before the primary decision was made, then the Tribunal is to draw an inference unfavourable to the credibility of that claim or evidence, if it is satisfied that the applicant does not have a reasonable explanation why the claim was not made or evidence not presented before the primary decision was made.
The Tribunal has considered carefully all of the applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and makes the findings set out herein.
Hindu militant groups
The most recent country information report from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade states, relevantly to [the first applicant]’s claims:
Religion
3.10 The constitution prohibits religious discrimination and guarantees the right to freely practise religion and the right for religions to manage their own affairs. The constitution guarantees the right to propagate a religion except where that would affect the operation of some state laws. For information about conversion laws and policies in practice in some states, see Conversion and anti-conversion laws.
3.11 Both religious pluralism and communal violence have a long history in India. The situation has evolved in recent years with new political movements and the adoption of technology that can be used to disseminate information, and the use of social media to incite violence.
3.12 Research by the Pew Research Center published in June 2021 found that 84 per cent of people say that to ‘be truly Indian’ it is important to respect all religions. The same research found that more than 85 per cent people in each of six major religious groups surveyed (Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains) felt that they were free to practise their own religion, and most of those agreed that other religious groups were similarly free to practise their religions. According to the survey, communal violence, while often high-profile events that are covered extensively in the media, are not day-to-day issues for most Indians.
Conversion and anti-conversion laws
3.13 There are laws in some states that restrict religious conversions (Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh – and, most recently, a law restricting conversions passed the upper house of the Karnataka state parliament in September 2022 and a similar law passed the Haryana parliament in December 2022).
3.14 Conversion laws prohibit ‘forced’ conversions, where (depending on the state law) force can mean ‘allurement’ or fraud or coercion. Laws require that a bureaucratic process (forms, fees, approvals) must take place for conversion. Penalties and enforcement vary by state but can involve prison terms. Many of these laws were enacted in response to so-called ‘love jihad’, an alleged practice in which Muslim men marry Hindu women (or girls) to convert them to Islam. DFAT understands that the practice, if it exists at all, is very rare.
3.18 DFAT assesses that converts to other religions experience a moderate risk of official discrimination in states where anti-conversion laws exist. Conversion is possible, but it may be a complicated and difficult process. DFAT assesses that there is also a moderate risk of societal discrimination because in some cases communities or extended families may oppose the conversion.
Hindu nationalism
3.19 Since the election of the BJP government in 2014 there has been sustained media attention on the issue of Hindu nationalism, sometimes known as Hindutva, roughly translated as ‘Hindu-ness’. A key aim of Hindu nationalism is to ‘restore’ the pre-eminence of Hindu culture-civilisation in India. There have been high-profile attacks by Hindu nationalists against minority religious communities and some analysts have claimed that the national government has created a permissive environment for Hindu nationalist groups to intimidate members of minority religions through violence, hate speech and otherwise.
3.21 The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) is an affiliate of the RSS founded in 1964 with the goal of consolidating Hindu society and protecting Hindu dharma (roughly translated as religion or philosophy). The organisation is involved in renovation and construction of Hindu temples, campaigns against other religions proselytising , and political activism. For example, the group was allegedly involved in a riot in which a mosque was vandalised and houses and fsecondshops were ransacked in Tripura in October 2021. Similar riots between Hindus and Muslims occurred in 2022 (see Muslims). The VHP also has branches in Australia.
3.22 Bajrang Dal (BD), the youth wing of the VHP, has been active in campaigning against cow slaughter, Muslims marrying Hindus, and against proselytisation by other religions – including resorting to violence. A BD activist was stabbed to death in Karnataka in February 2022. Police linked the stabbing to the activist’s anti-Muslim hate speech on social media. Supporters rioted during a funeral procession for the dead man causing several injuries and damage to cars and businesses.
3.23 The most recent example of large-scale communal violence was the Delhi riots of early 2020. Protesters against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 clashed with counter-protesters in several parts of Delhi in January and February 2020, leading to more than 50 deaths; a disproportionate number (two thirds) were Muslims. According to Human Rights Watch and some Indian media sources, police selectively delayed investigations and charges against rioters based on their Hindu religion, with many court cases still pending as of early 2022. Courts, police and criminal processes in India are slow and the extent of religious discrimination versus slow bureaucracy is not clear, but in some cases Indian judges have criticised the police investigations as unprofessional or incompetent.
3.24 Other examples of communal violence include violent protests in December 2021 after several radical Hindu leaders called for Hindus to take up arms against Muslims at a religious conclave in Uttarakhand. The slogans they used called for violence to protect Hindus from Muslims. The speakers and attendees were mostly from Hindu fringe groups.
3.28 When violence by Hindu nationalists occurs, it attracts significant media attention. Violent incidents are often perpetrated by extremists and fringe groups. While those groups are loud and can amplify their voices widely through social media, incidents of violence such as those described above are not day-to-day occurrences. While uncommon, when they do occur, they can lead to fatalities. Hindu nationalists enjoy a significant amount of political and social capital and DFAT assesses that they experience a low risk of social or official discrimination.
Gujarat
3.90 Sources told DFAT that 2022 elections in Gujarat were mostly peaceful and were not characterised by large-scale violence. Sources told DFAT that the political climate in Gujarat was less heated than that of elections in other states, and that if there was violence it did not typically affect people’s day-to-day lives. 3.91 Gujarat experienced communal violence targeting Muslims in April 2022 (see Muslims) in the lead up to the December 2022 elections. Although the BJP won the elections in a landslide, voters in the city of Khambhat, where the violence occurred, generally preferred the opposition INC. Aljazeera interviewed activists who claimed that the BJP had run an anti-Muslim campaign, however the BJP claimed that the party had won even in Muslim areas and had campaigned to attract Muslim votes.
3.93 DFAT assesses that, overall, participants in Gujarati politics face a low risk of official or societal discrimination or violence.
Media
3.105 India has a vast media industry with thousands of media outlets operating in multiple languages. There are several large, private companies that control large, well-known traditional newspapers and broadcast stations, however, as in the rest of the world, social media and digital sharing (especially Facebook, WhatsApp and YouTube) have become much more popular in recent years, and used as a mechanism at times to spread misinformation for political purposes. Many news services are critical of government or raise politically sensitive topics without any significant restrictions, however, critics argue that most mainstream television channels uncritically amplify BJP messages.
3.113 DFAT assesses that, in general, journalists face a low risk of societal or official violence or discrimination. The Indian media landscape, and the opinions expressed on social media, are diverse. Both pro- and anti-government journalists and social media users generally go about their activities unhindered, however there are individual examples of journalists being harassed by authorities and violence and government restrictions in some conflict-affected areas limit freedom of the press.
Marriage (interfaith, inter-caste)
3.136 Interfaith and inter-caste marriages are legal and occur occasionally, however many Indian families still prefer marriages arranged within their own religion and caste. Most marriages in India are arranged marriages and the family of the prospective marriage partner will choose a spouse based on faith and caste considerations. A marriage outside this system is known as a ‘love marriage’. Those who choose to marry outside their religion or caste may experience shunning or violence from their families, but the outcome depends on the family and there is not a typical pattern of reactions. An inter-caste or interfaith marriage will not necessarily lead to violence, but it can.
3.142 DFAT assesses the treatment of people in interfaith and inter-caste marriages varies according to the families involved. It can range from approval in some families, to disapproval, ostracism, harassment, or violence.
Police
5.6 A key consideration when dealing with Indian police is whether a ‘First Information Report’ (FIR) is made. These are the first reports made by police before they initiate a criminal investigation. Critics of the police claim that police will often refuse to register a FIR; in practice that police action depends on individual police officers and can be arbitrary. The consequences of an FIR not being registered are that the crime is not investigated and no police remedy will be available. As it is the initial action of a police investigation, subsequent police investigation is not possible without an FIR. For example, in a sexual assault case if an FIR is not registered, police arranged medical investigation or care or the taking of a statement will not proceed.

On an assessment of the country information, the Tribunal accepts that it is, prima facie, plausible that a person who assists with an interfaith (Hindu to Islam) marriage or religious conversion in Gujarat may encounter a degree of local hostility, or even become a collateral target of the VHP and/or Bajrang Dal. However, other than his claim to have provided accommodation, his claims to have provided “financial, legal and moral support” were limited to those descriptions and no detail or evidence was provided for them. There was no material to evidence [Mr A]’s engagement or marriage. Even his claim to have provided accommodation was unsupported by detail of any kind, other than the address of the property he claimed to have allowed his friend to use. He could provide no document or any other material to show that he had ever had an interest in this property, or of the arrangements, if any, pursuant to which his friend occupied it. The Tribunal also notes that, despite the grant of accommodation being known to the activist groups, and [Mr A] and his wife being the principal focus of their anger, there is no claim that any attempt was made on this property.
[The first applicant] claims that his house was attacked and damaged by the activists was not supported by documentary evidence or supporting material of any kind, despite a range of evidence being reasonably available. There are no records of any of his claimed communications with his brother or brother-in-law, or from any friends or neighbours. His reasons for failing to produce any such material were that his provision of assistance to [Mr A] and the break-up of his marriage in or about 2021 had resulted in such fear of reprisals or intensity of estrangement that there was nobody willing to assist him. However, this does not explain the absence of any neutral material, such as photographs of the damage, repair bills, or any current information as to the condition of the house. There was not even any information to confirm that he owned or was otherwise in possession of the house.
Similarly, there was no evidence of any type to support [the first applicant]’s claims to continue to fear reprisals from the activists. He ventured a variety of reasons as to why the activists would not approach or make enquiries of members of his family, his friends, party colleagues, or neighbours. None of these were plausible and impressed the Tribunal as an attempt to deflect its questions. When asked about the security arrangements he claimed to have made for his daughter, he cavilled about the proper characterisation of ‘private security’ and could provide no material, including any banking or financial records to show that he had made any such arrangements. He could produce no record of any communications with his daughter, or with his in-laws in whose care she had purportedly been for some six years. All of this material, if it assisted his application, would be expected to be reasonably available. The Tribunal does not consider his explanations for their non-production to be reasonable or plausible.
On the basis of the material and evidence before it, the Tribunal cannot accept [the first applicant]’s claims that he and his wife, or either of them, were targeted by Hindu nationalist activists by reason of his claimed assistance to [Mr A], or for any other reason. The Tribunal does not accept that his house was broken into or damaged by Hindu nationalist activists, or any other person. The Tribunal does not accept that he is a person of any interest to Hindu nationalist activists, or any other group in India for the reasons he claims, or for any other reason. It therefore does not accept that he has a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of his religion, political opinion or membership of a particular social group.
Should have the Tribunal be mistaken in these coming to these findings, it has considered whether it would be reasonably practicable for him to relocate within India, and whether there is a real chance of the persecution to which he claims to have been subjected and to remain at risk relates to all areas of India.
Internal relocation
5.19 There are no legal barriers to internal relocation and India has a long history of internal migration. In practice, relocation is mostly intra-state rather than interstate. This probably reflects the way in which languages and cultures tend to be divided in India along state-lines; people in the same state will speak the same language as the internal migrant. However, in the northern (not north-eastern) states generally all people speak Hindi, giving greater scope for internal migration.
5.21 According to the World Bank, factors that may limit interstate relocation include non-portability of welfare entitlements (some social welfare programs are only available within a state or require an established residence), preferential treatment of former students from local educational institutions, and domicile requirements for state government jobs. A 2014 article from the Migration Policy Institute lists lack of education, access to financial services and the predominance of the agricultural sector as other factors.
5.22 In general, internal relocation is a practical option for most people seeking escape from violence related to marriage choices but this would be limited by the factors discussed above.
The Tribunal does not consider that [the first applicant] could be at any greater risk of harm by reason of [Mr A]’s marriage than the parties to the marriage themselves. In view of the country information, the Tribunal considers that internal relocation is a practical option in respect of any feared violence related to [Mr A]’s marriage choice. According to his protection visa application, in addition to Gujarati, [the first applicant] is proficient in Hindi and, accordingly, he has considerable scope for internal migration within the northern states of India.
As to [the first applicant]’s claim that the activist groups or others could locate him anywhere in India through the AADHAR system, the Tribunal has taken into account the most recent country information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which reports:
Unique Identification Numbers (UID)/Aadhaar
5.33 The Aadhaar, issued as an identity card, contains a 12-digit unique identification number (UID). It is issued to Indian nationals to establish their identity based on demographic and biometric information. It provides a platform for social welfare services, benefits and subsidies. The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) is responsible for the issue of numbers. More than 1.3 billion Aadhaar have been issued to Indian residents since 2010.
5.34 Application for an Aadhaar card is free and the scheme is voluntary but, in practice, enrolment is required for day-to-day activities. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled Aadhaar could not be mandatory for accessing bank accounts, school admission or mobile phone subscriptions. However, denial of services that do not require an Aadhaar number sometimes happens when Aadhaar information is not given. A non-resident Indian can apply for an Aadhaar on arrival, but they are very likely to already have one; the number is valid for life and replacement cards can be ordered online.
5.35 Obtaining an Aadhaar card does not require significant documentation, with multiple options available, making it accessible to undocumented poorer or illiterate citizens. The use of biometric data including face authentication, iris and fingerprint data, is intended to reduce or eliminate duplication of UIDs to the same person. In practice it is often used as an identity card.
5.36 Aadhaar cards were developed to be robust enough to eliminate duplicate and faked identities, and to be verified and authenticated in a cost-effective way, and the cards are usually effective in those respects. There is some potential for abuse: UIDAI reported in May 2018 that it had blacklisted over 50,000 Aadhaar enrolment centre operators for various fraud and corruption violations. Similarly in December 2021, eight people were arrested in Hyderabad for 7,000 fraudulent Aadhaar enrolments and data changes, according to the Times of India.
On the basis of the country information, the Tribunal accepts that there is a hypothetical risk that, should the Hindu nationalist activists make a determined search for him, it may be possible for them to suborn someone with access to the AADHAR system to locate him. However, for the reasons given above, there is no evidence to suggest that any enquiries have been made of his whereabouts or any attempt made to locate him since July 2018 at the latest, if at all. The Tribunal, therefore, does not accept that there is a real chance that [the first applicant] would be sought all located by Hindu nationalist activists, or any other person who may seek to cause him harm, through the AADHAR system or by any other means.
ssCumulative claims
Having considered all of the applicants’ claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence and submissions, as well as having considered the personal circumstances of the applicants, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance that they will suffer persecution as a consequence of their involvement in an interfaith marriage or any other reason if [the first applicant] returns to India now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicants do not have a well-founded fear of persecution for any reason (including race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group) now, or in the reasonably foreseeable future, if they return to India. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds they do not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
Are there substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicants being removed from Australia, there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm?
The Tribunal has considered the applicants’ claims under complementary protection.
Having considered all of the applicants’ claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence and submissions, as well as having considered the personal circumstances of the applicants, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants will be arbitrarily deprived of life, the death penalty will be carried out on them, they will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or they will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment if they return to India now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Conclusion: Refugee Criterion
Considering all of the above circumstances, both individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds there is not a real chance that in the reasonably foreseeable future the applicants will be persecuted for any reason (including race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group). Their fear of persecution is not well-founded as required by s 5J of the Act and therefore they are not refugees within the meaning of s 5H of the Act.
Conclusion: Complementary Protection
Considering the applicants’ individual circumstances both individually and cumulatively, and the country information, the Tribunal finds that there are not substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicants being removed from Australia to India, there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm.
Overall conclusion:
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicants do not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants, or any of them, are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that either of the applicants satisfy 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 applicants do not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.
James Lambie
Senior 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 2173

12 April 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice

Appeal