2011210 (Refugee)
[2024] AATA 1039
•30 January 2024
2011210 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 1039 (30 January 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER: 2011210
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Fiji
MEMBER:Jennifer Ermert
DATE:30 January 2024
PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Statement made on 30 January 2024 at 12:47pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Fiji – imputed political opinion – opposition to the Bainimarama government – race – indigenous Fijian – particular social group – detention of applicant’s father – employment – state protection – return visit to Fiji – delay in applying for protection – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 15 June 2020 to refuse to grant the applicant a Class XA Subclass 866 Protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). That decision was made without inviting the applicant to attend an interview with the delegate.
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Fiji, applied for the Protection visa on 17 January 2020. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under either s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The applicant made an application for review of that decision on 6 July 2020.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 16 January 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted without the assistance of an interpreter.
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.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations either because she is a refugee or because she engages complementary protection.
Country of nationality and identity
The applicant claims to be a citizen of Fiji. She has provided a copy of her Fijian passport as well as a copy of her birth certificate to the Department of Home Affairs (‘the Department’). In the absence of evidence that the applicant is not the person she claimed to be, and in the absence of evidence that the passport or the birth certificate were bogus documents as defined in s 5(1) of the Act, the Department has accepted the applicant is a national of Fiji and has considered and assessed the applicant’s protection claims against Fiji in relation to s 36(2)(a) and s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
The Tribunal has had regard to the copy of the applicant’s Fijian passport and birth certificate on her departmental file, as well as the original of her Fijian passport which was sighted at the hearing and a copy of which was provided to the Tribunal. The Tribunal also accepts the applicant is a citizen of Fiji in the absence of contrary evidence. The Tribunal therefore finds Fiji is the applicant’s country of nationality for the purposes of s 36(2)(a) and s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Immigration history and protection claims
The applicant was the holder of a [Visitor] visa granted on 5 January 2018. Since being granted the Visitor visa, the applicant has made multiple trips to and from Australia on that visa throughout 2018 and 2019.
The applicant’s most recent arrival in Australia was in Sydney [in] October 2019, and she has not departed Australia since. On 17 January 2020, the day before her Visitor visa ceased, the applicant made an application for the grant of a Protection visa. The applicant was granted a Bridging visa in association with that Protection visa application on 23 January 2020, which the applicant still holds.
The applicant’s claims as set out in her Protection visa application were comprehensively documented in the delegate’s decision record, which the Tribunal will not repeat here. In summary, the applicant’s claims are based on political opinion imputed to her because of her father’s political activities which led to her father being convicted and imprisoned by the government of the former Prime Minister Josaia Voreqe (Frank) Bainimarama. Due to her relationship with her father, she was verbally and emotionally abused by other villagers who regarded her father as a troublemaker, and she was not accepted for some of the jobs she applied for because of her relationship with her father.
At the hearing, the applicant stated she was born and raised in [Town 1] and that there were [number] people including herself in her immediate family (parents, [and specified family members]). She went to a girl’s school but did not finish [Grade] due to carer responsibilities for her mother who was very ill with diabetes. After her mother passed away, she moved to Suva to live with a cousin while she recovered from the trauma of losing her mother with whom she was close. After a couple of years in Suva, the applicant returned to live with her family in [Town 2].
In 2014, while studying a [Course 1] at [a named] College which offered Australian government funded courses throughout the Pacific region, the applicant went to [Country 1] and did a 6-month placement with [Agency 1]. Beside [Country 1], the only country the applicant has visited is Australia, where she has relatives in Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane. The applicant stated visiting these relatives was the reason for her previous multiple trips to Australia.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant her claims based on imputed political opinion arising from her father’s political activities. The applicant maintained that her father’s conviction and imprisonment by the previous Bainimarama government for [supporting] the Nadroga-Navosa Sovereign Christian State, and [related charges,] was based on trumped up charges. The applicant claimed all her father did was talk to people about protecting and advocating for the rights and interests of indigenous Fijians.
When asked why she did not apply for protection on her first visit to Australia in January 2018, which was after her father had already gotten into trouble for his political activities, the applicant claimed she used to visit her father in jail, and she felt she had to return to Fiji to check on him to ensure he was alright. The applicant stated she eventually decided to apply for a Protection visa on her last trip to Australia not only because of her father’s situation, but because as the sole breadwinner for the family in circumstances where [one sibling] was already married and unable to financially assist, leaving her to support [specified remaining family members], remaining and working in Australia would allow her to better do so.
The Tribunal and the applicant discussed the implications of the change of government in Fiji following the December 2022 election, and the August 2023 country information update from DFAT that there are no reports of the former Prime Minister Bainimarama or his supporters targeting or pursuing individuals who opposed or whom they perceived were opposed to him (Bainimarama) since the change of government. The applicant conceded that having revisited her protection claims in the context of the current situation in Fiji, she is probably no longer able to meet the criteria for the grant of a Protection visa.
When asked if there are any other reasons why she is unable to return to Fiji despite the changed political landscape in Fiji affecting her protection claims based on imputed political opinion, the applicant claimed she does not wish to return to Fiji where she might come into contact with one of her [Relative As]. The applicant claimed this particular [Relative A], with whom she does not have any contact, was a drug user who had once threatened her parents with a knife, and during a visit in 2011 to her family’s home in [Town 2], he flew into a rage for some unknown reason and smashed up the house before burning it down. The applicant does not believe she could get effective protection from the Fijian police should she come into contact with and be threatened by this [Relative A], because the police there are ineffective and slow to respond to calls for help.
When asked why she did not raise the claims in relation to this [Relative A] in her Protection visa application at the outset, the applicant claimed she did not think it was relevant or possible for her to raise claims for protection based on domestic violence. She believed for her to get a Protection visa, she could only raise the claims relating to her father’s political activities, which she also thought would provide her with the greatest likelihood of success.
REASONS FOR THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed because the applicant does not meet any of the criteria in s 36(2).
Assessment of refugee status
To be eligible for the grant of a Protection visa on the basis of satisfying the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the applicant must show she has a well-founded fear of persecution in Fiji, and owing to that fear, is unable or unwilling to avail herself of the protection of Fiji. This requires an assessment of whether there is a real chance the applicant would be persecuted because of her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent: Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379.
Having considered the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal finds the applicant to be a witness of truth whose claims are credible and consistent with information available from the DFAT Country Information Report from 27 September 2017, which indicates that individuals or groups who organised and took action to create Christian separatist states within Fiji were at a moderate to high risk of harassment and arrest by authorities.[1] There is also ample country information showing that the applicant’s father was indeed charged, convicted and sentenced to [imprisonment].[2]
[1] DFAT Country Information Report Fiji, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 27 September 2017, p.18-19, [3.51] – [3.56].
[2] [Sources deleted.]
The treatment of individuals associated with the creation of Christian separatist states is also consistent with the reported treatment of other political parties or individuals, especially those with high public profiles, that were seen to challenge or undermine the former Bainimarama government’s authority or legitimacy.[3] In addition to arrest or detention, repressive laws and defamation suits were used by the former Bainimarama government to silence political opponents and government critics,[4] and re-entry bans were used as a de-facto way of exiling critics.[5]
[3] DFAT Country Information Report Fiji, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 27 September 2017, p.16, [3.41].
[4] Amnesty International Report 2022/23: The state of the world’s human rights, Amnesty International, 27 March 2023, p.164
[5] Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2022: Fiji, US Department of State, 20 March 2023, p.10
However, as discussed with the applicant during the hearing, DFAT’s Fiji Country Information – Political Update (2 August 2023) indicates there are no credible reports of the former Prime Minister Bainimarama or those loyal to him or his party pursuing Fijian nationals who publicly opposed him or his party since the change of government in December 2022. There is also no report of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces pursuing nationals who publicly opposed the former Prime Minister Bainimarama or his party since the change of government in December 2022.[6]
[6] ‘Fiji 20230621135833 - Country Information – Political Update’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2 August 2023.
This being the case, and given the applicant’s father has now served his jail term for his [conviction] and has been released,[7] the Tribunal finds there is no real chance that the applicant would be seriously harmed – including by being verbally and emotionally abused or by being refused when seeking employment as she claimed had occurred in the past – in the reasonably foreseeable future because of her relationship with her father and the political opinion imputed to her, should she return to Fiji. The applicant herself has conceded that she is probably now unable to meet the criteria for the grant of a Protection visa on the basis of these claims in light of Fiji’s changed political landscape.
[7] [Source deleted.]
As for the claim relating to her [Relative A] which was not previously raised, the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s explanation that she did not raise it because unlike her imputed political opinion, domestic violence from her [Relative A] was not a dominant reason for the harm she feared, and she had not thought it was relevant or could be raised.
The Tribunal is sympathetic to the applicant’s unwillingness to return to Fiji because of the possibility of encounter with this particular [Relative A] due to Fiji’s small size. However, the Tribunal does not accept there is a real chance that the applicant would be harmed because of the availability of state protection. The Tribunal acknowledges the applicant’s lack of confidence in the Fijian police’s ability to respond punctually to calls for help, which is corroborated by information from DFAT’s Country Information Report from 20 May 2022 that police may not be based in vehicles and may not arrive in time to disrupt crimes in progress.[8] However, the same Country Information Report also notes:
The Fiji Police Force (FPF) is a national police force that covers the whole country. The US Department of State Overseas Security Advisory Service 2020 Crime and Safety Report assesses Fiji police as ‘professional’ and notes recent improvements in training and accountability.[9]
Police are generally well-resourced by the Government and receive funding and training from overseas aid partners. The police are, in general, disciplined. Policing is conducted on a community policing model and police are generally actively engaged with the communities they serve.[10] The Fiji Police Force overall has the capacity to protect individuals from societal harassment, discrimination, and violence, and police are usually effective in carrying out their role in day-to-day crime detection, investigation and prevention.[11]
[8] DFAT Country Information Report Fiji, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 May 2022, p.22, [5.6].
[9] Ibid.
[10] DFAT Country Information Report Fiji, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 May 2022, p.24, [5.7].
[11] DFAT Country Information Report Fiji, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20 May 2022, p.24, [5.10].
For all the reasons discussed above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Complementary protection assessment
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal has considered whether it has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant’s removal from Australia to Fiji, there is a real risk that she would suffer significant harm as defined by s 36(2A).
In MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33, the Full Federal Court held that the ‘real risk’ test as it applies to complementary protection imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a).
For the reasons already discussed, the Tribunal does not accept there is a real chance that the applicant would be persecuted because of imputed political opinion arising from her relationship with her father, or because of violence from her [Relative A], now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Fiji, there is a real risk she would suffer significant harm.
Therefore, the Tribunal finds the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations on the basis of complementary protection under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Other criteria – member of family unit
Finally, there is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant is a member of the same family unit as another person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not satisfy s 36(2)(b) or (c) of the Act.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Jennifer Ermert
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
…
Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
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.
…
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
0
1
0