1925478 (Refugee)

1925478 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 3501 (23 August 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1925478
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Afghanistan
MEMBER:Nora Lamont
DATE:23 August 2021
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
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 23 August 2021 at 10:15am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Afghanistan – Federal Court remittal – ethnicity, religion and imputed political opinion – Hazara Shia, imputed anti-Taliban – general persecution, threats and attacks, and restriction of religious practice – applicant present at major bomb attack – all family members refugees in third country – Australian permanent resident wife and citizen child – spontaneous, detailed and consistent evidence – country information – withdrawal of international troops, fall of government and takeover by Taliban – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36(2)(a), 65, 91R
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 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 Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Afghanistan applied for the visa on 17 September 2012 and the delegate refused to grant the visa on 29 October 2012.
The Delegate accepted that the applicant is an ethnic Hazara, Shia Muslim born in [District 1] of Parwan province in Afghanistan. The Delegate also accepted that the applicant left his home district at an early age due to the unsafe security situation there, and resided in Kabul until he left Afghanistan in 2012, excepting his residence in [Country 1] from 2006 until 2010 and one month spent in [Country 2] in 2011. The delegate also accepted that the applicant was present at the Ashura Day celebrations in Kabul in December 2011 and that while he suffered no physical injuries, he witnesses civilian casualties and deaths.
However, the delegate found:
·That the applicant would not be of any adverse interest to the Taliban in Kabul, and therefore found that there is no real substantial basis to conclude that he would be targeted and seriously harmed by the Taliban and/or their supporters in Kabul
·Given the large size of the Hazara Shi’a population in Kabul, the applicant would be able to freely practice his religion and there is no real substantial basis to conclude that the applicant would face sectarian or associated racially motivated violence in Kabul, and that the risk of any harm on this basis is remote.
On 5 September 2013 the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate.
On 23 January 2015 the Federal Circuit Court remitted the Tribunals decision. The court found that:
·It was an essential integer of the Applicant’s claim that the withdrawal of international troops in 2014 would have an adverse impact on the security of Hazara Shi’a in Afghanistan. This required the Tribunal to form an opinion and make findings on what was likely to occur should the Applicant return to Afghanistan not only now, but also after the withdrawal of international troops in 2014. This involved not only setting out the differing views on what was the likely effect of the withdrawal, which the Tribunal clearly did, but also some articulation of which views the Tribunal found persuasive and why. In my view, the Tribunal needed to go further than considering the current situation as a basis for this analysis.
·While the Tribunal reaches conclusions about the likelihood of the Applicant suffering harm should he return to Kabul now ‘or in the reasonably foreseeable future’, I am unable to discern where in the decision the Tribunal sets out its findings with respect to the competing views put by the different commentators on the security situation in Kabul when the international forces are withdrawn in 2014. Nor am I able to discern where the Tribunal addresses why it prefers the views of any particular commentator over the views of others. Having acknowledged that the impact of the withdrawal of foreign troops was an integer of the Applicant’s claim and that any assessment of what may occur in the reasonably foreseeable future must take into account the security situation and “be informed by consideration of the forthcoming 2014 “draw-down” of international forces the Tribunal was required to make findings on that issue and provide reasons which would enable the Applicant and this Court to clearly identify what reasons it had for reaching its decision. I am satisfied that it has failed to do this.
·The Court cannot be satisfied that the Tribunal undertook its statutory task of determining, based on findings of fact, that the Applicant had, or did not have, a well-founded fear of being persecuted for a Convention reason should he return to his country Afghanistan,
or more particularly to the area of Kabul, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The Tribunal differently constituted on 10 November 2014 affirmed the decision after it had been remitted by the court. The applicant appealed to the Federal Circuit Court, but the application was dismissed and on 28 August 2019 the Federal Court remitted the application by consent.
‘The First Respondent concedes that the decision of the Second Respondent is affected by jurisdictional error in the manner identified by Justice Charlesworth in BCX16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 465, in that the Second Respondent misconstrued section 36(2B)(c) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by expressly comparing the Appellant’s risk of facing generalised violence to the risk of people in Kabul facing generalised violence, and did not compare the Appellant’s risk of facing generalised violence to the risk of people in Afghanistan facing generalised violence.’
On 7 July 2021 the current Tribunal was allocated the applicant’s case. On 2 August the applicant was notified that the Tribunal would make a favourable decision on the papers after receiving submissions and in light of the ongoing situation in Afghanistan and given the applicant is Hazara-Muslim Shia and at heightened risk should he be returned to Afghanistan.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (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, the applicant 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 under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).
Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
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’).
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.
Claims
The applicant claims to be an Hazara male born in [District 1], Parwan Province, Afghanistan and is [Age] years old. He claims that he travelled to [Country 1] and [Country 2], and transited through [Country 3], [Country 4] and [Country 5], before arriving in Australia. He identifies as being a Shia Muslim. He claims to speak, read and write in Hazaragi and Dari languages.
The applicant is now married to an Australian permanent resident who arrived in Australia on a [Specified visa] and he has one child, (one baby died) and his wife is due to give birth to another child.
His family consists of his father, mother, [brothers] and [sisters] who currently reside in [Country 1]. He lists his previous employment as in [Work sector] in Kabul and [Country 1], as well as assisting at the family shop in Afghanistan. He completed up to grade [Number] in [school] studies in Afghanistan.
In 2006 the applicant travelled to [Country 1] where he stayed and worked as [an Occupation 1] until 2010. He then travelled to [Country 2] before returning to Kabul in 2011.
Having regard to copies of the applicant’s passport and Taskera the Tribunal; accepts the applicant is a national of Afghanistan and Afghanistan is the country of reference for the assessment of the applicant’s claims under s.36(2)(a) of the Act.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have the right to enter and reside in any country other than Afghanistan.
The applicant submitted a Statutory Declaration on 17 September 2012 as follows:
Introduction – Citizenship
·I am a citizen of Afghanistan. I do not have rights to enter or reside in any country other than Afghanistan, either permanently or on a temporary basis. I do not hold, nor am I entitled to hold, citizenship of any country other than Afghanistan.
The country to which I fear returning.
·I fear returning to Afghanistan.
Why I left that country.
·I fled Afghanistan because I feared for my life.
·I am a Hazara and as Shi’a Muslim.
·My family are from [District 1] of the Parwan Province of Afghanistan. I was born in [Village].
·When I was young, my family relocated from [Village] to Darsht-e-Barchi in Kabul.
·My parents have since explained to me that we fled our village because it was not safe for Hazaras at that time. Our village was a small Hazara village surrounded by Pashtun communities. My parents have told me that all of the Hazaras from our area fled around the same time. There are no longer any Hazaras living in that village.
·[District 1] is still dominated by Pashtuns. Because of this, it is still unsafe for us to return to our village.
·In 2006, I fled Afghanistan for [Country 1]. I fled Afghanistan because at that time, the security situation in Afghanistan was very poor, including in Kabul. At that time, Hazaras living in Kabul were being targeted and killed by extremist Pashtuns, including members of the Taliban.
·I went to [Country 1], where I remained unlawfully until I was deported to Afghanistan in 2010.
·resettled with my family in Darsht-e-Barchi. By this time, the situation for Hazaras living in Kabul was even worse that it was before I left. While it used to be only extremist Pashtuns who targeted Hazaras in Kabul, now other ethnic groups are becoming involved in the persecution.
·Earlier this week, I spoke to my father. He told me that seven Hazaras were killed when Tajiks opened fire on a group of Hazaras in an ethnically motivated attack.
·In December 2011, I attended Ashura Day celebrations in Murad Khane, near the Abu Fazal Mosque. Just after the call to prayer, a bomb exploded. When I heard the explosion, I immediately threw myself down on the floor.
·When I looked up, I saw the carnage the bomb had caused. I saw many worshippers who have been killed and injured in the blast. I also saw many limbs which had been amputated in the attack.
·After this event, I became very afraid for my life. I was nervous walking in large crowds of Hazara people, because I feared that we would become the target of another attack.
·Although my experience of the Ashura Day attack was the main experience which prompted me to flee Afghanistan, it is not the only reason I am afraid to return to Afghanistan. The Ashura Day attack was not an isolated event but was replicated in Mazar-e-Sharif and Kandahar on the same day.
·Hazaras have been persecuted in Afghanistan for many, many years, and the attacks on Hazaras that are occurring today are a continuation of this violence. These attacks, including the Ashura Day attack, are not isolated incidents, but are part of a broader campaign of violence against the Shi’a Hazara population of Afghanistan that has been ongoing for many years.
·Hazaras are denied freedom of movement in Afghanistan. This is because the Taliban control many of the roads in Afghanistan, including the roads into and out of the Hazarajat, where most of Afghanistan’s Hazara population lives.
·If a Hazara travels on the roads, they risk being stopped by the Taliban, who control the roads and man checkpoints on many major roads. When a Hazara is stopped, they are immediately recognisable as a Hazara because of their facial features, language and accent. When the Taliban determine that they have stopped a Hazara, they kill them.
·Approximately one week ago, a group of Hazaras were travelling between Jaghori and Bamiyan. They were stopped by the Taliban and forced from their vehicle. The Taliban beheaded them on the spot. I know that this was an ethnically and religiously motivated attack, because it is just one of many such targeted attacks by the Taliban against Shi’a Hazaras travelling in Afghanistan.
·Because of the dangers associated with travelling on the roads in Afghanistan, I have never been able to visit my brothers, who live in Herat. The journey from Kabul to Herat is particularly dangerous because it necessitates travel through Kandahar, where the Taliban are very powerful and in effective control of the roads.
·As a Shi’a Muslim, I am not able to practice my religion freely in Afghanistan. I cannot attend the Shi’a mosque, attend Friday prayers, attend religious ceremonies such as Ashura Day, pray openly in the Shi’a way, attend Shi’a rallies or visit Shi’a cemeteries. This is because these events and locations are specifically targeted by Sunni-extremist groups for attack. It is too dangerous for Shi’a Muslims to gather in large groups in these places. Knowing this, and in light of my experience of the Ashura Day bombing, I was unable to freely practice my Shi’a Muslim faith in Afghanistan.
·Religiously and ethnically motivated violence against Shi’a Hazaras has existed in Afghanistan for many years. Sunni extremists, including the Taliban, are brainwashing the younger generation to believe, as they do, that Shi’a Muslims are infidels, and that Hazaras must be killed.
·Because of these factors, it is clear that the religiously and ethnically motivated persecution against Shi’a Hazaras in Afghanistan will not abate in the foreseeable future. It was this realisation – that for the time being, it will never be safe for Hazaras to live anywhere in Afghanistan – that prompted me to flee Afghanistan.
What I fear my happen to me in my country.
·    fear I will be killed in Afghanistan.
Who I think may harm/mistreat me in my country.
·    I fear I will be harmed by the Taliban and/or other anti-Hazara and anti-Shia extremist groups in Afghanistan.
Why will I be harmed.
·    I will be harmed because of my Hazara ethnicity and my Shi’a Muslim faith.
·    My Hazara ethnicity is evident to anyone who meets me in Afghanistan. It is clear in my facial features, language and accent.
·    Because Hazaras are a large Shi’a community in Afghanistan, the fact I am a Hazara clearly indicates to other Afghans, including the Taliban and members other extremist anti-Shi’a groups, that I am Shi’a Muslim.
Do I think the authorities of my country can and will protect me if I were to go back.
·The authorities of Afghanistan are unable and/or unwilling to protect me from the harm I fear.
·The Afghan authorities, including the Afghan police and National Army, are powerless to protect even themselves from harm at the hands of the Taliban. There are regular Taliban attacks on Afghan police and soldiers, even within areas where the Afghan authorities ostensibly exercise control, such as Kabul. The fact that the Afghan authorities are unable to protect even themselves in areas where they are in effective control clearly indicates that there is no way they would be able to protect a civilian like me from harm.
·The Afghan authorities are also powerless to protect even high-profile members of the Afghan community. For example, President Karzai’s brother and Burhanuddin Rabbani were both recently killed. There have also been attacks on the Indian Embassy in Kabul. Those high-profile people are afforded far greater levels of state protection that ordinary citizens of Afghanistan. The fact that the Afghan authorities are unable to protect even these high-profile citizens from harm clearly indicates that they would not be able to protect an ordinary civilian like me from ethnically or religiously motivated violence in Afghanistan.
Do I think there is a place in that country where I could be safe.
·There is nowhere in Afghanistan where I would be safe from harm.
·Because Hazaras are persecuted throughout Afghanistan, and because there is nowhere in Afghanistan where my Hazara ethnicity would not be so obvious because of my facial features and language, there is nowhere in Afghanistan I would be safe from harm.
·I have family, tribal and community support networks in Kabul. My brothers are residing in Herat, but I do not know anyone else living there. I have no surviving tribal or community support networks in my home province of Parwan.
·If I were returned to Afghanistan, I would not be able to leave Kabul because in order to do so, I would need to travel through Taliban controlled roads, which would put me at risk of being killed.
·Even if I were able to get to a new location in Afghanistan, I would be unable to establish myself there. This is because each area of Afghanistan has its own local customs. If I do not know the local customs, and do not have contacts who are able to introduce me to and integrate me with the local community, I would struggle to find employment and accommodation. This would directly impact on my ability to subsist. In these circumstances, it would be unreasonable for me to try to relocate to another part of Afghanistan.
Other reasons I cannot return to my home country - Complementary protection
·I fear I will be arbitrarily deprived of my life by the Taliban and/or other extremist anti-Hazara and anti-Shi’a groups in Afghanistan.

The Tribunal received an updated Statutory Declaration dated 15 July 2021 in which the applicant outlined the following information:
·The applicant is now married with a small child and another one on the way. His wife is an Australian permanent resident and as such the child is an Australian citizen.
·The applicant was born in [Village] village in Parwan province. All of his relatives fled the village and he has no remaining relatives in Afghanistan.
·His family has all left Afghanistan and now reside as refugees in [Country 1]. His maternal and paternal Uncles and their families have all now fled Afghanistan and he has no relatives left in the country.
·The applicant has suffered mental health issues as one of his children died in utero and due to the trauma from his past life in Afghanistan and the lengthy visa process.
·The applicant has limited education and has been doing [Occupation] as a job in Australia. The applicant has not been able to work during the pandemic and is not eligible for government support. His wife lost a child last year and has another child to care for so she cannot work.
·The applicant recounted his original claims for protection.
·The applicant wrote about his passage to Australia and his life in Australia. He worries about his family in [Country 1].
·The applicant still fears for his life should he be removed to Afghanistan and his wife and child are Australian and cannot be removed to Afghanistan. His wife was supposed to marry her cousin and married him instead and now she fears her Uncle in Afghanistan. There has been a family dispute and he has been threatened with death by her Uncle.
·The applicant has not been able to access mental health services as he does not have Medicare and he has anxiety and trauma.
Tribunal findings
The Tribunal has found that the applicant’s evidence since he arrived in 2012 to be detailed and spontaneous. He has not embellished his claims and has been consistent throughout the lengthy process he has been through. The Tribunal accepts the applicants claims --both his original written claims and the claims made in his latest statutory declaration.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was attending Ashura celebrations in 2011 when a bomb went off and that he witnessed atrocities and feared for his life after this event, which targeted Shias and Hazaras.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s family fled their home area and lived in Kabul but have now fled Afghanistan and live in [Country 1].
The Tribunal accepts the applicant is married to an Australian permanent resident and has an Australian citizen child with another on the way. The Tribunal accepts that his life is difficult given he has past trauma and he cannot receive government assistance due to his visa status.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant faces generalised violence not only in Kabul but throughout Afghanistan given the current situation in Afghanistan.
Hazara Muslim Shia
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is Hazara and Muslim Shia. The applicant looks Hazara and speaks Hazaragi. It further accepts that the applicant cannot live his life freely or practice his religion as a Shia in Afghanistan. The Tribunal accepts the applicants claims of not being able to travel anywhere in Afghanistan and that he will be targeted as a Hazara. The Tribunal notes the applicant looks like a Hazara therefore making him a target and noted that he continues to practice his religion as a Shia in Australia.
Imputed Political Opinion
It is well known that Hazaras have been targeted by the Taliban in the past and Hazara are well known to be anti-Taliban. The applicant as a Hazara will be targeted by the Taliban for being Hazara, Shia and anti-Taliban. The Tribunal accepts the applicant will be targeted for his imputed political opinion.
Country Information
Given the fall of the Afghan government and the Taliban taking over the entire country the only current country information is changing on an hourly basis. What we do know is that the Taliban
The applicant claims persecution based on his race as Hazara and for his religion as a Muslim Shia and his imputed political opinion as anti-Taliban. Since beginning to write this decision Afghanistan and the capital Kabul has fallen to the Taliban and there is no longer an Afghan government. [1] The current reports coming out of Afghanistan point to the Taliban hunting down those who helped the allied forces and a report from Amnesty International indicates that prior to the fall of Kabul the Taliban was targeting Hazaras: [2]
It comes as Amnesty International revealed that Taliban fighters killed nine ethnic Hazara men after taking control of Ghazni province last month. The killings, which took place between 4 and 6 July in the village of Mundarakht, Malistan district, saw six men shot and three others tortured to death.
One man was strangled with his own scarf and had his arm muscles cut off, while another had his legs and arms broken and his hair pulled out, researchers from the human rights charity said.
[1] >
In another report ‘The Taliban have blown up the statue of a Shia militia leader who had fought against them during Afghanistan's civil war in the 1990s, according to photos circulating on social media on Wednesday. The statue depicted Abdul Ali Mazari, a militia leader killed by the Taliban in 1996, when the Islamic militants seized power from rival warlords. Mazari was a champion of Afghanistan's ethnic Hazara minority, Shias who were persecuted under the Sunni Taliban's earlier rule’. [3]
[3] >
Prior to the fall of Afghanistan since 2015, attacks have killed at least 1,200 Hazaras and injured another 2,300, according to Wadood Pedram, executive director of the Kabul-based Human Rights and Eradication of Violence Organization. Hazaras have been preyed on at schools, weddings, mosques, sports clubs, even at birth. Last year, gunmen attacked a maternity hospital in the mainly Hazara districts of west Kabul. When the shooting ended, 24 people were dead, including newborns and their mothers. Last month, a triple bombing at the Syed Al-Shahada school in the same area killed nearly 100 people, mostly Hazara schoolgirls. This week, when militants attacked a compound of de-mining workers, shooting and killing at least 10, witnesses said the attackers tried to pick Hazaras out of the workers to kill. [4]
Conclusion
[4] >
The question before the Tribunal is will the applicant face a real chance of serious harm based on his race as a Hazara and his religion as a Shia. Under s.91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve ‘serious harm’ to the applicant (s.91R(1)(b), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s.91R(1)(c). Examples of ‘serious harm’ are set out in s.91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group, The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.
Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors. It is clear from history and ongoing country information that the applicant will be persecuted for being a Hazara Muslim Shia.
Having regard to the current ongoing issues in Afghanistan and ever evolving country information and having regard to such country information and what the Tribunal accepts of the applicants past experiences, the Tribunal is satisfied that he faces more than a remote chance of serious harm on return to his home area on race, religion and imputed political opinion grounds as a Hazara Muslim Shia.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant faces a well-founded fear of persecution from the Taliban who now control Afghanistan on the basis of his race as a Hazara, his religion as Shia and his imputed political opinion as anti-Taliban. The Tribunal finds that the applicant faces a real chance of persecution.
With respect to state protection, there is no longer a government of Afghanistan that is recognised. Instead the Taliban has taken over after allied forces left the country. Therefore, the Tribunal finds the applicant will not be afforded state protection.
Likewise, there is no government in Afghanistan currently as the Taliban have control of all areas and the applicant cannot safely relocate to another part of Afghanistan to avoid the harm, he fears in his home area.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore, the applicant satisfies the criterion set out in 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

Document List – [the applicant] – 1925478
Tribunal File 1216768
- Legal submission by Representative – 4/2/2013
- Statement of Niamatullah Ibrahimi on the current situation for Hazaras in Afghanistan September 2012 – 10/11/2012
Tribunal File 1501494
- Submission by applicant (unrepresented) containing Country Information
- Australian Government Evidence of Immigration Status card – applicant
Tribunal File 1925478
- [no submissions on file at 28/7/2021]
Department File – [Number]
- Notification of RRT decision – 6/9/2013
- RRT Decision Record – Case Number 121768
- Notification of refusal of PV – 29/10/2012
- Visa Application Summary for Bridging E visa – granted 27/9/2012
- Protection visa refusal decision record – 29/10/2012
- ’12 killed in Kabul bombing claimed by militants in retaliation for anti-Islam film’ Al Arabiya News 18/9/2012
- ‘Afghan Officials Cite Revenge Killings in Latest Outbreak of Ethnic Hatred’ The New York Times 3/8/2012
- Photocopy of Afghani passport of ‘[the applicant]’
- Photocopy of Taskera (untranslated)
- Notification of Decision under s46A(2) of Migration Act – 17/9/2012
- Statutory Declaration of applicant – declared 17/9/2012 - claims
- Statutory Declaration of applicant – declared 179/2012 – in support of application
- Form 866B – received 17/9/2012
- Form 866C – dated 17/9/2012
- Attachment for Form 866 and Form 80 of Applicant
- Form 80 – completed 17/9/2012
- Consent to Release Information to IAAAS Provider
- Form 956
- Attachment B – IAAAS Client Information Leaflet
- Form 815 – Health Undertaking
- Authority to seek personal information in relation to effective (prior) protection
- UNHCR Consent to Share and Release Information
- Irregular Maritime Arrival Entry Interview 19/7/2012
- Legal submission dated 30/7/2021
- [The applicant’s wife] visa stamp
- VEVO visa details [A]
- [B]
- [C] visa stamp
- ]The applicant’s wife] ultrasound
- Signed Statutory Declaration [A]
- Why do we deserve to die NY Times 2021
- [D]
- [B] visa stamp
- [E] visa stamp
- [Surname]]signed Statutory Declaration
- [A] Drivers Licence
- [F] visa stamp
- Humanitarian Needs Overview Afghanistan
- Endless Conflict in Afghanistan is driving a mental health crisis Foreign Policy
- [G] visa stamp
- EASO-COI Afghanistan -KSEI April 2019
- [The applicant’s child] birth certificate
- [The applicant’s child] Citizenship certificate
- [Surname] memory book
- [The applicant and wife] marriage certificate
- [Surname] medical certificate of cause
- [A] immi card

[2021] AATA 3501

23 August 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Remedies