Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
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.CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE The issue in this case is whether, on account of the risk posed to the First Applicant from gangs and corrupt police and / or the family’s ethnicity, the Applicants are persons to whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36 of the Act and cl 866.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The Tribunal records that having reviewed the Applicants’ identity documents and heard oral evidence from the First and Second Applicants, it is satisfied as to their identities as citizens of Fiji. For the purposes of this protection eligibility assessment Fiji is the ‘receiving country’, and the Applicants’ protection claims are assessed with regard to circumstances in Fiji as these relate to them. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be remitted for reconsideration. The First Applicant came to Australia on [date] January 2020. His wife and children joined him four days later, on[date] January 2020. In the family’s application for protection, made 24 January 2020, the First Applicant set out their claims, reproduced here in summary form: He used to work at a club that was dominated by indigenous Fijians. At first it was good, but then he started to experience racial discrimination and it started getting harder. He managed to hang in there for a few years, but things started to get worse and he faced insults and physical assaults. The problems went from work to home. He did not receive much help and the people he worked with stuck together, being from the same ethnicity. They supported each other and planned to get rid of him. He kept on taking it because he did not have another job to go to.If he had to return to Fiji he would not have a job or a home; the family was not safe where they were living, which was a squatter settlement owned by indigenous landowners who would demand money from them. He had to work through the night and was afraid for his family at home alone. While at work, he would get phone calls from his family about them being harassed by people. At work, he couldn’t do his job as he had to control a Fijian dominated club and being Indian meant he used to receive racial comments and sometimes be manhandled. He tried to lodge complaints but nothing came from them. In terms of work, the response was they can’t arrest everyone and it is part of his workplace for people to be drunk, and in terms of the issues at home, complaining only caused more problems. He did not move: he had been working at the same place for 10 years, and could not leave the job because he would not get another to support his family. He cannot return to that workplace, and the land that they used to stay at has now been taken over by the traditional landowner: because they are Indo-Fijian they cannot afford to rent proper land as it costs too much.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Section 36(3) of the Act provides that Australia is taken not to have protection obligations in respect of a non-citizen who has not taken all possible steps to avail themselves of a right to enter and reside in a third country. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the applicants have any right to enter and reside in any other country and the Tribunal finds that s 36(3) does not apply in the circumstances of this case. DECISION The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the following directions:(i) the first named applicant satisfies s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act; and(ii)the other applicants satisfy s 36(2)(c)(i) of the Migration Act, on the basis of membership of the same family unit as the first named applicant.Amy FaramMemberATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 19585 (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 familyFor 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 familyFor 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.…
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Sections 5(1) and 36(2A) and (2B) 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.CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE The issue in this case is whether, on account of the risk posed to the First Applicant from gangs and corrupt police and / or the family’s ethnicity, the Applicants are persons to whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36 of the Act and cl 866.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The Tribunal records that having reviewed the Applicants’ identity documents and heard oral evidence from the First and Second Applicants, it is satisfied as to their identities as citizens of Fiji. For the purposes of this protection eligibility assessment Fiji is the ‘receiving country’, and the Applicants’ protection claims are assessed with regard to circumstances in Fiji as these relate to them. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be remitted for reconsideration. The First Applicant came to Australia on [date] January 2020. His wife and children joined him four days later, on[date] January 2020. In the family’s application for protection, made 24 January 2020, the First Applicant set out their claims, reproduced here in summary form: He used to work at a club that was dominated by indigenous Fijians. At first it was good, but then he started to experience racial discrimination and it started getting harder. He managed to hang in there for a few years, but things started to get worse and he faced insults and physical assaults. The problems went from work to home. He did not receive much help and the people he worked with stuck together, being from the same ethnicity. They supported each other and planned to get rid of him. He kept on taking it because he did not have another job to go to.If he had to return to Fiji he would not have a job or a home; the family was not safe where they were living, which was a squatter settlement owned by indigenous landowners who would demand money from them. He had to work through the night and was afraid for his family at home alone. While at work, he would get phone calls from his family about them being harassed by people. At work, he couldn’t do his job as he had to control a Fijian dominated club and being Indian meant he used to receive racial comments and sometimes be manhandled. He tried to lodge complaints but nothing came from them. In terms of work, the response was they can’t arrest everyone and it is part of his workplace for people to be drunk, and in terms of the issues at home, complaining only caused more problems. He did not move: he had been working at the same place for 10 years, and could not leave the job because he would not get another to support his family. He cannot return to that workplace, and the land that they used to stay at has now been taken over by the traditional landowner: because they are Indo-Fijian they cannot afford to rent proper land as it costs too much.