1931763 (Refugee)

[2023] AATA 1603

1931763 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 1603 (7 February 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1931763

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   South Africa

MEMBER:Mark Bishop

DATE:7 February 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 07 February 2023 at 10:21am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – South Africa – passport unable to be renewed – claim that citizenship was stripped – xenophobia – credibility issues – decision under review affirmed

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

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 29 October 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant who claims to be stateless (South Africa), applied for the visa on 7 January 2016. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis the evidence indicates the applicant has not been been stripped of his South African citizenship and that issues relating to his passport renewal were administrative in nature and could be addressed upon his return to South Africa.  

3. The applicant provided a copy of the decision record to the Tribunal

4. On 20 December 2022 the Tribunal wrote to the review applicant advising that it had considered all the material it had about the application but could not make a favourable decision on that information alone. The Tribunal invited the review applicant to give evidence and present arguments at a hearing on 7 February 2023. The invitation stated that if they did not attend the hearing and an adjournment was not granted, the Tribunal may make a decision on the case without further notice. On 31 January and 6 February 2023 the Tribunal sent system generated SMS reminder notices to the applicant’s phone number. In addition on the day of the hearing after the scheduled start time the Tribunal ensured hearing room staff checked the vicinity of the hearing room to see if the applicant had arrived for the review hearing. The applicant did not appear for the review hearing.

5. The applicant did not appear before the Tribunal

6. The presiding member called No Show at 9:35am.

7. The review applicant did not appear before the Tribunal for the review hearing on the day and at the scheduled time. No reason was provided for non-attendance at the review hearing. Having reviewed the Tribunal file, the Tribunal is satisfied that the review applicant was properly invited to a hearing in accordance with relevant provisions in the Act and the invitation has not been returned to sender. In these circumstances, and pursuant to the relevant section in the Act, the Tribunal has decided to make its decision on the review without taking any further action to enable the applicant to appear before it.

8. The applicant provided a copy of the decision record to the Tribunal. The applicant did not provide any information to the Tribunal. The only information before the Tribunal was the material on the Departmental file.[1]

   [1] See decision record and footnote 13 hereunder

9. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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).

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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

16. The applicant has visited Australia on 4 occasions between February 2012 and April 2016. On each occasion he was the holder of a passport issued by South Africa. On 3 of those occasions he returned to South Africa. He last arrived in Australia [in] April 2014 as the holder of a South African passport that expired [in] 2014. He lodged this Application for a Protection Visa on 8 January 2016.

17. The delegate made a finding the applicant was born on [date] in South Africa and his claimed state is that of stateless (South Africa).[2] His passport extracts on the Departmental file confirm the findings of the delegate[3].

    [2] Delegate’s decision page 1

    [3] [File numbers] and birth certificate of the applicant’s child [named] born [date] as per [file numbers]

18. In his Application for a Protection Visa signed 7 January 2016 the applicant claimed “South Africa (SA) has refused and continues to refuse to renew my passport. The reasons for the refusal is because the authorities in SA consider I should not hold SA citizenship after they learnt that my late father was a "foreigner" My father died when I was 7.”[4]

    [4] [File numbers] Questions 18 and 19

    Passport Revocation

19. The delegate[5] summarised the applicant’s claims to harm upon return to South Africa as follows:

    ·He will be arrested upon arrival at the airport and possibly subjected to physical or psychological harm as a result of being a stateless person. He believes the South African Authorities have stripped him of his South African citizenship when they refused to renew his South African passport. He believes the reason he was stripped of his citizenship is because of xenophobia and intolerance of foreigners after the government learned his father (who died when he was seven years of age) was a foreigner.

    ·He fears being victimised by angry mobs of South Africans who will suspect him of being a foreigner.

    [5] Delegate’s decision page 2

20. In his PV[6] interview the applicant declared as follows:

    [6] Delegate’s decision pages 2 and 3 and [file numbers]

    ·The applicant sought to have his expired passport renewed by the South African authorities in approximately November 2015. The South African embassy were unable to renew it and instead told him he had to return to South Africa to renew it.

    ·When the applicant called the South African authorities in Pretoria to discuss his case, the person who answered the call told him there was an issue that can’t be fixed, and if he were the applicant he would stay wherever he is, as if he goes back there might be people waiting for him at the airport.

    ·The applicant stated he did not know what this meant, or whether it was meant to be interpreted in a different way. He stated after going through and conducting his own research, he realised there were lots of issues with xenophobia in South Africa, and after that his fear of return started increasing.

    ·The applicant was asked why he thought this statement by the South African official was a threat, and the applicant stated that it was because of the way it was said over the phone. He said he realised the statement sounds quite normal, but when the person over the phone said it, it sounded like a threat.

    ·The applicant was asked whether he had done anything overseas or in South Africa that would have given the authorities a reason to refuse his passport, and he stated that he has done nothing against the law, and that he has completed police checks in South Africa in the past.

    ·The applicant was asked how he knew the issue with his passport wasn’t just an administrative error, and the people who would be at the airport weren’t just South African immigration officers who would help him resolve his issue. The applicant stated that he previously tried to apply for an identity document which was never resolved, so this incident reminded him of that issue. Therefore, when he looked at it closely he realised he was ‘like a stateless person’.

    ·The applicant was asked what further actions he has taken to resolve his passport issue – and the applicant stated there was not much further he could do following his correspondence with them in December 2015, and in any event he no longer wished to return to South Africa which is why he has not taken any further action.

    ·He[7] did not know his parents well – he grew up staying with a friend of his sister, and his brother. Both his parents are deceased, and have been for many years. He stated his mother was a South African citizen. He stated his father was born in Pretoria, and lived in South Africa his whole life, but he believes his dad was a [foreign] citizen. He was not sure how the citizenship rules applied, but this was his belief based on discussions with his sister.

    ·His sister and his children continue to live in South Africa as citizens.

    [7] Delegate’s decision page 3

21. The delegate addressed in detail South African citizenship law[8] and made the following findings:

    ·Country information indicates that South African citizens may lose their citizenship if they voluntarily renounce their citizenship upon acquisition of the nationality of another country, or if they serve in the armed forces of another country in a war that the Republic of South Africa does not support.[9] South African citizens may be deprived of their citizenship if their certificate of naturalisation was obtained via fraud, if they have been imprisoned for 12 months in another country as a dual national, or if it is in the public interest that the applicant cease to be a South African citizen.[10]

    [8] Delegate’s decision page 4

    [9] 'South African Citizenship Act, 1995', Republic of South Africa, 27 September 1995, 20191029112548; 'Report on Citizenship Law: South Africa', Christine Hobden, Global Citizenship Observatory (GLOBALCIT), European University Institute, 01 February 2018, CIS7B839418835; 'South African Citizenship Act, 1995', Republic of South Africa, 27 September 1995, 20191029112548 under Chapter 3 Section 7

    [10] 'South African Citizenship Act, 1995', Republic of South Africa, 27 September 1995, 20191029112548; 'Report on Citizenship Law: South Africa', Christine Hobden, Global Citizenship Observatory (GLOBALCIT), European University Institute, 01 February 2018, CIS7B839418835

22. The Tribunal examined the documentary evidence provided by the applicant to the Department[11] being a letter dated 24 April 2015 from his solicitors to the SA Department of Home Affairs seeking processing of his renewal application for his passport and an email trail concerning issues relating to his renewal application.

    [11] [File numbers]

23. The documents summarised above in paragraph 22 indicate there were problems of an undisclosed nature with the applicant’s passport renewal.

24. The Tribunal has considered all the above information concerning the applicant’s citizenship and attempts to renew his passport.  In past years the relevant authorities in South Africa have issued the applicant with a South African passport. In his Application for a Protection Visa the applicant outlined the times and dates he had visited many countries of the world. The Tribunal notes the applicant has not provided any documentary evidence from the South African government that it has revoked his citizenship or declined to renew his passport for any reason. The correspondence from relevant authorities in South Africa indicates there were some problems that needed to be addressed in his application for renewal.

25. The only evidence put forward that the applicant has been stripped of citizenship is the applicant’s verbal advice to the Department regarding the implied meaning he obtained from an unknown South African official, the wording of which the applicant conceded could be interpreted in other ways.[12]

    [12] Decision record page 4

26. The Tribunal is of the view the absence of written notification from the South African authorities of any revocation decision is significant.

27. The Tribunal considers it more likely any issues with the applicant’s passport renewal are administrative in nature and could be addressed upon his return to South Africa. The Tribunal is not satisfied the evidence indicates the applicant has been stripped of his South African citizenship.

    Perceived to be a foreigner by the South African community

28. In his statement to the Department and Departmental interview the applicant advised as follows:

    ·He will be perceived to be a foreigner by the South African community.

    ·He advised that there are 11 different languages in South Africa and if you don’t speak ‘their’ language, they will harm you.

    ·The applicant has declared he speaks, reads, and writes in the English, Zulu, and Tswana languages.

    ·It was put to the applicant that he does speak ‘their’ language (i.e. many of the South African languages). The applicant responded that this was true, but that it depended on how good you were.

    ·He stated if they came to him in a group it would be hard to explain.

    ·It was put to the applicant that he was not a foreigner and is in fact a South African citizen. The applicant stated he would not have documentation that shows he is South African. If they asked him for documentation he would not be able to produce anything. It was put to the applicant that he would have at minimum his expired South African passport. He stated that they would not believe an expired document, and in any case they would see his entry stamps which would show how much time he has spent in other countries, a fact they would not like.

    ·The applicant has declared he speaks, reads, and writes in the English, Zulu, and Tswana languages.

    ·The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has been stripped of his South African citizenship and consequently he would be able to obtain new documentation upon his return to South Africa.

    ·The applicant was born, educated, and employed in South Africa from [year] to 2009. The Tribunal considers the applicant would be able to obtain sufficient documentary evidence, and possesses sufficient local knowledge, language ability, and community links to demonstrate he is South African.

    ·Consequently the Tribunal is not satisfied he would be perceived to be a foreigner by the South African community upon return.

    ·The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant upon return to South Africa would be perceived and recognised for what he is. A person of South African citizenship with an expired passport who (like many from South Africa) has travelled and resided overseas for extensive periods of time.

    Assessment

29. The applicant did not respond to the hearing invitation from the Tribunal. The applicant did not provide a written submission to the Tribunal. The applicant did not address the findings of the delegate in any way. The applicant did not challenge the findings of the delegate. The applicant did not point to any errors in the reasoning of the delegate. The applicant did not challenge the outline of relevant South African citizenship law set out in the decision record.[13] The applicant did not provide any information to the Tribunal on matters relating to Country Information that were cited by the delegate in the decision record.

    [13] See decision record pages 3 and 4 and footnotes 4 through 7 that address the detail of South African citizenship law.

30. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution and his claims do not have a credible basis.

31. The Tribunal finds there is only a remote or far-fetched chance that he will be harmed for any of the reasons he has claimed. The Tribunal does not accept that he would be significantly harmed on the basis of things he has claimed. It follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to South Africa, there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a). Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion, the Tribunal has considered the alternative complementary protection criterion. The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).

    CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS

32. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy the criteria set out in s 36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa. It follows that he is also unable to satisfy the criteria set out in s 36(2)(b) or (c), and cannot be granted the visa.

    DECISION

33. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

    Mark Bishop

    Senior Member

    Attachment  -  Extract from Migration Act 1958

    5 (1) Interpretation

    …

    cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:

    (a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or

    (b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;

    but does not include an act or omission:

    (c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

    (d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

    …

    degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:

    (a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

    (b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

    …

    torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:

    (a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or

    (b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or

    (c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or

    (d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or

    (e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;

    but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

    …

    receiving country,  in relation to a non-citizen, means:

    (a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or

    (b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.

    …

    5H    Meaning of refugee

    (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:

    (a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or

    (b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.

    Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.

    …

    5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution

    (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:

    (a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and

    (b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and

    (c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.

    Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.

    (2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.

    Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.

    (3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:

    (a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or

    (b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or

    (c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:

    (i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;

    (ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;

    (iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;

    (iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;

    (v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;

    (vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

    (4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):

    (a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and

    (b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and

    (c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.

    (5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:

    (a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;

    (b)     significant physical harassment of the person;

    (c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;

    (d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

    (e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

    (f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.

    (6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

    5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family

    For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:

    (a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and

    (b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:

    (i)the first person has ever experienced; or

    (ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

    where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.

    Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

    5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family

    For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:

    (a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and

    (b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and

    (c)     any of the following apply:

    (i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;

    (ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;

    (iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

    (d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

    5LA Effective protection measures

    (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:

    (a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:

    (i)the relevant State; or

    (ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

    (b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.

    (2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:

    (a)     the person can access the protection; and

    (b)     the protection is durable; and

    (c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.

    …

    36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act

    …

    (2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:

    (a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or

    (aa)  a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    (b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

    (i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and

    (ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

    (c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

    (i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and

    (ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

    (2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:

    (a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or

    (b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or

    (c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or

    (d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or

    (e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.

    (2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:

    (a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    (b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    (c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.

    …