1919941 (Refugee)

1919941 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 4929 (6 December 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1919941
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Saudi Arabia
MEMBER:Nora Lamont
DATE:6 December 2022
PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 06 December 2022 at 2:23pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Saudi Arabia – fear of harm from authoritarian and influential father – oldest son – father’s control of applicant’s study and attempts to arrange marriage – applicant’s westernised attitudes and mental health – father’s use of embassy to locate applicant – multiple return visits on flights provided as part of scholarship – credible claims and evidence – country information – filial disobedience recognised as a crime – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 22 July 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Saudi Arabia, applied for the visa on 17 May 2018.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 22 November 2022 to give evidence and present arguments.
The applicant was represented in relation to his review and the representative attended the hearing.
The applicant travelled to Australia on a valid Saudi Arabian passport and claims to be a national of Saudi Arabia. The delegate had no concerns about the applicant’s claimed identity or nationality and accepted the applicant was a national of Saudi Arabia. The Tribunal has assessed the applicant’s claims against Saudi Arabia as his country of nationality and his receiving country.
There are no non-disclosure certificates on the applicant’s file.
The delegate refused the applicant’s visa as they did not accept there was sufficient evidence to indicate that the applicant’s father would pursue the applicant, nor that his father was as powerful as claimed.
Criteria for a protection visa
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (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.
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 applicant’s migration history is as follows: [1]
[1] [Department file number]

[date]/10/2009 Arrival in Australia as the holder of a Student (TU-573) visa

17/12/2009 Student (TU-570) visa granted until 17/03/2010

17/03/2010 Student (TU-573) visa granted until 15/03/2016

23/03/2016 Student (TU-573) visa granted until 30/08/2016

17/11/2016 Graduate work (VC-485) visa granted until 17/05/2018

The applicant’s written claims as detailed on the Department file are as follows:[2]
[2] [Department file number]
·The applicant has had a difficult and abusive relationship with his father in Saudi Arabia since childhood.
·His family have made previous attempts to arrange for the applicant to marry unknown women, including his cousins.
·The applicant fears physical and mental abuse from his father, who is influential in Saudi Arabia.
·His father works for the government in [a specified] section and is well-connected.
·The applicant would be unable to relocate within Saudi Arabia to avoid harm from his father because his father would use his connections to locate him.
·His father has threatened the applicant, stating he would locate him anywhere in Saudi Arabia or the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member states. He has threatened to have the applicant evicted from any rental property or job he may find in another part of the country or in the GCC.
·The applicant has not returned to Saudi Arabia since 2014. The last contact he had with his father was in 2016 where he confronted his father about the abuse and their difficult relationship. His father advised that this is their culture and that the applicant was the problem.
·In 2017 the applicant received an email from the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Canberra, asking him to contact them.
·The applicant contacted the Embassy and was advised that his father had reported the applicant missing in Australia and asked the authorities to locate him and return him back to Saudi Arabia.
·The applicant fears returning to Saudi Arabia because he will suffer mental and physical abuse, or possibly be killed, by his father for defying him and not conforming to forced marriage requests or requests to return back to Saudi Arabia.
·The authorities cannot protect the applicant because of his father’s position with the government.
·The applicant is also highly westernised and would be harmed for defying cultural norms and the sectarian rule.
·He is seeking mental health assistance in Australia to assist him in managing trauma from past abuse.
Background
The applicant is a [age]-year-old male born and raised in Riyadh Saudi Arabia. He is the eldest male child of [number] siblings. He is working in [industry] and lives in Brisbane. He first arrived in Australia in 2009 on a student visa. The applicant returned to Saudi Arabia in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. [3]
[3] AAT Folio
The applicant provided a statutory declaration and a submission from his representative in relation to the review. He also provided statutory declarations from [Ms A], [Ms B], [Mr C], and [Mr D]. Included in the Tribunal documents is a letter from the Saudi Consulate in relation to his passport renewal. Before the Tribunal is also the Departmental file.
The issues in this review are whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for one or more of the five reasons set out in s.5J(1) and if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to his receiving country of Saudi Arabia, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be remitted for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
In summary the applicant claims fear of persecution in the form of an honour killing should he return to Saudi Arabia as his father is an official in the government and he has disobeyed his father’s wishes, and he has not spoken to his family since 2016.
Tribunal Hearing
At the Tribunal hearing the applicant said he was the eldest child of [number] and he has [number] sisters and one younger brother. He said his father works for the government in [department] and part of his father’s plan was to get him married and force him to come back to Saudi speaking English then marrying. His father wanted him to become [an Occupation 1], so he came to Australia to study [Discipline 1]. He said his father controlled what he studied, and he did not have a choice and that because the Saudi government was paying his father had complete control over it.
The applicant said his father beat him at least two times a week and that as the oldest male he was expected to carry on the blood line. He was expected to come back to Saudi Arabi and be married to a person of his father’s choice. He said when he was growing up his father controlled every aspect of his life. He was not allowed to do anything even in the house. He was expected to run the family, take control of his sisters and live in the same house, he was not to have any control over his own life including what type of car he drove.
He said his mother did try to stop the abuse but that his father beat his mother. She was in fear, and she also feared that he would bring shame upon the family. The applicant said that he was from a tribe that is related to the King. One of the Kings wives is related to his family. Growing up they were considered to be an affluent family. He has relatives scattered throughout the world including in Kuwait and Qatar. The applicant spoke of his uncle who also exuded control over him. He was even worse than his father and he would encourage abuse.
I asked him why he took this for so long and why he went back to Saudi Arabia so many times. He said he was on a government scholarship, and they arranged his flights and when he was to return to Saudi Arabia. He said he didn’t know what to do and he was trying to seek help. He tried to reason with his father in 2014 and his father told him if you don’t come back, he will kill him. He found out that there was a protection visa and he started calling agents about his situation.
In 2016 he had his final conversation with his father. He said he wanted to decide how to live his life. He couldn’t tell him he wasn’t coming back. He couldn’t even tell the cultural mission. He told the applicant he had a few cousins he could marry, and he questioned his loyalty.
The applicant has been seeing a psychologist to assist him with the trauma he has felt from the relationship with his father.
Findings
The applicant gave a credible account of his claims throughout the hearing. I have no doubt that the applicant suffered at the hands of his controlling father. For the following reasons I accept the applicants claims as follows:
The applicant claims his father is a government official and that he works in [department]. From the written and oral evidence given by the applicant and the consistent account of his claims, I accept that his father has a position which has influence and stature within Saudi society.
I accept based on the country information that the applicant comes from a patriarchal society and as the eldest he is expected to carry on the family name and not bring shame to the family in any way.
I accept that based on country information the Tribunal was able to gather that honour killings occur within families and males can be the victim of an honour killing based on bringing shame to the family. I accept that the applicant has gone against his fathers wishes and brought shame to the family.
I accept that Saudi society allows for honour killings and that his father could rightfully kill him most likely without consequence. His father has told him he would kill him. The embassy has been called by his father in an attempt to locate him.
Country Information
The Tribunal finds that the applicant is a member of a particular social group men who dishonour the family. Whilst most information surrounding honour killings is centred around women and they are without a doubt the most effected by honour killings it also can happen and does happen to men. When looking at honour in the Saudi Arabia cultural context it is deeply intertwined in their lives:
The notion of honour (sharaf) is a central concept that guides behaviour and significantly influences interactions in Saudi culture. It is deeply intertwined with ideas about one’s personal dignity (karama). Preservation of honour and community opinion is often at the forefront of Saudi’s minds. There is often a strong cultural pressure on individuals to protect their reputation. Therefore, conservative conduct is the norm; people tend to avoid drawing attention to themselves or risk doing something perceived to be dishonourable (such as diverging from the social expectations). Saudis often seek maintain dignity through compromise, patience and self-control. One may find that criticism is rarely given directly and praise is expected to be generously offered. For example, people may gloss over things or downplay their flaws to make them seem more positive.
A person’s behaviour or honour is generally considered to reflect their family/upbringing. Thus, Saudis can be wary of the fact that they need to give a public impression of dignity and integrity to protect the honour of their household. If a person is perceived to be dishonourable, their whole family shares the shame. Public disgrace can have serious consequences, affecting people’s social lives and future opportunities. In some cases, a family may feel obliged to shun the member of the household that brought shame upon them in order to clear their family name. [4]
[4] Saudi Arabian Culture - Core Concepts — Cultural Atlas (sbs.com.au)
The US State Department reports serious and endemic human rights abuses within Saudi Arabia which includes collective punishment for family members for offenses allegedly committed by an individual, and harassment and intimidation against Saudi dissidents abroad:
Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: executions for nonviolent offenses; forced disappearances; torture and cases of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of prisoners and detainees by government agents; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention; political prisoners or detainees; harassment and intimidation against Saudi dissidents living abroad; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; collective punishment of family members for offenses allegedly committed by an individual; serious abuses in a conflict, including civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure as a result of airstrikes in Yemen; serious restrictions on free expression and media, including unjustified arrests or prosecutions against journalists and others, and censorship; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organization, funding, or operation of nongovernmental organizations and civil society organizations; severe restrictions of religious freedom; restrictions on freedom of movement; inability of citizens to choose their government peacefully through free and fair elections; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; serious government restrictions on domestic and international human rights organizations; lack of investigation of and accountability for gender-based violence, including but not limited to domestic and intimate partner violence; criminalization of consensual same-sex sexual activity; and restrictions on workers’ freedom of association, the role of trade unions, and labor committees. [5]
[5] Saudi Arabia - United States Department of State reports/2021-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/saudi-arabia
The Tribunal has considered that whilst most honour killings are gender specific to females there is a case to be made for men who dishonour their families. As Caitlin Steinke states:
The purpose of asylum will be better served if the courts hearing honor killing asylum claims disregard the fact that the applicant is a member of the minority of honor killing victims and instead analyze whether the applicant has proven that he faces death because of the dishonor that his actions are believed to have brought upon another individual or family. [6]
[6] Male Asylum Applicants Who Fear Becoming the Victims of Honor Killings: The Case for Gender Equality Caitlin Steinke Hostra University 2013
Saudi law recognises filial disobedience as a crime.[7] Much country information about Saudi Arabia is withheld or not easily accessed given their secrecy and internet control.
[7] Saudi Arabia: Where Fathers Rule and Courts Oblige | Human Rights Watch (hrw.org)
I have considered the issue of whether the applicant can relocate within Saudi Arabia, and I have considered that he cannot as he was on a Saudi sponsored scholarship in Australia, if he is to return even to live elsewhere outside of his home area he will be most likely detained upon arrival and if not, his family notified of his movements. The embassy already has a query from his family on this matter. I find he cannot relocate anywhere in Saudi Arabia to escape the fear he feels in his home area.
As for state protection given the lack of human rights and the culture of shame in Saudi Arabia, I consider the applicant would not be afforded state protection.
For these reasons, I find that the applicant faces a well-founded fear of persecution on return to Saudi Arabia for his membership of a particular social group men who dishonour the family. For the reasons given above, I am satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution in accordance with s.5J of the Act. In accordance with s.5H(1)(a) of the Act. I am satisfied that the applicant is outside his country of nationality and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.

I find that for purposes of s.36(2)(a) of the Act, the applicant is a refugee.
As I have found the applicant to be a refugee it is not necessary for me to consider the other criterion in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
For these reasons I am satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).
decision
The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
Nora Lamont
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.
…

[2022] AATA 4929

6 December 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Remedies

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

[date]/10/2009	Arrival in Australia as the holder of a Student (TU-573) visa
17/12/2009	Student (TU-570) visa granted until 17/03/2010
17/03/2010	Student (TU-573) visa granted until 15/03/2016
23/03/2016	Student (TU-573) visa granted until 30/08/2016
17/11/2016	Graduate work (VC-485) visa granted until 17/05/2018