DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Statement made on 12 July 2023 at 3:14pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa –India – applicant failed to attend tribunal hearing – a victim of loan sharks – applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution – decision under review affirmed
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
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 21 January 2021 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 India, applied for the visa on 29 July 2020. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant was not a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations.
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…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading 2100827 (Refugee)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
2100827 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 3065
Case
[2023] AATA 3065
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, a national of India, sought review of a decision not to grant him a protection visa. The applicant claimed to have fled India in 2012 due to threats and violence from loan sharks, [Mr A] and [Mr B], who were allegedly politically well-connected and influential. He alleged that these individuals had pursued him for debts incurred by his deceased father, resulting in assaults and threats to his life. The applicant also raised a fear of harm from COVID-19 in India. The Tribunal considered whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, including the refugee criterion and the complementary protection criterion.
The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, as required for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958. If not, the Tribunal was required to consider whether the applicant was entitled to complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa), meaning there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia to India, there was a real risk that he would suffer significant harm.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa. It found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria for complementary protection, as there were no substantial grounds for believing that he would suffer significant harm upon removal to India. The Tribunal's reasoning, while not detailed in the provided text, led to the conclusion that the applicant's claims did not satisfy the relevant legislative thresholds for protection.
Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning the applicant was not granted a protection visa.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the refugee criterion, and if not, whether he is entitled to complementary protection. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.Background The applicant is [age] years old and a national of India. The applicant departed India legally by air in July 2012. He travelled to [Country 1], where he stayed for about 7 days, and then on to [Country 2] by boat. After about a month, he travelled to Australia by boat, arriving on [date] September 2012. He was granted a Humanitarian Stay (subclass 499) visa and a Bridging E visa on 6 December 2012. The applicant lodged a protection visa application on 6 September 2013, which was deemed invalid. On 29 September 2015, the s 46A bar was lifted for the purposes of lodgement of a Temporary Protection visa and a Safe Haven Enterprise visa (SHEV) only. The applicant lodged an application for a SHEV (subclass XE 790) visa on 21 April 2017, which was deemed invalid on 25 June 2020. The applicant was notified that the Minister had intervened and lifted the s 91K bar on 29 July 2020. The application was refused on 21 January 2021. The applicant applied to the Tribunal for review on 26 January 2021.Claims The applicant claims that his parents were killed in the Mumbai terrorist attack of 26 November 2008. The applicant inherited his father’s business. The applicant claims he had to sell the business to repay the money his father had borrowed from a private bank. He claims that his father had also incurred debts of about 4.5 lakh (450,000) rupees (about AUD$8,000) to [Mr A] and [Mr B], whom the applicant described as politically-well connected and influential. The applicant claims that he did not have the funds to repay the debt. The applicant claims that in 2010, the two men confronted him at the bazaar on Ahmedabad seeking repayment of the debt, and beat him so badly that he required medical assistance. He claimed that, to appease them, he gave them a blank cheque. When this cheque was subsequently dishonoured, [Mr A] and [Mr B] issued court proceedings against him and also made several threats by telephone to kill him. The applicant claims that he did report the assault to the police because the men were likely to have the support of the police. The applicant claims that he separated from his wife and children and moved 500 km away, but that [Mr A] and [Mr B] were able to locate him and assaulted both him and his friend [Mr C]. He claims that he could not report this assault to the police because the men were likely to have the support of the police. The applicant claims that, having received further threats from the men during early 2012, he left India for [Country 1] and subsequently travelled to Australia. The applicant claims that the men are aware of his location in Australia and will know if he returns to India. He claims that they will be able to find him wherever he gores in India or Nepal. The applicant also claims to fear being harmed by exposure to COVID-19 in India.Evidence
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 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 meets the refugee criterion, and if not, whether he is entitled to complementary protection. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.Background The applicant is [age] years old and a national of India. The applicant departed India legally by air in July 2012. He travelled to [Country 1], where he stayed for about 7 days, and then on to [Country 2] by boat. After about a month, he travelled to Australia by boat, arriving on [date] September 2012. He was granted a Humanitarian Stay (subclass 499) visa and a Bridging E visa on 6 December 2012. The applicant lodged a protection visa application on 6 September 2013, which was deemed invalid. On 29 September 2015, the s 46A bar was lifted for the purposes of lodgement of a Temporary Protection visa and a Safe Haven Enterprise visa (SHEV) only. The applicant lodged an application for a SHEV (subclass XE 790) visa on 21 April 2017, which was deemed invalid on 25 June 2020. The applicant was notified that the Minister had intervened and lifted the s 91K bar on 29 July 2020. The application was refused on 21 January 2021. The applicant applied to the Tribunal for review on 26 January 2021.Claims The applicant claims that his parents were killed in the Mumbai terrorist attack of 26 November 2008. The applicant inherited his father’s business. The applicant claims he had to sell the business to repay the money his father had borrowed from a private bank. He claims that his father had also incurred debts of about 4.5 lakh (450,000) rupees (about AUD$8,000) to [Mr A] and [Mr B], whom the applicant described as politically-well connected and influential. The applicant claims that he did not have the funds to repay the debt. The applicant claims that in 2010, the two men confronted him at the bazaar on Ahmedabad seeking repayment of the debt, and beat him so badly that he required medical assistance. He claimed that, to appease them, he gave them a blank cheque. When this cheque was subsequently dishonoured, [Mr A] and [Mr B] issued court proceedings against him and also made several threats by telephone to kill him. The applicant claims that he did report the assault to the police because the men were likely to have the support of the police. The applicant claims that he separated from his wife and children and moved 500 km away, but that [Mr A] and [Mr B] were able to locate him and assaulted both him and his friend [Mr C]. He claims that he could not report this assault to the police because the men were likely to have the support of the police.
Decision
Reasons for decision
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit of 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.James LambieSenior MemberATTACHMENT - 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
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 The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the refugee criterion, and if not, whether he is entitled to complementary protection. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.Background The applicant is [age] years old and a national of India. The applicant departed India legally by air in July 2012. He travelled to [Country 1], where he stayed for about 7 days, and then on to [Country 2] by boat. After about a month, he travelled to Australia by boat, arriving on [date] September 2012. He was granted a Humanitarian Stay (subclass 499) visa and a Bridging E visa on 6 December 2012. The applicant lodged a protection visa application on 6 September 2013, which was deemed invalid. On 29 September 2015, the s 46A bar was lifted for the purposes of lodgement of a Temporary Protection visa and a Safe Haven Enterprise visa (SHEV) only. The applicant lodged an application for a SHEV (subclass XE 790) visa on 21 April 2017, which was deemed invalid on 25 June 2020. The applicant was notified that the Minister had intervened and lifted the s 91K bar on 29 July 2020. The application was refused on 21 January 2021. The applicant applied to the Tribunal for review on 26 January 2021.Claims The applicant claims that his parents were killed in the Mumbai terrorist attack of 26 November 2008. The applicant inherited his father’s business. The applicant claims he had to sell the business to repay the money his father had borrowed from a private bank. He claims that his father had also incurred debts of about 4.5 lakh (450,000) rupees (about AUD$8,000) to [Mr A] and [Mr B], whom the applicant described as politically-well connected and influential. The applicant claims that he did not have the funds to repay the debt.