2009031 (Refugee)

2009031 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 3672 (17 September 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE: Mr Joseph Italiano
CASE NUMBER: 2009031

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Albania
MEMBER:Andrew Verduci
DATE:17 September 2024
PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.

Statement made on 17 September 2024 at 1:46pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Albania – blood feuds – physical assault – land dispute – state protection – referral for the Ministerial Intervention – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 195A, 417, 424AA, 438, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
BACKGROUND

The first-named applicant is [an age]-year-old male citizen of Albania. He is married to the second-named applicant, [an age]-year female citizen of Albania. The third, fourth and fifth named applicants are their dependent children. The third named applicant was born in Albania and arrived in Australia with his parents [in] April 2015. The fourth and fifth-named applicants are aged [ages] respectively and were born in Australia. Because of the way that their evidence has been provided, I will generally refer to the first and second-named applicants as ‘the applicants’ unless otherwise specified.
The applicants and their children lodged a combined application for a Protection visa which was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 22 May 2020 under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
This is a review in relation to the decision refusing to grant the applicants and their children those visas.
Protection visa application
The applicants and their children lodged a combined application for a Protection visa on 17 June 2015. According to their written visa application, only the first-named applicant is raising claims for protection. The second to fifth-named applicants claim to be members of the same family unit as the first-named applicant. It also says, by way of summary:
·The first-named applicant was born in [City 1] in Albania.
·He left Albania with his family because of a blood feud with another family. The feud started in 1986 when the first-named applicant’s great grandfather killed someone in the [Family 1].
·Following this, members of the [Family 1] have stolen land from the first-named applicant’s family and destroyed their property. The first-named applicant has been threatened and assaulted, including being stabbed with a knife. The applicants were also threatened at gun point at a border crossing.
·The applicant and their children have fled Albania because it was not safe for them to live there.
·The applicants tried relocating within Albania but continued to be threatened. They applicants tried to reconcile with the [Family 1] using third party mediators but were unsuccessful.
·The Albanian government is corrupt and has not helped.
I have reviewed the evidence and submissions contained within the Department’s file. It is not necessary to repeat in full, but it includes:
·Various news articles and media reports about Albanian blood feuds;
·Photographs, video recording and reports regarding a property fire;
·Certificates regarding negotiation and conciliation attempts between the first-named applicant’s family and [Family 1].
The delegate did not accept that the first-named applicant’s family is involved in a blood feud with the [Family 1], or that he had been mistreated or harmed because of a land dispute between involving the applicant’s father and a member of the [Family 1]. The delegate was not satisfied that the first-named applicant faced a real chance of serious harm for a refugee reason mentioned in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act. The delegate was also not satisfied that there were substantials grounds for believing that, as a consequence from being removed to Albania, there was a real risk that the first-named applicant would suffer significant harm.
Application for review
The applicants and their children lodged an application for a review of the delegate’s decision with this Tribunal on 29 May 2020. Their application for review was only constituted to me in August 2024 and it is regrettable that it has taken so long for their application to be considered.
I have been provided with written evidence and submissions throughout this review. It is not necessary to set out all of the evidence in full, but it includes:
·A review and critique of the U.K.’s Home Office’s Country Policy and Information Note on blood feuds in Albania;
·Media reports about Albanian blood feuds;
·Written submissions and reference letters;
·Australian Federal Police certificates;
·Medical information about the second-named applicant’s health;
·A written request for Ministerial intervention under s 195A of the Act.
Tribunal hearing
The applicants appeared before me to give evidence and arguments on 5 September 2024. The applicants’ two youngest children did not attend. Their eldest child, the third-named applicant, did attend but they chose for him to remain outside of the hearing room and not hear or give any evidence.
The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Albanian and English languages, although the applicants would frequently speak in English without waiting for interpretation into the Albanian language.
The applicants were represented in relation to the review, although there was a change to the applicants’ representative very shortly before the scheduled hearing. Their new representative attended the hearing.
I have reflected on all aspects of the hearing and I am satisfied it was a genuine and meaningful opportunity for everyone involved.
Section 438 non-disclosure certificate
There is a non-disclosure certificate in the Department’s file issued under s 438(1)(b) of the Act. I have considered this certificate and the information it purports to apply to, and I have formed the view that the certificate is valid. A copy of the certificate was given to the applicants and their representative during the hearing and they were invited to comment on the certificate and my view that it was valid. They did not dispute the validity of the certificate.
Using the procedure in s 424AA of the Act, I provided the applicants with the gist of the information that this certificate applies to. The information can generally be described as a dob-in allegation that the applicants’ claims are not genuine. I gave the applicants the gist of this information and invited them to give oral comments or a response. After a short adjournment, the applicants responded that I should not place any weight on this information because it is from an anonymous source and there is no way to test the validity of what is being said. I agree, and I have placed no weight upon the information covered by the non-disclosure certificate.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
I am satisfied about the identities of the first to fifth-named applicants. I am also satisfied that they are all citizens of Albania and that Albania is their receiving country. In reaching this conclusion, I have regard to the Albanian passports for the first, second and third-named applicants. I have also had regard to Albanian law regarding citizenship that relevantly provides that a child acquires Albanian citizenship at birth if both of the child’s parents are Albanian nationals.[1]
Blood feud or a land dispute
[1] >
Although the details of the dispute are vague, I am prepared to accept that the applicant’s great grandfather was involved in a dispute with the [Family 1] in 1916 in the town of [Town 1] in the [City 1] region of northern Albania. A member of [Family 1] was killed in 1916 during that dispute.
I also accept that the first-named applicant’s moved to [City 1] in 1970 and effectively abandoned the family-owned land. I also accept that land in Albania was compulsory acquired by the government during the Communist regime. Attempts have been made to redistribute land to the original landowners after the fall of communism, but current and former landowners have not always agreed on land re-distribution outcomes.
I find that that first-named applicant’s family have been aggrieved by the redistribution of land in the 1990s and that the first-named applicant’s father has, at various points in time, sought to peacefully address this with [Family 1] who are the current landowners.
The first-named applicant’s father has not pursued this land dispute since he left Albania in 2013, however, and his father’s siblings declined to be involved in the dispute when they were all still living in Albania. There is no reason to find that a dispute about this land will resume now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
I also do not accept that this dispute caused a blood feud between the families, or that it has led to the applicants facing threats or harm as a result.
In considering these claims, I have also reflected on the following country information which I discussed during the hearing:
According to one source,
…a blood feud involves the members of one family killing members of another family in retaliatory acts of vengeance which are carried out according to an ancient code of honour and behaviour… Traditionally, it is only adult males who become targets of a blood feud, which can last for decades and can require the extinction of all male family members. More recently, there have been reports of women and children becoming targets in blood feuds.[2]
[2] United Kingdom Home Office Country policy and information note: blood feuds, Albania, July 2024 (accessible), updated 12 July 2024, at [8.1.1] (Country policy and information note: blood feuds, Albania, July 2024 (accessible) - GOV.UK (>
The Executive Director of the Albanian Foundation for Conflict Resolution of Disputes, an NGO based in Albania, is reported as saying:
…it is difficult to know how many blood feuds are currently in existence, but overall they are seeing a decreased trend.
…[the media] are trying to make it more obvious and make it more of an issue than it really is. In 2021 according to the state police in Shkoder there was only one blood feud related homicide, but the media present ten-times more than that, maybe they don’t have correct information or they are labelling murder as blood feud, we don’t know. The reason is there is confusion between the revenge murder (which happens all around the world) and also blood feud murders, which are different. There is also the reconciliation association who have increased the number of blood feud cases even though they are not the real ones.[3]
[3] United Kingdom Home Office Country policy and information note: blood feuds, Albania, July 2024 (accessible), updated 12 July 2024, at [9.1.15] – [9.1.16] (Country policy and information note: blood feuds, Albania, July 2024 (accessible) - GOV.UK (>
Similarly, the Government of Albania has recorded the number of cases of blood feud murder between 2012 and 2020 in relation to Article 75a of its Criminal Code as steadily declining, with only one recorded instance in each of the years 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2020, and zero in the years 2015 and 2019.[4]
[4] United Kingdom Home Office Country policy and information note: blood feuds, Albania, July 2024 (accessible), updated 12 July 2024, at [9.4.4] (Country policy and information note: blood feuds, Albania, July 2024 (accessible) - GOV.UK (>
The Government of Albania has also said that significant efforts have been made in recent years to address the issue of blood feud. In March 2025, the Albanian Parliament approved a resolution urging the Coordinating Council for the Fight against Blood Feud to take measures to prevent the phenomenon in Albania. The Headquarters against Crime with Motives of Revenge and Blood Feuds was established at General Directorate of State Police and is responsible for guiding, overseeing and coordinating the work of subordinate structures in this field.[5]
[5] United Kingdom Home Office Country policy and information note: blood feuds, Albania, July 2024 (accessible), updated 12 July 2024, at [10.6] (Country policy and information note: blood feuds, Albania, July 2024 (accessible) - GOV.UK (>
Turning to the applicants’ claims, I place weight on the absence of any deaths since 1916. This is not to say that further deaths must have occurred before I would accept this claim, but it is also significant that no further killings or deaths have occurred since 1916. There is no suggestion that the first-named applicant’s great grandfather was harmed or killed by [Family 1] in revenge, and it appears that his family continued living in or around the town of [Town 1] for a long time afterwards.
It seems to have been safe enough for members of the first-named applicant’s family to continue living in [Town 1] until 1970, more than 50 years after the killing is said to have occurred. No other killing or death occurred during this time.
The evidence about the conflict escalating in 1970 is vague, but, in any event, the first-named applicant’s grandfather appears to have felt safe enough to escape it by travelling to the city of [City 1]. This is a distance of approximately 45km, or less than a one-hour drive by modern standards.[6] Even allowing for the travelling standards of 1970 to be slower, I do not consider that such a relatively short distance would prevent or dissuade a motivated attacker operating in accordance with customary blood feud law from following and seeking out the applicant’s grandfather or any other male relative in his family.
[6][Source deleted.]
I am prepared to accept that the first-named applicant’s grandfather relocated from [Town 1] to [City 1] in 1970, but not because he was seeking safety and/or escaping from a blood feud with [Family 1] in [Town 1]. In the course of moving from [Town 1] to [City 1], though, he effectively abandoned his family-owned land there. This abandonment has played a part in [Family 1] being the current landowners.
I accept that the applicant was wounded at some stage and has a scar on his body, but I do not accept that he was attacked in 1996 because of a blood feud with [Family 1]. His evidence about this is vague, and there seems no plausible explanation why he was suddenly targeted in 1996 despite not being threatened or targeted before then. He was living in [City 1] which, as noted above, is a relatively short distance from [Family 1] living in [Town 1]. It is not plausible, and I do not accept, that members of [Family 1] would do nothing for so long, but then suddenly decide in 1996 to seek revenge against the first-named applicant. He also did not recognise his attackers and it would seem that they did not recognise him, at least until after he confirmed who he was for them. Following this claimed attack, the first-named applicant appears comfortable enough to have then served his military service for a year and then moved to [Country 1] for another one and a half years whilst the rest of his immediate family remained living in [City 1]. Having experienced such an attempt on his life because of a claimed blood feud, I do not accept that he would then spend the next two to three years living away from his wife and children.[7] I do not accept that women and children are immune from being targeted in a blood feud, and I place some weight upon them living alone during this time.
[7] United Kingdom Home Office Country policy and information note: blood feuds, Albania, July 2024 (accessible), updated 12 July 2024, at [9.6] (Country policy and information note: blood feuds, Albania, July 2024 (accessible) - GOV.UK (>
I am prepared to accept that the applicant’s father returned to his former home and land in [Town 1] at different points in time, including 1999 and 2013. I comfortably find that the purpose of these visits was related to his families land that had effectively been abandoned many years earlier.
The act of returning to [Town 1] points against the first-named applicant’s father fearing he would be harmed or killed by [Family 1]. The first-named applicant’s father is said to have gone to [Town 1] by himself in 1999 because his own brothers showed no interest in the land, and in 2013 he was accompanied by a village elder and two cousins. Even if I accept that he was accompanied on his second visit, I do not accept that he would expose himself to being harmed or killed in this way. By the time of the first visit in 1999, the first-named applicant is already said to have been stabbed because of the blood feud. It is implausible that his father would not know about this and it would have demonstrated the risk of harm that the first-named applicant’s father would be exposing himself to.

I am concerned by the new evidence given to me that the reason the first-named applicant’s father was never physically harmed during his return visits, or at any other time, is because he is an invalid. According to this new evidence, the first-named applicant’s father was injured in [an] accident and requires [assistance] for mobility. Accordingly, it is said that customary Albanian law and pride means that the first-named applicant’s father would not be attacked or harmed. However, there is no previous mention of the first-named applicant’s father being an invalid. I have considered, but do not accept, that it was never mentioned because the applicants did not think it was important. I am satisfied that there is not a reasonable explanation why this claim or evidence was not presented before the delegate’s decision was made and I draw an inference unfavourable to its credibility. Whilst I am prepared to accept that the first-named applicant’s father uses mobility aids, I find that his applicant’s father was willing to return to [Town 1] and discuss land issues with [Family 1] because there is no blood feud and he did not feel under any threat by doing so.
I am concerned about the applicants’ evidence of being attacked at a border crossing in 2014. In a chance encounter, the applicants’ car was stopped at a border crossing by a member of [Family 1]. The first-named applicant followed the border officer’s instructions to drive away from the checkpoint and parked in a secluded area away from road. Once parked there, a gun was pointed at the first-named applicant but he managed to drive away. As the applicants’ recognised the border official as a member of [Family 1], the family they claim to have previously tried to kill the first-named applicant because of a blood feud, I do not accept that they would expose themselves to the risk of harm in this way. I do not accept that the first-named applicant thought this would be an opportunity to talk and negotiate with [Family 1] and/or that he followed the officer’s instructions because of male pride and not wanting to look weak in front of his wife.
I have serious concerns about the applicants’ claim to have tried mediation or reconciliation to end their dispute with [Family 1] in 2015 and I place little weight upon the certificates given by them in support of this claim.
There is credible open-source reporting regarding the prevalence of false documents originating from Albania in general, but also credible reporting of false documents issued by reconciliation committees more specifically. One source, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada,[8] previously said:
[8]Response to Information Request ALB104752.E, published 28 February 2014, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada ( October 2011, Balkan Insight conducted an undercover investigation that found that some NGOs were "routinely" selling documents to Albanian asylum seekers in Europe, claiming that the holders were involved in a blood feud even if a real conflict did not exist (27 Oct. 2011). In December 2011, media sources reported that Gjin Marku, the head of the National Reconciliation Committee [also known as Committee of Nationwide Reconciliation (CNR)], and a member of the Peace Missionary Association, were charged with selling falsified certificates that claimed people were the victims of blood feuds (Balkan Insight 5 Dec. 2011; Top Channel 2 Dec. 2011). According to the news source Top Channel TV, the mayor of Malesi a Madhe and the head of Postriba commune had also previously been charged with falsification of documents related to blood feuds (ibid.). For further information see Response to Information Request ALB103902.
The CNR claims that the accusation that Gjin Marku, the chairman of the CNR, falsified documents about blood feuds was a "political set-up" involving the police, traffickers and government authorities (CNR 28 Dec. 2011). The CNR further claims that the chairman was cleared of the charges in May 2012 (12 May 2012). In 10 May 2012 correspondence with the Research Directorate, an official at the Embassy of Canada in Rome wrote that the Albanian Ministry of Interior had said that a police certificate dated 17 April 2012 certifying that no penal proceedings were being issued against Gjin Marku was genuine (Canada 10 May 2012).
The Canadian official was told that there is no "official list" of NGOs that have been under investigation for providing falsified attestation letters related to blood feuds (ibid. 3 Feb. 2014). Without providing details, the Head of Sector at the Albanian State Police reportedly said that some NGOs have been under investigation and that the chairman of an NGO has been detained for a few days, but he was not at liberty to release the names of individuals and NGOs that have been under investigation by the Albanian State Police (ibid.).
In a fact-finding mission to Albania about blood feuds that was conducted in April 2013, the Swedish Migration Board reported that, according to a representative of the Department of Serious Crimes of the Albanian Ministry of Interior,
…
[t]he volunteer organisations [working with blood feud reconciliation] that previously issued attestations have ceased doing so, because the police are investigating this part of their activities. The police have no mandate to control the organisations and determine which of them are trustworthy. The police have no interest in exposing any individual organisation, but would rather cooperate with them. The police have seen many false documents and legal proceedings have been initiated against those who issued them. (Sweden 14 June 2013, Sec. 4.2.2)
The Swedish Migration Board also reports that, according to a representative of the Ombudsman in Shkoder,
…
there are corrupt volunteer organisations that have provided Albanians with false attestations and incorrect advice about the possibilities of applying for asylum abroad. Legal processes involving this have been initiated. But the representative emphasises that the majority of volunteer organisations and the Church are doing a very good ("heroic") job and that it is enough that one organisation misbehaves in order for headlines to appear. (ibid., Sec. 4.2.3)
A journalist at Balkan Insight, in a 13 February 2014 telephone interview, told the Research Directorate the following:
NGOs that issue attestation letters do not have any legal authority to do so. Many of them make money by selling attestation letters. Some NGOs exaggerate the number of blood feuds because of this. However, some people who have attestation letters and apply for asylum may have legitimate claims. I think the best way to check would be to check the information with the local police.
The Nationwide Reconciliation Committee [CNR] has issued attestation letters but has no legal authority to do so. The statistics that they claim of the number of blood feuds--10,000 in the last 20 years--is nowhere close to reality. (13 Feb. 2014)
The Swedish Migration Board states that the CNR was the organization most frequently mentioned by the sources they consulted in Albania as being linked to "accusations of corruption and the issuing of false attestation letters" (Sweden 14 June 2013, Sec. 4.2.3). A representative of Caritas Albania, an organization established by the Catholic Church with 95 missions in Albania that provide emergency relief and social development services (Caritas n.d.), reportedly described the CNR to the Swedish Migration Board as [translation] "the largest organisation in the field [blood feud mediation], with a great deal of resources and power, but that the organisation is controversial and that it is difficult to evaluate whether it possesses real knowledge in this area" (Sweden 14 June. 2013, Sec. 4.2.3). The Caritas representative also expressed the opinion that the CNR did good work in the 1990s, but became "corrupted" after 1997 (ibid.). In addition, a representative of the Helsinki Committee questioned the capacity of the CNR "beyond purely financial activities" (ibid.).
In a 2012 decision by the UK Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal, the judges stated, "We consider that the organisation [CNR] and Mr. Marku are wholly unreliable and that no weight can be placed on the attestation letters they produce" (UK 15 Oct. 2012, para. 55).
In contrast, the Professor said that in his experience, the CNR and its chairperson "had a pretty good reputation" for their work in blood feud reconciliation (Professor 3 Feb. 2014).
According to the Swedish Migration Board, a representative of the EU delegation to Albania said that the leader of the CNR was arrested (Sweden 14 June 2013, Sec. 4.2.3). The EU representative also noted that "there may be corruption links between the volunteer organisations, the police, and municipalities" (ibid.).
An article by the Independent Balkan News Agency states that the Department Against Corruption of the Durres Police launched an operation against organizations that issued false documents about blood feuds for the purpose of claiming asylum in the EU and Canada, and made arrests on 18 February 2014 (Independent Balkan News Agency 19 Feb. 2014). The article provides the following details about the arrests:
Based on an inquiry lasting several months and the evidence that was collected, the District Court of Durres issued an arrest warrant against Ndrec Prenga, 61 years of age, resident in Durres, head of the National Assembly of the Missionaries of Nationwide Reconciliation of Albania and the head of the Committee of Reconciliation for the District of Durres, Tom Marena, 70 years of age, resident in Durres, member and intermediary who has been previously arrested (in January this year) for unlawful possession of weapons; Petrit Ndoj, 33 years of age, resident in Arapaj, Durres, who was issued with a forged document. The court said that these three persons will face trial for "Active corruption in the private sector" and "Forgery of documents". (ibid.)
The official at the Honorary Consulate of Canada in Tirana stated in 26 February 2014 correspondence with the Research Directorate that 12 people have been arrested in Shkoder city for issuing falsified documents on blood feuds, including the local secretary of the Reconciliation Committee (Canada 26 Feb. 2014).
The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada published a similar response to an information request more recently in September 2022.[9]
[9] Responses to Information Requests - Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (irb-cisr.gc.ca)
The United Kingdom’s Home Office also reported on an Albanian blood feud fact finding mission conducted in November 2022.[10] When asked about organisations providing false documents, the Executive Director of the Albanian Foundation for Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation of Disputes said:
A. The organisation I just mentioned [Nationwide Reconciliation Committee], the media shows that this organisation issued such certificates illegally. Also, several years ago municipal administrators issued such documents, but according to my knowledge law enforcement addressed this issue and in the last 3-4 ears there has been no reports of such documents being issued.
[10] Report of a fact-finding mission, Albania: Blood feuds, published by United Kingdom Home Office, January 2023 (>
When asked if there have been police prosecution of any associations in Shkoder, the Director of police for the Shkoder Regional Police Directorate said:
A. It was a problem in 2011. I think this occurred in the UK when people were claiming they were in a blood feud and they possessed documents issued by elders in villages, and associations. During that time, prosecutions were initiated against elders of villages and the association because of the documents released. The association was the Council of Reconciliation of blood feud.
In the same report, an official from the Prosecutors Office – Shkoder is recorded as saying:
Q. Do the prosecution office issue documents to say that a blood feud is taking place?
A. From a legal point of view, blood feud is not mentioned, we do not release a statement or documents saying this individual is involved or threatened because of a blood feud. What we do is release documents providing information about a case, whether it is being investigated or has gone to court, or is bine adjudicated under Article 78a [final judgement of the court that decides whether a blood feud or not]. We provide such documents to the victim’s side. There are cases when we issue a statement saying murder has been committed and we provide information about the murder but cannot say if it is related to blood feud if there is no evidence of such. There were requests for murder to be considered as blood feud but they were refused to no evidence. The situations is different regarding threats because the documents we issue say this has been threatened because of blood feud related issues.
We have cases of individuals who seek asylum in UK and Belgium, but for economic purposes. After failing to get asylum, their lawyer tells them to relate the claim to blood feud as they are told it is easier to obtain asylum and that is why there is such a document.
Q. So a lawyer might contact you for documents to say there is a blood feud?
A. So the lawyer contacts family members in Albania and the family members comes to us asking for such a document.
The report also records these answers from the Editor in chief, Syri TV Albania, syri.net:
Q. Are documents issued on payment of bribe?
A. Yes, there is some truth in that. There was some time during 2001 and 2005 when documents were issued because of bribes. Sometimes even the ones who deserve to have such a document issued to them, they still pay. I recall that there was an investigation.
Another source also says:
Attestation letters from non-government organisations and press reports are unlikely to be reliable evidence of the existence of blood feuds. District prosecution offices may issue documentation stating if a complaint was filed and an investigation initiated along with the status of that investigation. However, the offices would not, until all investigations have been concluded, confirm whether or not a person is in a blood feud.[11]
[11] United Kingdom Home Office Country policy and information note: blood feuds, Albania, July 2024 (accessible), updated 12 July 2024, at [8.1.1] (Country policy and information note: blood feuds, Albania, July 2024 (accessible) - GOV.UK (>
I also place some weight on the following statement appearing on the Nationwide Reconciliation Committee’s website:[12]
The National Reconciliation Committee declares that everything that is said on the internet against the activity of this Committee and its chairman Gjin Marku is disinformation of organised crime and terrorism. We request that local and international institutions distance themselves from such disinformation and false opinions. Unfortunately, some immigration offices and courts have fallen victim to these disinformation, making completely unjust decisions that have brough serious consequences to people’s lives.
[12] Committee of Nationwide Reconciliation, accessed 17 September 2024 (>
These concerns were raised during the hearing and the applicants were invited to give oral comments or a response. They were granted a short adjournment, and I have considered the response that they gave when the hearing resumed. They have essentially responded that, to the best of their knowledge, they asked the Nationwide Reconciliation Committee to negotiate with [Family 1] and the certificates stating this have been genuinely issued.
On balance, the weight that I give the applicants’ own evidence and the Nationwide Reconciliation Committee’s own published statement is outweighed by my own concerns about the applicants’ evidence set out above and below, as well as the combined weight of credible reporting regarding false or fraudulent blood feud certificates. This leads me to conclude that they are not certificates about genuine reconciliation attempts or a genuine blood feud involving the applicants.
I also do not accept that a fire in an apartment owned by the applicants’ family is linked to a blood feud. The applicants have provided a report stating that it was an electrical fire, but the applicants do not believe or accept this to be true. Other than their suspicions or speculation that it was caused by [Family 1], there is no other evidence to corroborate their account of what happened.
I am prepared to accept that the first-named applicant’s father’s cousin died in Kosovo in 2024. I do not accept that his death is related in any way to the claimed blood feud. The applicants’ evidence is that the death is being investigated and it is only their suspicion or speculation that he was harmed by [Family 1] because he was Albanian council member trying to help resolve the claimed blood feud.
I do not accept that the applicants have an ongoing blood feud with [Family 1] in Albania. It follows that I do not accept that members of [Family 1] have targeted or harmed the applicants or hold a grudge against them in any way. Whilst I accept that there has been a historical land dispute, I am comfortably satisfied that the lack of any recent interest by members of the applicants’ family in pursuing it, the passage of time since the land was redistributed and the length of time that land ownership has been with [Family 1] means that the applicants will not try and reagitate the issue if they return. I do not accept that the applicants return to Tirana, or Albania more generally, will cause [Family 1] to seek them out or harm them in any way.
As I do not accept that the applicants have been targeted by [Family 1] because of a blood feud or land dispute, it follows that I do not accept that they will be of interested to, or be targeted by, any political connections that [Family 1] have in Albania. In reaching this conclusion, I place some weight upon the applicants having lived in Tirana for a number of years before coming to Australia, and their own evidence to have lived a comfortable lifestyle there. They were able to acquire wealth and multiple properties, including a building which they leased to [an international agency]. This evidence is not consistent with [Family 1] wanting to harm or kill the applicants and having strong political connections throughout Albania that would make the applicants lives unsafe or difficult.
I find that the applicants, and their children, can return to Tirana, Albania. It is the part of Albania they most recently lived in and are connected with. They own property in Albania, including a house in their own name in Tirana.
I have also reflected on the information regarding the applicants health and mental health. There is a psychologist report before me dated 13 March 2020 which describes, among other things, symptoms of generalised anxiety, depressed mood and post-traumatic stress disorder. There is more recent evidence of an emergency medical discharge summary for the second-named applicant relating to a hospital presentation following a panic attack. I have placed some weight upon all of medical information that is before me. There is no evidence or suggestion that the applicants will be targeted for harm by anyone because of any health issues, and I find that they will not be.
Considering all of the available evidence and material before me, I find that the first to fifth-named applicants do not face a real chance of serious harm, or a real risk of significant harm, for any reason, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
I am not satisfied that any of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore they do not satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act. It follows that they are also unable to satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(b) or (c), and cannot be granted the visa.
Referral to the Department for the Minister’s consideration

I have been asked to refer this application to the Department for the Minister’s consideration.
Section 417 of the Act 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)’.
For reasons that I expressed to the applicants during the hearing, I may be less inclined to refer a matter to the Department if I am concerned about the truthfulness of the evidence I received during the review. As will be clear from the above, I have generally not accepted the applicants’ claims as truthful.
However, the third to fifth-named applicants are minors and have not given evidence directly to me. Their own applications, including the evidence and submissions given to me, are entirely dependant on the actions of others. It would be unfair for me to hold them accountable for the truthfulness of evidence given to me by others. I have therefore decided to refer this matter to the Department.
A type of unique or exceptional circumstance that may warrant the Minister’s intervention in the public interest is an exceptional economic, scientific, cultural or other benefit that would result for the applicants being permitted to remain in Australia.
The third-named applicant is an elite [sport 1] athlete. I am told that he is ranked [highly] at [his grade] in Australia. He has been selected to represent Australia at [specified international] championships. He must be an Australian citizen in order to compete for Australia at this level. He is supported by [named officials from a sport association and a community association].
It may be that the Minister wishes to consider whether the third-named applicant’s elite sporting ability is a cultural or other benefit to Australia.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.
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 3672

17 September 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction