2008175 (Refugee)

2008175 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 4420 (2 October 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  2008175
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Albania
MEMBER:Andrew Verduci
DATE:2 October 2024
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 02 October 2024 at 3:05pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa – Albania – religion – Greek Orthodox religion – has converted to Islam – imputed political opinion – imputed with father’s anti-communist opinions – land dispute - Albanian citizenship was revoked – delay in applying for protection in Australia – applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution –credibility concerns – MINISTERIAL INTERVENTION – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 56, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
BACKGROUND

The applicant is a [age]-year-old male who claims to be stateless. He first arrived in Australia in February 2008 and then departed in May that same year. He arrived in Australia for a second time in September 2009 and has not departed since then.
He lodged an application for a Protection visa in April 2015 which was refused a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs. This is a review in relation to that decision.
The material before me is voluminous. It includes the Department’s file and my own. There is a significant amount of written material generated by the applicant. It includes vidoes, written statements, documentary evidence and country information. A lot of material has been given multiple times and not all of it is relevant to the issues being considered in the decision under review.
Although it has all been reviewed and considered, I will not be referring to all of the material that is before me. Some of it is simply not relevant and I do not believe it would be good administrative decision making to refer to it. I appreciate that the applicant will be aggrieved because I have not referred to or discussed all of the material he has provided. Whilst I am conscious of this fact, I believe that a concise statement of reasons which sets out the reasons for my decision, the findings on material questions of fact and refers to the evidence or other material on which those findings of fact are based is the appropriate path to follow.
Protection visa application
The following is a concise summary of written material in the applicant’s visa application:
·He was born in Tirana in Albania. His Albanian citizenship was revoked [in] October 1992 by a decree of then Albanian President.
·He is married to a person I will call Ms F. She was born in Albania and is a citizen of Greece. He has a son I will call Mr G who was born in Albania and is a citizen of Albania and Greece. He has a daughter I will call Ms I who was born in Greece and is a citizen of Albania and Greece. His own mother and father are deceased and he has brothers and sisters living in Albania and [a country].
·His residential address between 2003 and 2009 was in Greece. He also worked for a [group] in [Greece] between 1999 to June 2009, and had a [business] in Athens between 2006 to 2009.
·He was issued an Australian Subclass 676 (Tourist) visa in June 2009 that was valid until December 2009.
By way of a summary, the applicant claimed to fear harm in Albania because:
·His father was jailed for being an anti-communist and the applicant has been imputed with his father’s anti-communist opinions.
·The applicant’s Albanian citizenship was revoked, his brother was killed, the applicant was targeted and his property was seized by government authorities.
·His family were persecuted because of the Greek citizenship status and their Greek Orthodox religion.
The applicant attended an interview with the delegate in March 2020. An accurate summary of that interview is set out in the delegate’s decision.
Numerous supporting documents were also given to the delegate and are recorded in the delegate’s decision. A lot of this material has been given directly to me as well, but all of it is before me and has been considered.
The delegate did not accept that the applicant had been deprived of his Albanian citizenship by government authorities and had become stateless as a result. They found that was a citizen of Albania and that Albania was his receiving country. They did not accept that he had been harmed and mistreated because of his political opinion or because of his father’s ex-political prisoner status.
The delegate found that the applicant did not face a real chance of serious harm, or a real risk of significant harm and did not satisfy the criteria for the visa set out in s 36(2) of the Act.
Review application
The applicant applied for a review of the delegate’s decision with this Tribunal in May 2020. He gave a copy of the delegate’s decision to the Tribunal.
Written submissions, documentary evidence, video files, country information and other material has been given to me throughout the course of the review. They have been considered, but I will not be referring to every submission or piece of evidence that has been provided.
Some of the material given to me appears to raise new claims, such as a letter he received from the Department dated 15 November 2019 advising that his protection visa application had been lost. A copy of this letter was submitted along with a news report of a data breach by the Department which occurred in, or around, 2014.
Tribunal hearing
In a written invitation dated 9 August 2024, the applicant was invited to appear before me in person on 16 September 2024. There were requests to adjourn or reschedule that hearing which I refused for the reasons I have already set out in writing elsewhere.
The applicant attended the scheduled hearing and was accompanied by two support persons.
At the start of the hearing, the applicant informed me that he was connected to a blood pressure monitor and that he would need regular comfort breaks. He indicated that he may be uncomfortable sitting for extended periods of time. I indicated that I had no objection to this, that I would stop for regular breaks as I thought appropriate, that he was welcome to stand, sit or move around as he felt comfortable and that he should also let me know if a break was required.
We were also assisted by an interpreter in the Albanian and English languages, and the applicant confirmed on multiple occasions that there were no issues with the quality of interpreting provided.
In a post-hearing submission, the applicant has provided a photograph of a blood pressure reading taken during his hearing. He also provided a medical letter stating that the applicant has been suffering from severe hypertension and has required close monitoring and treatment. It says that this would have inhibited his capacity to attend formal meetings.
I accept that attending a hearing and the review process more broadly may be a stressful situation for the applicant, particularly considering the medical information also before me. I have reflected on this evidence, and the applicant’s mental and physical health more broadly, throughout this review. I have continued to reflect upon this when considering the applicant’s claims and evidence. I also place some weight upon him being accompanied by two support people throughout the hearing and the number and duration of breaks that were taken throughout it. I am satisfied that the applicant has been given a real, genuine and meaningful opportunity to give evidence and present arguments about the issues arising in relation to the decision that is under review.
Other matters
The applicant has expressed his dissatisfaction with the review process and my own conduct during the review.
He has raised questions about my impartiality to conduct the review prior to the hearing commencing and in written submissions given after the hearing. In post hearing correspondence, he has complained of an aggressive and inconsiderate approach by Australian bureaucrats (which I infer is a reference to me, but it is not otherwise explained) and provocative and aggressive questioning that raised his blood pressure and caused significant distress amounting to psychological warfare and torture.
He has made claims of actual bias and procedural unfairness arising because he was invited to give comments or a response on information that would be the reason or a part of the reason for affirming the decision under review. His written submissions have referred to maladministration and misfeasance in public office, although he also points out that he is not accusing anyone of these very serious matters.
I have sought to respond to and address these matters in writing and only where appropriate. This includes a response sent to the applicant on 12 August 2024 explaining the statutory objectives of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, including providing a mechanism of review that is, among other things, fair and just and promotes public trust and confidence in the decision making of the Tribunal.
I have reflected on the applicant’s submissions and my own conduct during the review. To the extent that his correspondence may be taken as a request to recuse myself, I refuse that request. I do not accept that a legitimate basis for recusal arises in the circumstances of this case, including on the grounds of a denial of procedural fairness, bias (actual or apprehended), maladministration or misfeasance in public office.
It is also repeatedly claimed by the applicant that there is no basis to question or to not accept evidence that he has provided in support of his application. The applicant says that I must accept a claim, evidence or document as being genuine unless I have an objective basis for disproving it.
The applicant has given evidence in languages other than English, some of which is accompanied by a certified translation into English but also some which is not. He also believes that a document containing an apostille is beyond being questioned and must be taken at face value as being genuine. I do not agree and have tried to explain this to him during the course of this review.
I acknowledge the evidence given to my by the applicant, including documents which contain an apostille, wet stamp or some other means of demonstrating authenticity and I have placed some weight upon this. However, the weight that I give in favour of the applicant’s evidence, including documents purporting to be officially issued, is ultimately outweighed by independent country information and the strength of my concerns overall about his evidence.
Nor am I required to follow other decisions of this Tribunal (differently constituted). I have had regard to the other Tribunal decisions given to me by the applicant, and I accept that consistency in administrative decision making promotes confidence and is desirable. However, other Tribunal decisions are not binding upon me and a decision must be reached having regard to the particular circumstances of each individual case.
The applicant has also requested that I refer the application to the Department for consideration by the Minister pursuant to s 417 of the Act which gives the Minister a discretion to substitute for a decision of the Tribunal another decision that is more favourable to the applicant, if the Minister thinks that it is in the public interest to do so.
I have considered the applicant’s case and the ministerial guidelines relating to the discretionary power set out in departmental policy ‘Minister’s guidelines on ministerial powers (s351, s417, and s501J)’ but I have decided not to refer the matter. The applicant can still make a request directly to the Minister.
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 (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
There is no country information assessment prepared by DFAT that is directly relevant to the decision under review. Other sources of country information have been considered and discussed with the applicant.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
I have regard to the applicant’s stated identity and the evidence, including a copy of an expired passport, given in support of this. I am satisfied that his identify is as claimed.
For the reasons that follow, I do not accept that the applicant is stateless. I find that he is a citizen of Albania and that Albania is his receiving country for the purposes of s 36(2) of the Act.
Delay
The applicant first arrived in Australia in February 2008. I place some weight upon his voluntary departure later that year.
He returned to Australia in September 2009 but did not apply for a protection visa until April 2015. I do not accept that there is a genuine or plausible explanation for this and I place weight upon this significant delay in applying for a protection visa.
Land dispute
I am prepared to accept that the applicant has been involved in a land dispute in Albania. In contrast to his other claims, his evidence about this is generally spontaneous, nuanced and detailed. He has provided copies of maps and land development plans and he is able to speak about them in some detail.
I accept that the applicant’s family owned 20,000 square metres of land near [a venue]. I accept that this land was acquired under the former communist regime because this is generally supported by independent country information regarding such matters. Private land ownership under the former communist regime was banned, for example.[1]
[1] Millions paid in compensation to families whose lands were seized under communism - Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights; (>
I also accept that the applicant purchased additional land nearby for the purposes of development.
I do not accept that a land or property dispute has led to the applicant being threatened or to have caused his Albanian citizenship to be revoked.
Evidence was given in 2024 to the Tribunal (differently constituted) in another proceeding involving the applicant’s wife. That evidence included that the applicant had issues with his brothers concerning family property matters. His wife, Ms F, gave evidence that the applicant had some kind of wealth in land and/or real estate in Albania, and that ownership of the property was in dispute following the death of his father.
The applicant has given evidence in that other proceeding that he had a series of legal disputes over property with his brothers who live in Albania, and with the Albanian government of a parcel of land that the government had it appropriated without providing just compensation. He said that a lawyer had been engaged in that matter but no date for trial in the Tirana courts had been set
I have considered the applicant’s comments that I should not place any weight upon the evidence given by him and/or his wife in that other Tribunal proceeding because the Tribunal decision in her matter (differently constituted) is subject to an application for judicial review. However, I am comfortably satisfied to proceed and have regard to this evidence without waiting for the outcome of that application for judicial review to be determined. They are not findings or the decision of the Tribunal (differently determined) that I am having regard to, rather it is evidence that the applicant and/or his wife gave during that proceeding.
I find that this land dispute is central to the applicant’s claim. However, his evidence about this matter leads me to find that he is involved in a legal dispute over land that involves members of his own family and others. I do not accept on the available evidence that it is a dispute involving powerful ex-communists with links to the government, police or the judiciary.
I have placed some weight on the evidence given by the applicant in support of this claim. These include emails and messages said to be from people he claims are associated with the Albanian government and are threatening to harm him because of this land dispute.
I also place weight upon his evidence that the dispute includes members of his family and is a matter that the parties are seeking to resolve through the Albanian legal system. I have considered the applicant’s written response to this evidence which includes a denial of any family animosity or disputes, particularly amongst his brothers and particularly about land.

However, there are important details that the applicant is unable to give me about this dispute. They are details that I would reasonably expect him to have some awareness of, such as who is involved in the legal proceedings, what exactly the legal proceedings relate to, what court or courts the proceedings are in and the stage they are at. I consider that his inability to answer such questions is based on a deliberate unwillingness and desire to be evasive and not because of a genuine lack of knowledge or inability to find out.
I have also reflected upon relevant country information. According to the United States Department of State, for example, the Albanian Constitution provides for an independent judiciary although political pressure, intimidation, corruption and limited resources prevent the judiciary from functioning fully, independently and efficiently. However, the government also continues to implement and internationally monitored process to vet judges and prosecutors, and to dismiss those with unexplained wealth or ties to organised crime. The ombudsman assessed the judiciary as making progress towards establishing a more independent system but adds that more resources are needed.[2]
[2] 2023 Country Report on Human Rights Practices: Albania, U.S. Department of State (>
The same report notes that the Albanian Helsinki Commission has assessed the judicial system as becoming more independent due to the judicial vetting process and the actions of the Special Prosecution Structure Against Corruption and Organised Crime (SPAK).[3]
[3] 2023 Country Report on Human Rights Practices: Albania, U.S. Department of State (>
Other credible sources, such as the United Kingdom’s Home Office, provide a useful summary of relevant country information.[4] It includes:
[4] UK Gov Country policy and information note: actors of protection, Albania, December 2022 (accessible) - GOV.UK ( Albanian government is trying to make a concerted effort to improve the country’s law enforcement capabilities, particularly in the areas of counterterrorism and organized crime. Corruption and lack of resources within the police present continual challenges.
·Police did not always enforce the law equitably. Personal associations, political or criminal connections, deficient infrastructure, lack of equipment, and inadequate supervision often influenced law enforcement. Authorities continued to address these problems by renovating police facilities, upgrading vehicles, and publicly highlighting anticorruption measures. The government established a system for vetting security officials and, as of November 2019, had completed vetting 32 high-level police and SIAC leaders.
·The government made greater efforts to address police impunity, most notably in the single case of excessive use of deadly force. The SIAC [Ministry of Interior’s Service for Internal Affairs and Complaints] recorded an increase in the number of investigations, prosecutions, and sanctions against officers for criminal and administrative violations. The December 2020 deadly police shooting of a COVID curfew violator who fled arrest led to widespread protests, some violent. The officer involved was arrested soon after the shooting and was convicted of homicide in July, receiving a 10-year prison sentence, reduced from 15 years due to his guilty plea.
·The EC report 2022 noted that, ‘Of the 300 high-level officials of the state police, Guard of the Republic and Service for Internal Affairs and Complaints (SIAC) 66 were vetted, leading so far to 6 dismissals and 7 resignations. The vetting process remains crucial to restore public trust in the judiciary and the law enforcement bodies of the state.’
·In the Freedom in the World 2022 Report, covering events in 2021, Freedom House (FH report 2021) stated, ‘Constitutional guarantees of due process are upheld inconsistently. Trial procedures can be affected by corruption within the judicial system and are sometimes closed to the public.’
·The USSD HR Report 2021 stated: ‘The constitution and law provide for the right to a fair and public trial without undue delay… The government generally respected these rights, although trials were not always public and access to an attorney was at times problematic. To protect the rights of defendants and their access to the evidence against them, a prosecutor must petition a preliminary hearing judge and make a request to send the case to trial.’
·The report added, ‘Court hearings were generally open to the public unless COVID-19 restrictions did not allow for journalists or the public to enter court premises. In such cases, media submitted complaints to the court, which reviewed them on a case-by-case basis and generally allowed journalists and the public to attend hearings if the case was of interest to the general public.’
·The FH report 2021 noted: ‘The constitution provides for an independent judiciary, but the underfunded courts are subject to political pressure and influence, and public trust in judicial institutions is low. Corruption in the judiciary remains a serious problem, and convictions of high-ranking judges for corruption and abuse of power are historically rare.’
·The USSD HR Report 2021 stated that ‘Although the constitution provides for an independent judiciary, political pressure, intimidation, corruption, and limited resources prevented the judiciary from functioning fully, independently, and efficiently… the politicization of past appointments to the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court at times threatened to undermine the independence and integrity of these institutions.’
·The report further noted that ‘While individuals and organizations may seek civil remedies for human rights violations, instances of judicial corruption, inefficiency, intimidation, and political tempering were reported. Courts took steps to address the problem by using audio-recording equipment.’
·In the Albania Report 2022, the European Commission noted that ‘The system for recruiting, selecting, appointing, transferring, and dismissing judges and prosecutors is managed exclusively by the self-governing institutions of the judiciary. Continued implementation of judicial reform further reduced political influence throughout the appointment process, thus ensuring a merit-based career system.’
·The USSD OSAC published a Country Security Report on Albania in October 2021 which noted that, ‘Organized crime has a noted impact on Albania, which hosts a network of criminal organizations involved in drug trafficking, extortion, bribery, money laundering, prostitution, and human trafficking.’
·In the Albania 2022 Report, the European Commission stated:
‘The Specialised Structure for Anti-Corruption and Organised Crime (SPAK), comprising the Special Prosecution Office (SPO) and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), continued its operations. After a budget increase in 2021, the SPO now has 17 prosecutors in place, the recruitment of eight financial investigators is underway and the NBI reached its full operational capacity of 60 investigators after a second round of recruitment…
‘Albania has some level of preparation in the fight against organised crime. It made some progress in meeting last year’s recommendations… The country progressed steadily in the implementation of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Action Plan to improve effectiveness in the field of anti-money laundering, but Albania remained on the list of jurisdictions under increased monitoring. Financial investigations need to accompany systematically criminal proceedings. Albania adopted a new national cross-sector counter-terrorism strategy and action plan in December 2020.’
·The report summarised progress made in dealing with organised crime by the Albanian state as follows:
‘The country has some level of preparation in implementing the EU acquis in this area. Some progress was made in meeting last year’s recommendations. The cooperation with EU Members States, Europol and Eurojust has remained strong and fruitful. Albania continued to show commitment to counter the production and trafficking of cannabis. Good progress was made with regards to the seizure and confiscation of assets linked to organised crime, and must continue in the future. Efforts also need to continue to ensure increased prosecutions and final convictions, especially at high-level. Countering cybercrime, trafficking in human beings and money laundering remain areas in which additional results are needed. All forms of child sexual abuse online should be criminalised and persecuted [sic, prosecuted].’
·The report also noted progress regarding the Specialised Anti-corruption and Organised Crime Structures:
‘The Specialised Anti-corruption and Organised Crime Structures (SPAK) have started to build track record of investigations and convictions on organised crime with 48 new investigations and 128 convictions (for 418 persons) at first instance and 41 final convictions (116 persons) at appeal level in 2021. The Special Prosecution Office now has 17 prosecutors in place. NBI [National Bureau of Investigation] currently has access to five databases and has engaged in bilateral agreements to access nine additional ones by the end of 2022. This trend should continue and NBI should be given access to all databases bringing value to their investigations.
‘The second batch of investigators for the National Bureau of Investigation … – 32 individuals - have been selected and vetted. They completed their four months of initial training and took up duty in June 2022, thus filling the 60 positions of NBI investigators. NBI has signed a number of agreements with other law enforcement agencies allowing in particular access of NBI investigators to databases of the Albanian State Police and of the General Directorate for Taxation.’
·The EC Albania report 2022 also provided information about prosecutions and convictions for organised crime:
‘Albania pursued its efforts towards building a track record on fighting organised crime. In 2021, there were 41 new cases referred to prosecution (up from 22 in 2020); 14 indictments for a structured criminal group in 2021 (against 15 in 2020) and 19 cases were closed with 75 persons with final convictions at appeal level (compared with 13 persons in 2020).
‘In 2021 the Special Prosecution Office (SPO) initiated 304 criminal proceedings – 92 for organised crime and 212 for corruption, which represents an increase of 50% compared with the year before. During the same period, 31 criminal procedures for corruption and 15 procedures for organised crime were sent to trial. 23(against 94 defendants) convictions at first instance were reached by the special court and 52 (against 136 defendants) at appeal level in 2021.’
·The same report observed, ‘Law enforcement authorities’ response to organised crime, notably the investigation of large criminal networks, needs to be more proactive and systematic. Special units within the police and prosecution have access to 40 national registers, but they still lack direct access to the electronic register of mobile phone subscribers and IP addresses from internet service providers.’
·On judicial corruption, the FH report 2021 noted:
‘In 2016, constitutional reforms established Albania’s Special Anticorruption Structure (SPAK), which is tasked with investigating and prosecuting high-level corruption. In a process monitored by EU and US experts, the government has been vetting judges and prosecutors since 2018, so as to identify and prevent corruption in the justice system. An October 2021 European Commission report praised Albania’s anticorruption efforts, specifically noting the success of the vetting mechanisms in reducing judicial corruption.’
·While the USSD HR report 2021 observed:
‘Through September, the Special Prosecution Office against Corruption and Organized Crime (SPAK) announced that it had opened investigations and brought charges against several public officials, including… judges and prosecutors, former and sitting judges of the Constitutional Court’s Vetting Appeal’s Chamber, former judges of the Supreme Court… As of September, one judge, two prosecutors… were indicted on abuse of office or corruption charges.
‘The constitution requires judges and prosecutors to undergo vetting for unexplained wealth, ties to organized crime, and professional competence. The Independent Qualification Commission conducted vetting, and the Appeals Chamber reviewed contested decisions. The International Monitoring Operation, composed of international judicial experts, oversaw the process. As of November, 125 judges and prosecutors were dismissed, 103 confirmed, while 48 others had resigned rather than undergo vetting. As of July, 173 judges and prosecutors were dismissed, 148 confirmed, while 89 others had resigned or retired.’
According to Freedom House, numerous property restitution cases related to communist-era confiscations remain unresolved. Illegal construction is a major problem, as is bribery linked to government approval of development projects.[5]
[5] Albania: Freedom in the World 2024 Country Report, Freedom House (>
The Albanian Helsinki Committee reports on receiving seven complaints in 2022 and five complaints in 2023 in relation to claimed property rights violations by public authorities or private subjects. It engaged in a monitoring mission in relation to one complaint described as publicly sensitive, and addressed the Constitutional Court in relation to the construction of a hydropower station.[6]
[6] Comparative report on the situation of respect for human rights and freedoms in Albania for 2022 – 2023, Albanian Helsinki Committee (>
The weight of this evidence leads me to find that Albania experiences some level of corruption within the government, police force and judiciary, but that it also takes active and relevantly effective measures to address it. It further leads me to conclude that the applicant does have an ongoing legal dispute over land, noting that such disputes can involve lengthy proceedings in the Albanian judicial system. It also points to non-government actors, such as the Albanian Helsinki Committee, have an active involvement in land disputes involving state authorities and private actors.
The information and evidence does not satisfy me that the applicant’s land dispute involves influential business and/or political figures or that he has been threatened or intimidated as a result of it. I have considered the available evidence but find that it is vague, lacking in detail and from un-verified email and social media sources. It is also inconsistent with the applicant’s lived experiences in Albania where he was able to acquire land and some level of wealth, his demonstrated ability to enter and leave Albania with his family over an extended number of years, his brother’s role [representing] government interests, and his ability to seek legal redress through the Albanian legal system regarding his dispute, even if such proceedings have been going on for a length of time and are not necessarily to the applicant’s satisfaction.
The applicant’s evidence about his land dispute is vague. He has named a few particular individuals who he says are involved, but I find his evidence about this vague and unpersuasive. He says that the issue is about the theft of his land and not about money or just compensation. But he is not able to explain or talk about the legal action he is involved, who else is included, what the issues are and what else is happening about it. His written response to an invitation given after the hearing suggests there is multiple land/properties being disputed and challenged, but the details are also vague and non-persuasive. I do not accept the suggestion that the applicant is effectively walking away from the land dispute(s) because he has not faith in the legal system and is unwilling to engage any legal representatives to help. This is inconsistent with the evidence given by Ms F in a separate proceeding, and I do not accept that is supported by the weight of country information regarding the judiciary and legal system in Albania.
Statelessness
The applicant was born in Albania to parents who were Albanian citizens. He was an Albanian citizen at birth. He claims that he did not renounce his Albanian citizenship and that it was revoked because of his own political opinion and his family’s long-standing history of opposition to the Albanian government.
More specifically, he says that his citizenship was revoked [in] October 1992 according to Presidential Decree no.328.
Evidence in support of this includes personal certificates said to be issued by the Albanian Office of Civil Registry. The most recent of these certificates, dated [date] September 2024, says that it is based on the registry dated in 1974. It verifies that the applicant’s citizenship is ‘stateless’ and records ‘[t]his certificate is issued with the purpose of being used outside of the country. By Presidential Decree No.328, date 21.10.1992, he renounced his Albanian citizenship’. This is consistent with other personal certificates the applicant claims to have obtained going back many years, with at least one personal certificate dated [date] November 2014. It is consistent with other official documents that the applicant has given, such as family certificates and a birth certificate. The later of these is also dated [date] September 2024 and records that he is stateless. I have had regard to, and place some weight upon, the oral and documentary evidence which supports a claim that the applicant is stateless.
On the other hand, the applicant was granted an Albanian passport in 2003 by the Albanian Ministry of Public Order. He does not suggest that his passport is a non-genuine document or that it was fraudulently obtained, and there is no evidence before me to suggest that it is or was. In considering his Albanian passport, I note that Article 2 of Decree no.7393 of 1990 on the Issue of Passports and Visas states, in part:
The Albanian passport is an official document which proves the identify and citizenship of the Albanian citizen abroad.[7]
[7] Albanian: Decree no.7393 of 1990 on the Issue of Passports and Visas, dated 12 June 1990 (>
As discussed with the applicant, I have also considered Albanian law regarding citizenship and the circumstances in which it can be renounced or lost. According to the Law on Albanian Citizenship,[8] for example:
Article 4
No one can be arbitrary deprived of the Albanian citizenship.
Any Albanian citizen has the right to renounce the Albanian citizenship provided he has another citizenship, has acquired another citizenship or is guaranteed by the relevant bodies of the foreign country the granting of the citizenship.
[8] Law on Albanian Citizenship, dated 6 September 1998 (>
Article 15 of that Law provides for the termination of Albanian citizenship, but only if requested by the person concerned. Article 21 provides that a decree granting or renouncing citizenship is published in the Official Gazette.
More recent law about Albanian citizenship is in Law No.113/2020 on Citizenship.[9] This law is based on the principles of every person having at least one citizenship, the avoidance of statelessness, no one being arbitrarily denied or deprived of their Albanian citizenship and the non-discrimination of Albanian citizens irrespective of how their citizenship was acquired.
[9] Law No..113/2020 on Citizenship, dated 29 July 2020 (

Loss of Albanian citizenship can occur in one of two ways, either by being renounced in under Article 13 of the Law or by being deprived under Article 15. Article 15 allows for revocation only where false document were used to acquire citizenship or where the citizen is a member of an organisation aiming to undermine the national security and constitutional order of the Republic of Albania. Chapter III of the same Law provides a procedure for the acquisition, resumption and loss of Albanian citizenship.
Reflecting on the evidence and available information, I am concerned that there is no legitimate basis for the applicant’s citizenship to have been lost. If it was lost in 1992 by Presidential Decree no.328, and decrees must be published in the official gazette, I am concerned that a copy of the decree cannot be provided to me. If his citizenship was lost in 1992, I am concerned that he would still be issued an Albanian passport in 1993 despite being not being an Albanian citizen at that time. I am concerned that he would continue living in Albania until 1993, and be able to return to Albania again from Greece in April 1995, if his citizenship had already been revoked. It concerns me that other official documents, such as his Certificate of Judicial State, issued on 3 December 2014, records that he ‘was never punished’ if Albanian authorities were already interested in him and had cancelled his citizenship. I am concerned that not only did the applicant’s brother retain his own citizenship in circumstances where the applicant lost his, but he continued [working as an occupation] and represented government owned interests until the time of his death. In considering the circumstances of the applicant and his brother, I place some weight upon his brother’s death certificate which records the cause of death as acute infarct of the myocardium, or a heart attack.[10] There is no evidence to suggest that his brother was killed as a part of any dispute or for any other reason.
[10] Mayo Clinic, Heart attack – symptoms and causes (>
I have considered the applicant’s written submission given in response to an invitation to give comments or a response, however this does satisfactorily address all of the concerns I have raised. It acknowledges that he held an Albanian passport until 2013, for example, but it does not address how he was able to acquire that passport in 2003 if his citizenship was already revoked years earlier. The fact that he claims not to know about his citizenship being lost until 2014 does address this concern.
I find it implausible, and I do not accept, that he only found out 2014 that his citizenship was revoked. Even if his Albanian passport expired in 2013, it was still a valid, in the sense of being a genuine, passport that he held. If he was preparing to make an application for a protection visa, which he did in 2015, he already held suitable evidence of his Albanian citizenship. I do not accept that he had contact with a lawyer who told him that other evidence of his citizenship was required, and that this is what caused him to approach Albanian authorities in 2014.
Anti-government and/or anti-political opinion
I am prepared to accept that the applicant’s father was jailed in Albania because of his anti-communist views and I place some weight upon this. I also accept that the applicant has been a member of the Anti-Communist Association of the Politically Persecuted in its various forms.
The association has been known by different names such as the National Association of the Formally Politically Persecuted, the Association of the Formerly Politically Persecuted and the Formerly Politically Persecuted Association.[11] It is a budgetary entity of the Albanian government, designated with the granting of financial compensation by the state, to former political prisoners of the communist regime and to the family members of those executed or interned at concentration camps, as an affirmation from the state in acknowledging the crimes committed by the previous totalitarian system. From January 1995 until October 1997, the committee was transformed into a General Directorate under the supervision of the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs. IIPP as an institution was officially regulated by Law no. 8246.[12]
[11] Albania: Institution of the Integration of the Politically Persecuted; relationship with state authorities’, Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Refworld, 29 May 2002.
[12] Institute for the Integration of Former Political Victims - Wikipedia (>
However, the applicant does not claim to have been politically active or to have been a member of a political party. He does not claim to have attended political rallies or protests or to have engaged in anti-government actions or behaviour. For reasons already given above, I do not accept that his land dispute has a political dimension or involves influential business and/or political people. I also place weight upon the applicant and his mother being awarded compensation and/or land by the Institute for the Formerly Politically Persecuted.
I do not accept that an organisation or association so closely aligned with the Albanian government will have given compensation and/or land to the applicant and members of his family if he was a person of interest for having anti-government view. It is also inconsistent with his claim to have had his citizenship revoked and to have been threatened and targeted by corrupt government officials.
Nor do I accept that the applicant has been systemically targeted by Albanian authorities because of his father’s involvement with Anglo-Americans or because of the applicant’s own efforts to bring about positive economic changes in Albania during the 1990s. The available evidence does not support a finding that he was involved in the importation of various goods into Albania which were confiscated and such a claim is not consistent with the previous evidence he has given about his past work and employment experiences.
Religion - Greek Orthodox and/or Muslim
The applicant has previously claimed to fear harm in Albania because of his wife’s religion and Greek ethnicity. He claims to have converted to Islam since being in Australia.
The applicant’s wife was born in Albania and only obtained Greek citizenship in 2005. There is no evidence to suggest that the applicant had a profile of interest to Albanian authorities, or anyone else in Albania, because of his wife’s religion and her relationship to Greece. I do not accept the vague and unsupported assertion that he was accused of being a Greek spy and/or was forced to divorce his wife. There is no evidence to support these claims, and the applicant’s evidence to me is that he is still legally married to his wife and they are still living together in the same house, notwithstanding he also says that they separated about 12 years ago.
I note that the applicant lived in Albania for many years and would also travel in and out of Albania and usually from Greece. I do not accept that he could so readily travel to and from Albania, have a passport renewed, receive land compensation and be involved in ongoing legal proceedings if he was genuinely of interest to Albanian authorities or anyone else.
Nor do I accept the vague evidence to fear harm from his wife’s family. The applicant is unable to articulate a reason why he claims to fear harm from her family and I do not accept that he does. Such a claim is also inconsistent with evidence given by Ms F in a separate proceeding. I have considered the applicant’s response to the evidence she has given but I do not find it persuasive. Whilst the question of family dynamics may not directly answer the question of whether or not the applicant is stateless, the truthfulness of his account to be in an ongoing relationship with Ms F and whether they have claimed to fear harm from his family and/or her family are matters that go to the applicant’s credibility more generally.
The applicant’s written material raises the applicant’s fear of harm because he has converted to Islam. When asked about this at the hearing, the applicant responded that he does not fear any harm as a Muslim and only attends mosque in Australia to socialise with other Albanians. He says that he is not religious and respects all religions. In evidence to me, he said that he does not identify as a practicing Muslim or fear harm in Albania for any reason associated with this.
In any event, and as I discussed with the applicant during the hearing, Muslim constitute nearly 57 per cent of the Albanian population, with Roman Catholics accounting for 10 per cent, the Albanian Autocephalous Orthodox Church account for seven per cent and members of the Bektashi Order (an Islamic Sufi order) accounting for two per cent.[13]
[13] 2023 Report on International Religious Freedom: Albania, U.S. Department of State (>
The Albanian Constitution states there is no official religion, recognises the equality of all religious communities and articulates the state’s duty to respect and protect religious coexistence. The Albanian criminal code prohibits interference in an individual’s ability to practice a religion and it prescribes punishments of up to three years in prison for obstructing the activities of religious organisations or for wilfully destroying objects or buildings of religious value.[14]
[14] 2023 Report on International Religious Freedom: Albania, U.S. Department of State (>
There is no evidence of Muslims being targeted for harm in Albania and I do not accept that the applicant would have a profile of interest even if he is a practicing Muslim.
Data breach / failed asylum seeker
In approximately 2014, the Department was involved in an accidental data breach that resulted in the personal details of nearly 10,000 people seeking asylum in Australia being posted online by the Australian government. As the applicant did not lodge his application for a protection visa until April 2015, I do not accept that any of his personal details were published as a part of this data breach.
I also accept on the objective evidence from the Department that the applicant’s protection visa application was identified as missing in November 2019. It is very unfortunate that occurred. However, there is no evidence to suggest that any information from the applicant’s protection visa application has been published in any way or will otherwise have come to the attention of the Albanian authorities. The applicant is unable to explain why he fears harm for this reason and appeared surprised and confused when I asked him questions about it.
I do not accept that the applicant’s personal details about applying for a protection visa, and his related claims and evidence, are known to the Albanian authorities or to any other person.
I accept that the applicant will be returning to Albania as a failed asylum seeker, however there is no credible claim, evidence or information before me to suggest that the applicant will come to the attention of Albanian authorities, or anyone else, for this reason. I accept that he may require travel documents if he no longer has a valid passport, but I do not accept that this fact alone will subject him to adverse attention. I place some weight upon his penal clearance document showing that he left Albania without a criminal record, and I do not accept that pursuing legal rights in relation to a land dispute will increase his profile as a returnee.
Summary and conclusion
I have said from the outset that there is a significant amount of material given by the applicant in support of this application. It has all been considered but it is impractical and unnecessary to refer to it all.
There is also a degree of difficulty in separating various strands of the applicant’s evidence and claims. At times his evidence appears to be about a discrete claim or event before suddenly being linked back to something else that is also said to have happened.
Ultimately, I accept that the applicant has a father who was politically targeted under the communist regime. I do not accept that the applicant and his remaining family were targeted in the same way, particularly after the fall of communism in the early 1990s. This finding takes strength in the applicant and his mother receiving land and money by way of official compensation for past wrongs.
I also accept that the applicant is involved in a land dispute. The parties to the dispute are opaque, but it involves family members and other people. The legal proceedings are ongoing. They are also opaque, but they point to a functioning judiciary that is considering the dispute(s). It is possible that the dispute may be resolved and in a manner that does not favour the applicant, but that does not necessarily mean the process will have been corrupt or that corrupt people are targeting the applicant’s interests. The evidence does not satisfy me that they are.
I do not accept that the applicant’s citizenship was revoked by a Presidential degree, either because of an anti-government opinion and/or his land dispute, or for any other reason.
I do not accept that he has faced acts of physical and/or mental and/or emotional threats or violence. I do not accept, for example, that he was accused of being a Greek spy or that he was of any interest to anyone because of his marriage to a woman with Greek ethnicity. Nor do I accept that he was of interest to Albanian authorities, ex-communists, politicians, prosecutors or other influential businesspeople for any reason, including because of father’s past anti-communist profile, his membership of any association or organisation, his land dispute and/or any other matter he has raised.
It follows that I do not accept that the applicant’s brother was murdered and/or that the applicant has himself been targeted for harm on multiple occasions. I do not accept, for example, that he was arrested and detained in Albania without formal charges, that he has been taken by police to an abandoned building and tortured, that he has been pulled over whilst driving and beaten unconscious or that a car attempted to run him over following his sister’s funeral.
Since the fall of communism in 1990s, I do not accept that powerful political, legal and/or business figures have used their positions to steal the applicant’s land or have acted corruptly to threaten or target him to further their own wealth or positions. It may be that he is still seeking a satisfactory resolution to land issues that pre-dated the fall of communism in Albania, but the evidence does not satisfy me that this involves corruption or a targeting of the applicant for harm for any reason.
Weighing up all the accepted facts, evidence and country information that is before me, I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm, or a real risk of significant harm, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
I am not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act.
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa, and I find that he does not. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION

100. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Andrew Verduci
Member
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…

cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b) that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a) a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b) if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…

5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…

5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:

(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

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

5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…

36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

(c) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2024] AATA 4420

2 October 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Standing