1910193 (Refugee)

1910193 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 2503 (5 June 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW: Application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection XA subclass 866 Visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’)
APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE:Mr Girish Rawat MARN: 1681583
CASE NUMBER: 1910193

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: India
MEMBER:Kate Chapple
DATE:5 June 2024
PLACE OF DECISION: Brisbane
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 05 June 2024 at 2:32pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – India – particular social group – victim of money lenders – physical assault – fear of killing – delay in applying for protection – state protection – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5AAA, 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 425, 426, 430, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
Protection visa application

Protection visa application lodged 25 October 2017 setting out the following claims (spelling and grammatical errors not corrected):
1.1.[reason applicant left India] I left my country earlier for getting a student visa to Australia.
1.2.[harm experienced by applicant in India] I have experienced harm in that country as the persons have tried killing me because of my family disputes with money lenders. As my father had taken huge amount of loan for his business and for our upbringing but he had lost everything in the business. Then money lenders started coming to our house to abuse us, beat us and threat us to kill whole family if we don't pay their money back. My father managed to send me here for studies and saved my life from the money lenders and goons as they have already nearly killed by brother but fortunately he was saved by some local people. Since, then he has moved to underground location some where in India to save his life but they found him there as well. Since, I moved to Australia, I have never gone back to India as instructed by my father and brother. That if I go back to India these people can kill me or give me grievous body harm.
1.3.[help sought by applicant in India] No. As brother had tried to locate to other part of the country but the goons had found him. So, I don’t want to put my life under risk.
1.4.[relocation by applicant to another part of India] No. As brother had tried to locate to other part of the country but the goons had found him. So, I don’t want to put my life under risk.
1.5.[what applicant thinks will happen to him if he returns to India] If I go back to India these people can kill me or give me grievous bodily harm.
1.6.[reason applicant thinks he’ll be harmed or mistreated if he returns to India] They have already nearly killed by brother but fortunately he was saved by some local people. Since, then he has moved to underground location some where in India to save his life but they found him there as well. Since, I moved to Australia, I have never gone back to India as instructed by my father and brother. That if I go back to India these people can kill me or give me grievous body harm.
1.7.[reason applicant thinks Indian authorities won’t protect him] Because these people are very rich people and they politically strong, in fact some of them work for politicians. So, I don’t see any help from them.
1.8.[reason applicant can’t relocate within India] As brother had tried to locate to the other part of the country but the goons had found him. So, I don’t want to put my life under risk.
Applicant’s application for bridging visa C dated 8 November 2017.
Applicant’s [Bank] mastercard statements October-November 2017.
Applicant’s [mobile] statement November 2017.
Applicant’s Australian Taxation Office notice of assessment for year ended 30 June 2017.
Letter from [Doctor A] to [Doctor B] of [Surgery 1] dated 31 October 2017 and enclosed Mental Health Plan of the same date relating to the applicant.
General tenancy agreement naming the applicant as tenant with two others of a residential property at [Town 1], Queensland for the term 2 November 2017 to 17 January 2018.
Decision record dated 29 March 2019 relating to the delegate’s refusal decision.
Departmental case file relating to the applicant.
Application for review
Application for review lodged 24 April 2019.
Decision record dated 29 March 2019 relating to the delegate’s refusal decision.
The Tribunal wrote to the applicant’s representative inviting the applicant to attend a hearing on 27 May 2024 and to provide pre-hearing submissions.
Prior to the hearing, the applicant’s representative provided to the Tribunal confirmation that the applicant intended to participate in the hearing and that the representative would not be attending. No submissions or documents were provided to the Tribunal.
On the morning of the hearing, sometime after the scheduled start time, the representative called the Tribunal to advise that the applicant couldn’t attend the hearing due to a medical emergency. Around the same time, the applicant emailed the Tribunal advising that he couldn’t attend the hearing due to a medical illness, attaching a medical certificate certifying that the applicant was unfit to attend the hearing due to his illness on 27 May 2024, and requesting that the hearing be rescheduled.
The Tribunal agreed to reschedule the hearing and on 27 May 2024 issued a new hearing invitation to the applicant via his representative for a hearing at 9.30am (Brisbane time) on 5 June 2024. The Tribunal received no response to the new hearing invitation from either the applicant or representative. The Tribunal sent two hearing reminders via SMS message to the applicant’s mobile telephone number five working days and one working day before the rescheduled hearing.
The applicant did not appear before the Tribunal on the date and at the time of the rescheduled hearing.
Section 426A(1A)(a) of the Act provides that where an applicant is invited under s 425 to appear before the Tribunal, but does not appear before the Tribunal on the day on which, or at the time and place at which, the applicant is scheduled to appear, the Tribunal may by written statement under s 430 make a decision on the review without taking any further action to allow or enable the applicant to appear before it.
This decision record is the Tribunal’s written statement under s 430 of its decision on the review, having taken no further action to allow or enable the applicant to appear before it.
Country information
The DFAT Country Information Report India (29 September 2023) provides that:
Loan Sharks/moneylenders
19.1.[3.171] Loan sharks operate in India and various media reports in recent years have highlighted the issue. Moneylenders operate outside of the formal credit system, especially in rural areas. Sources told DFAT that moneylenders may lend against an expected harvest; if the harvest fails then the borrower may be unable to pay back the loan. Health care costs are also a common reason to borrow money. As in many countries with high outward migration, borrowing money to migrate, including to attempt an asylum claim, is also a possible cause.
19.2.[3.172] Microfinance and other forms of technology-driven reputable lending are available to the poor in ways that were not possible in the past. WhatsApp, the most popular messaging application for mobile phones in India, has been testing its payment application in India. This has allowed easy access to funds and banking services for a large unbanked sector of the economy (mobile phones are more popular than banks). ‘Paytm’ is another popular mobile phone-based payment system that allows safe payments on digital platforms.
19.3.[3.173] The corollary of better access to payment technology is that, in recent years, usurious lending practices have moved to the online space with many different mobile phone applications enabling loans becoming more popular with Indians. The difference between reputable and non-reputable providers is often not obvious, especially to the illiterate or less educated.
19.4.[3.174] While some technological options for lending are predatory, the risk of violence is low. According to an article in Bloomberg in January 2022, there are many complaints about digital money lending, including after lenders have attempted to collect debts at work, jeopardising victims’ employment. The Bloomberg article mentions ‘heavy handed’ collection tactics and stress upon victims that can lead to suicide. Another article in Inc42, a publication linked by the Bloomberg article, mentions that families and employers may be contacted by debt collectors. Again, this article does not mention violence but does mention suicide.
19.5.[3.175] Sources consulted by DFAT agreed that violence against debtors who do not repay money is possible, but they emphasised that suicide that results from sustained harassment from lenders is more common than is direct violence. Such suicides in rural areas often occur through hanging or drinking pesticides. Debt may then be passed on to family members who subsequently make an asylum attempt.
19.6.[3.176] Loan sharking is illegal. The Usurious Loans Act 1918 bans ‘excessive’ interest rates, which are not defined. Courts may look at different features of a loan (the principal, other charges, periods at which interest is calculated and other factors) to determine if the rate is excessive. According to the Bloomberg article and others, new fintech lending services are poorly regulated. Access to legal relief from courts has its own challenges, outlined in the section on judiciary.
19.7.[3.177] The experience for those who are unable to service debts to loan sharks, and their family members, varies. Violence cannot be ruled out but is unlikely. Harassment, which can include threats of violence, is more likely. People borrowing money through informal moneylenders may also face societal discrimination, due to familial shame, should they default. DFAT assesses that debtors face a low risk of societal violence. DFAT is not aware of a pattern of societal or official discrimination against debtors.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The Tribunal notes that s 5AAA(2) of the Act provides that it is the applicant’s responsibility to specify all particulars of his protection claim and to provide sufficient evidence to establish the claim.
In considering the applicant’s claims and evidence, the Tribunal has taken account of the Department of Home Affairs ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’.
The Tribunal has made an assessment of the credibility of the applicant’s claims and evidence having regard to the Migration and Refugee Division Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility.
The Tribunal notes the delegate’s decision record sets out the applicant’s migration history as follows:
3 September 2013  Student (subclass 573) visa granted
[Later in] September 2013  Arrived onshore
17 June 2014  Student (subclass 572) visa application lodged
20 September 2014  Student (subclass 572) visa application refused
27 August 2017  Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme (subclass 187) Nomination refused
19 September 2017  Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme (subclass 187) Nomination withdrawn
27 November 2017  Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme (subclass 187) Nomination withdrawn
25 October 2017  Protection (subclass 866) visa application lodged.
The Tribunal notes the applicant participated in an interview with the delegate on 28 March 2019. The following is the Tribunal’s summary of the delegate’s record of the applicant’s evidence:
24.1.The applicant’s father borrowed money in 2012 from the bank and local moneylenders to expand his [business].
24.2.When the business failed, the father couldn’t make the loan repayments and the moneylenders assaulted the applicant, the father and other family members, and threatened to kill them.
24.3.The applicant’s brother also borrowed money from moneylenders in the applicant’s name ostensibly to fund the applicant’s education in Australia. The father sent the applicant to Australia to study.
24.4.The moneylenders will seriously injure or kill the applicant if he returns to India.
24.5.The applicant’s parents remain living in their village in Punjab, and his sisters help the father work as the middleman between farmers and retailers. The father makes interest repayments from his income, and when he can’t he borrows from family and neighbours.
24.6.One day someone came to the parents’ home with a pistol, but the father wasn’t home. The family complained to police, and the police regularly visit the parents’ home. The police take bribes and on one occasion arrested the father.
24.7.When the police or moneylenders come to the parents’ home, the applicant’s mother tells them the father isn’t home. Sometimes the father has to live with relatives for a week at a time.
24.8.The applicant’s father suffers from depression and diabetes, and has threatened the moneylenders with suicide and naming them in a suicide note.
24.9.The moneylenders decided to ignore the father and concentrate on the applicant and other son to recover the debt.
24.10.The moneylenders would find the applicant in India because people know each other in India and weddings have up to 7000 guests.
The Tribunal notes the delegate found the applicant’s evidence in relation to his family’s debts to be farfetched, and his claims lacking credibility due to the lack of meaningful information and substantive evidence.
The Tribunal notes that notwithstanding the delegate’s findings, the applicant has not in making his application for review submitted to the Tribunal any documentary or witness evidence in support or corroboration of his claims, and his representative has not made any written submissions on his behalf.
The Tribunal notes that notwithstanding the delegate’s findings, the applicant has elected not to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments in relation to the decision under review.
The Tribunal considers there is no credible evidence before it of debts incurred by the applicant’s father and brother to moneylenders in India.
The Tribunal considers there is no credible evidence before it of the applicant and other family members having experienced serious harm and death threats by moneylenders in India.
The Tribunal considers there is no credible evidence before it of the applicant being the target of serious harm and death threats by moneylenders in India should he return there.
The Tribunal considers that if the applicant genuinely feared serious harm and death threats by moneylenders in India, it is reasonable to expect that he would not have delayed his application for a protection visa by four years following his arrival in Australia.
The Tribunal notes the country information, however given the considerations in the preceding paragraphs, it is not necessary to consider its relevance and applicability to the decision under review.
The Tribunal considers that, based on the available evidence, it is likely the applicant sought various means of coming to and remaining in Australia through the visa system, and when his visa options had been exhausted he applied for a protection visa as a last resort.
The Tribunal considers there is no credible evidence before it to substantiate a finding that the applicant engages Australia’s refugee or complementary protection obligations.
Application of law
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the refugee criterion, and if not, whether he is entitled to complementary protection. Attachment A sets out the applicable law.
The Tribunal finds that:
36.1.The applicant is a citizen of India and a non-citizen in Australia.
36.2.The applicant’s claims do not satisfy the refugee or complementary protection criteria set out in the applicable law.
36.3.If the applicant is returned to India, there is no real chance that he would be persecuted, and accordingly the applicant does not have a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ as required by s 5H(1)(a) of the Act and as defined in s 5J(1) of the Act.
36.4.There do not exist substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to India there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm.
CONCLUSIONS
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that suggests that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(b) or (c) of the Act on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2)(b) or (c) of the Act.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Kate Chapple
Member

ATTACHMENT A
Summary of applicable law
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) 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.
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).
Relevant extracts 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 2503

5 June 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness