2012944 (Refugee)

2012944 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 2848 (17 April 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE:  Ms Namrata Chhetri (MARN: 1803289)
CASE NUMBER:  2012944
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Fiji
MEMBER:B. Mericourt
DATE:17 April 2024
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 17 April 2024 at 2:46pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa – Fiji – victims of systemic injustice in Fiji – domestic abuse of his mother – psychologically affected by his father’s inhumane acts – not satisfied the applicant suffered any harm from his biological father – not satisfied the applicant has a well-founded fear of serious harm – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 8 July 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Fiji, applied for the visa on 17 December 2018. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that she was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or that there is a real chance he will be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in s5J(1) of the Act if he returns to Fiji. Nor was the delegate satisfied that there is any real chance the applicant will suffer significant harm as defined in s36(2A) of the Act if he returns to Fiji.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 11 April 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicant’s mother.
The applicant was not represented at the hearing.
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.
Receiving Country
The applicant claims to be a citizen of Fiji. He provided a copy of the bio data page of his Fijian passport to the Department. The Tribunal accepts that he is a citizen of Fiji based on the findings made by the Department. The Tribunal finds that Fiji is the receiving country for the purpose of assessing his claims for protection under the refugee criterion and the complementary protection criterion.
Third Country Protection
The Tribunal finds that the applicant is outside his country of nationality. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that he has the right to enter and reside in any country other than his country of nationality.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is a [age]-year-old single indigenous Fijian man. His mother and several cousins reside in Australia. He completed secondary school in 2014 and attended [a] College in 2016 completing a [qualification]. In 2015 he worked as a labourer/ farmer on [an] Island and again worked casually as a farmer and worker in tourism from January 2017 to July 2018 in his home village. From his arrival in Australia in July 2018 until he lodged his application for protection in December 2018 the applicant was unemployed and helped with his local church group. He now works as a [Occupation 1].
In his application for protection the applicant said that he contacts his relatives in Fjij up to twice a day via video calls.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issues in this case are whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution if he returns to [Fiji] and if so, does he meet the refugee provisions of the Act? If not, does the applicant meet the protection obligations under the complementary provisions of the Act?
The Tribunal has before it the Department’s file relating to the applicant including the delegate’s decision. The Tribunal also has had regard to other material available to it from a range of sources. This includes, but is not limited to the following:
·the applicant’s claims for protection in his application form dated 30 November 2018, received by the Department on 17 December 2018;
·a submission from the applicant’s mother dated 3 October 2018 stating that the applicant was abandoned by his father when he was [age] years old and he faced a lot of setbacks in his upbringing. She departed Fiji on [date] September 2016 leaving the applicant behind with her sickly parents. Things turned worse when her father passed away in 2017. At times her son was not given a decent meal a day. Her son falls short of land ownership as his parents were separated when he was [age] years old;
·submissions and various documents provided to the Tribunal on 20 March 2024 which include the following;
(a) the applicant’s birth certificate indicating his parents were not legally married and his father was a ‘[occupation]’;
(b) his mother’s marriage certificate dated 17 December 2013 indicating his stepfather’s occupation was ‘[occupation]’;
(c) a submission from the applicant stating that he and his mother endured abuse from his father when they were growing up in Fiji and he had to watch his mother being viciously attacked by him. The applicant and his mother suffered because of the system’s disdain for them because his father is a police officer. They were unable to disclose any crimes that happened in their home because of the high regard the community held for his father. He also had to live in constant terror of being in the control of his stepfather who mistreated his mother and himself mentally and physically, so they had no choice but to leave yet again. His mother and he continued to experience harassment and stalking even after the physical assault stopped, which ultimately caused his mother to move abroad and he to follow suit;
(d) a letter of support from the applicant’s mother, undated, stating that both she and the applicant were mistreated by both the applicant’s father and stepfather, both physically and psychologically. Due to the fact the applicant’s father is a police officer and because her ex-husband holds a position in the law enforcement agency, the Department has treated her and her terrible scars and bruising lightly, leaving them victims of systemic injustice in Fiji. Her ex-husband had a superiority complex, so she decided not to remain with him and to go to her family in the hopes that abuse would cease. Unfortunately she put her trust into another man who became the applicant’s stepfather. Both she and the applicant were physically abused and sustained injuries from this man. The applicant fled from the unhealthy situation but abuse was still occurring;
(e) a letter of support from Mr [A]., undated, stating that he is a relative of the applicant and been in close contact with him since he came to Australia with his mother (who is Mr [A].’s aunt). While residing in Australia the applicant recounted horrific accounts from his traumatic childhood, having personally witnessed both his father and stepfather’s domestic abuse of his mother. He also told him about his unhappy experiences as a victim of his father-figure’s angry outbursts which included both physical and psychological torment;
(f) a letter of support from Mr [B]., undated, stating that he is the applicant’s uncle. While staying in Fiji the applicant and his mother underwent severe trauma at the hands of both his father and stepfather, who mistreated him both physically and psychologically during the course of their marriages with his mother. The abuse continued from the time the applicant was a small child until his adolescence. His father was the head of the police department in Fiji so the applicant’s abuse and that of his mother was ignored despite her numerous external scars, leaving the applicant and his mother unprotected.
·the applicant’s evidence at the Tribunal hearing on 11 April 2024;
·Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Country Information Report – Fiji, 20 May 2022;
·Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and Humanitarian – Refugee Law Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and Humanitarian – Complementary Protection Guidelines;
·Other relevant country information referred to below.
Applicant’s claims in his written application for protection to the Department
The applicant claims to fear returning to Fiji as he is psychologically affected by his father’s inhumane acts. He and his mother were abused by his father. One day his father beat him up (punching and kicking him) and he ended up with a deep cut on his chin. He has been mentally and physically affected by his father’s abuse and believes his father’s attitude towards him doesn’t change. He feared moving to another location in Fiji because his father would increase his beatings. His father has warned him not to set foot back in Fiji. The applicant does not believe relevant authorities will help him as this is a norm in the government of the day where complaints are lodged and just fall on deaf ears. He cannot relocate as he has his own piece of land and he lives in a village which is based on communal living.
The applicant was granted a visitor visa on 6 July 2018 and arrived in Australia on[date] July 2018. His visitor visa ceased on [date] October 2018 and he lodged an application for protection on 17 December 2018, dated 13 November 2018.
Applicant’s claims at the Tribunal hearing
During the hearing the Tribunal discussed with the applicant his family composition, work history, residential history and visa and migration history which are outlined under the heading Background above. The Tribunal then went on to discuss the applicant’s claims and reasons he fears returning to Fiji.
The applicant said it was intention to stay in Australia – not just visit – when he arrived in July 2018 to join his mother. He didn’t apply for protection because he didn’t know what kind of visa to apply for. He considered the possibility of a student visa but knew protection was a permanent visa.
The applicant told the Tribunal he is now living with his mother in his cousin’s brother’s house. He is employed as a [Occupation 1] in construction. He is unable to use his [qualification] from Fiji as he needs to acquire further qualifications in Australia. The applicant has some cousins in Australia but the uncle who was here when he arrived has since passed away.
The applicant has two aunts on his mother’s side with families in Fiji. He does not have much contact with them. Neither does he have much contact with his biological father in Fiji although he had some contact with him whilst he was still in Fiji. His mother separated from his biological father when he was only [age] years old so he has no memory of his life in his father’s household. His biological father has now married someone else and has other children. He was employed as a police officer.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about which relatives he continues to have contact with in Fiji. He said used to have frequent contact with his grandparents, particularly with his grandmother after his grandfather died of complications from [an illness]. She has since passed away. He had lived in their household for most of his childhood. The applicant has no land in Fiji and will not inherit any land.
The applicant said he didn’t really know his step-father before his mother married him as he came from a different island. He thought he was about [age] or [age] years old when his mother married his step-father. The applicant was still at school and doing holiday jobs in tourist locations. When he left school in 2015 he worked casually as a farmer on someone else’s land or in tourist hotels. He was not at home a lot of the time.
The Tribunal asked the applicant to describe his life when he was living in his step-father’s household. The applicant said that in the daytime his step-father was quiet but at night he could hear banging on the walls and sometimes his mother and step-father yelling and fighting. His step-father found his work frustrating and would come home angry some of the time. His step-father’s anger and violence was mostly directed towards his mother.
When his step-father was angry at him the applicant would run away. His step-father would get angry at the applicant for drinking. Once he hit him with a piece of timber but most of the time the applicant was able to get away.
The applicant said that his mother tried to go to the police but people were related to each other and so nothing happened.
The applicant said one day he came back from his holiday job and his mother told him she had had enough and they had to leave. He hadn’t even unpacked his bag from his holiday job so they immediately left and caught a boat back to the main island. They went to his grandparents’ house where they remained.
Initially the applicant said his step-father never came to his grandparents’ house after he and his mother had left. The Tribunal put to him that his mother had given evidence that his step-father did come to the house and tried to take her back.
The applicant then said he had forgotten that his uncle had told him that his step-father had come to the house to try to take his mother back. At the time he was out of the house himself and was unaware of his step-father’s visit. The applicant has not had any contact at all with his step-father since he and his mother left [the island] in 2015 and returned to grandparent’s home in his mother’s home village on the main island .
The applicant fears returning to Fiji because most of the time he would be looking over his shoulder for his step-father who would want his mother to go back. His step-father may get people to gang up on him. The Tribunal put to the applicant that he has not seen his step-father for over 8 years, and his step-father never returned to harass him after his mother departed Fiji in 2016, eight years ago, and asked why he would do so now so many years later. The applicant said his step-father doesn’t like him and may still harm him and make his life miserable.
The Tribunal explained the requirements for protection again and the definitions in the legislation of serious and significant harm and asked what he thought might happen if he returned to Fiji. The applicant acknowledged that he does not fear any harm except possibly from his step-father. He does not want to return to Fiji as both his grandparents have now passed away and they were his main source of psychological support in Fiji.
The applicant’s mother said there is no-one to protect her son from his step-father and biological father if he returned to Fiji. When she left the applicant’s biological father she initially left the applicant with him but then took him back when he was[age] years old as she was not happy with how her son was being treated and they lived with her parents.
The applicant’s mother had previously said in her hearing for her own application that her son was not harmed by his step-father. The Tribunal put to her that the applicant had said that he was harmed occasionally. The applicant’s mother then said her son only told her today about the physical harm from his step-father.
At the end of the hearing when asked again about what harm he feared if he returned to Fiji the applicant said Fiji has deteriorated and young people are being detained even if they have not committed offences. He did not want to return now.
Assessment of claims and findings
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Based on the inconsistencies in his mother’s evidence, and the fact that the applicant continued contact with his biological father voluntarily, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant suffered any harm from his biological father after he left his household at the age of [age] years, over 21 years ago.
Based on some consistency between his own evidence and that of his mother, the Tribunal accepts the applicant suffered some physical and psychological abuse from his step-father between 2013 and 2015 up until he and his mother left the family home in 2015.
Based on his own evidence the Tribunal finds that the applicant has not suffered any harm or been threatened with any harm from either his biological father or step-father since 2015 when he and his mother returned to his mother’s parents’ home in Fiji.
Based on the above findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has a well-founded fear of serious harm from any person or persons or the Fijian authorities if he returns to Fiji now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. Consequently, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for any refugee nexus reason.

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). Based on the above findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Fiji there is a real risk he will suffer significant harm as defined in s.36(2A) from any person or persons in Fiji.
For the reasons given 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) or s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
B. Mericourt
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 2848

17 April 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction