2102696 (Refugee)
[2022] AATA 4116
•26 August 2022
2102696 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 4116 (26 August 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE: Mr Harjeet Singh (MARN: 1679096)
CASE NUMBER: 2102696
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: India
MEMBER:Katherine Harvey
DATE:26 August 2022
PLACE OF DECISION: Adelaide
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Statement made on 26 August 2022 at 8:59am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – India – inter-religion or inter-caste relationship – threats to applicant from family and partner and to applicant and family from extremists – credibility – vague and inconsistent claims, and no substantiating evidence provided – applicant’s responsibility to specify particulars and provide sufficient evidence – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5AAA, 5H(1), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), 65, 411(1)(c)
Migration Regulation 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
Abebe v Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR 510
Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379
MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505
MIMA v Lay Lat (2006) 151 FCR 214
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
Re Ruddock; ex parte Applicant S154/2002 [2003] HCA 60
SZBEL v MIMIA (2006) 228 CLR 152
WAKK v MIMIA [2005] FCAFC 225
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 REASONSAPPLICATION FOR REVIEW
This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 26 February 2021 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant is a citizen of India and she applied for the visa on 21 March 2018. She claimed that she is a Sikh and she is afraid of being killed because of an inter-religious or inter-caste relationship.
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant’s stated claims are not credible.
The applicant lodged an application for a review of this decision with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 4 March 2021 and she provided a copy of the delegate’s decision.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 28 July 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Punjabi and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
The issues to be considered in this case are:
· does the applicant have a well-founded fear of persecution in relation to India and meet the refugee protection provisions of the Act?
· does the applicant meet the protection obligations under the complementary protection provisions of the Act?
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
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 applicant arrived in Australia on a visitor visa in January 2018.
The applicant’s written protection visa application
The applicant applied for a protection visa on 21 March 2018. She states that she is of Sikh faith. She claimed that, after she arrived in Australia, local community members learnt about her dating a man from a different caste. She claimed that ‘intercaste marriage’ is not allowed where she lives. She claimed that hardliners and extremists had threated her family and herself over the phone that if she ever goes back to India, they will kill her. She said she had not tried to move to another part of India as the threats happened when she was in Australia. She claimed that the authorities would not be able to protect her and she could not relocate as ‘they can easily find me’.
Supplementary information
On 5 January 2021, the delegate wrote to the applicant requesting more information as her application lacked substantiating details. The delegate requested information about the claimed relationship, the threats made and further information about couples whom she claimed were killed by hardliners and extremists in her community.
On 1 February 2021, the applicant responded to the delegate with the following information. She claimed that in India she was in a relationship with a man belonging to another caste but her family and his family were not in favour of the relationship. She claimed that there were also other people in her community ‘who were against us’. She claimed that her family physically and emotionally harmed her several times and warned her that, if she meets him again, they will kill them both. She said she asked the guy not to contact her but he started blackmailing her not to leave and said that if she did not agree with him, he would harm her. Her family did not report the threats to any authorities because they were afraid of insult in their community. The applicant provided the name of the ‘intercaste guy’ and said she was not in touch with him as he has warned her family that, if she returns to India, he will kill her. She did not provide further information about couples whom she claimed were killed but repeated ‘there were many couple in my village who were killed by our community for having inter-caste relationship’.
Information at the hearing
At the hearing, the applicant claimed she was in a relationship with ‘a Hindu guy’ for two-and-a-half years. They were not just casually passing the time, they were planning to get married in the future. Then it came to the notice of her family and it took time for them to understand. But after three to four months, her family were ‘OK for the marriage’. Then three to four people from the Sikh community came to their place and said ‘if your girl got married to a person from another community that they will kill them both’. This was at the time that the marriage talks were going on in her family. After that, she was scared that the community people could do anything to her or her family and the marriage talks stopped. They had not talked to the boy’s family about marriage.
The applicant said that she then stopped seeing the ‘boy’ because he was an only son and she was scared that if something happened to him it was not good for his parents. Her family was also concerned. She started focusing on her career and the relationship ended after three years and one-to-two months.
She said that the threatening calls continued. She received two to three calls on her mobile. The callers were male and it was a different person each time. They said if she started the relationship again, they would kill her. A friend told her she could apply for a visa to go to Australia and she arrived in Australia just after Christmas (in January 2018).
About 10 to 15 days after arriving in Australia, her family started getting calls from the Sikh community and she started getting worried that something would happen to her. She claimed that they made four to five calls a week for four to five months. They called her brother’s mobile and the landline. In Australia, she bumped into someone whom she knew casually at the supermarket who suggested that she could apply for a protection visa. She applied for the protection visa in March 2018.
After she decided that she was not going back to India the calls to her family stopped and now life is normal.
The applicant was provided with a Bridging visa that allowed work and study rights. She has used her time in Australia productively and in August will acquire her [Subject] diploma. She is also working in a [Workplace] and for a [company].
FINDINGS AND REASONS
In reaching its decision, the Tribunal has considered the information in the Department’s file, including the applicant’s response to questions from the delegate, information provided at the hearing and relevant material from external sources.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the delegate’s decision is reviewable under s 411(1)(c) of the Act.
The Tribunal conducted a review ‘de novo’ and has considered and made its own assessment of whether the applicant meets the criteria for the grant of a protection visa. As such, the Tribunal has not relied on the delegate’s decision in reaching its decision.
The Department file contains a copy of the applicant’s Indian passport identity page and the applicant confirmed her passport number at the hearing. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is a national of India and assesses her protection claims accordingly.
The applicant was in Australia at the time of this decision.
At the hearing, the Tribunal advised the applicant that it had concerns about inconsistencies in her claims and the credibility of her claims given the differences between what she had told the Tribunal at the hearing and the information before the delegate.
The applicant was invited to provide evidence to support her claimed relationship. She did not provide any evidence. When asked if she had any photos of her and her boyfriend together, she claimed that she deleted all of the photos she had after they ended the relationship. When asked if any friends would have photos, she said that she had reset her phone. When asked again about getting a copy of a photo from her friends, such as the friend at whose birthday party she claimed she met her boyfriend, she said that she did not have her old records like her friends or anything from India and she claimed that she does not talk to her friends in India.
The applicant was asked for details about the telephone calls. She said that the numbers were blocked. She said that her family did not record when they received the calls. She was unable to provide any dates for any of the calls.
The applicant was asked about the inconsistencies in her claims about her family’s reaction to the purported relationship. In the information the applicant provided to the delegate she said that her family were not in favour of the relationship and they had physically and emotionally harmed her several times and threatened to kill her if she met with the man belonging to another caste. At the hearing, the applicant claimed that, three to four months after finding out about the relationship with a ‘Hindu guy’, her family was ‘OK for the marriage’. When asked about the inconsistencies, the applicant said that her family were never against the marriage and she did not know how to explain.
After the hearing, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant inviting her to comment on or respond to certain information that would, subject to her comments or response, be the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review. In particular, the Tribunal was concerned that there was no evidence before it substantiating a relationship, there was no evidence before it substantiating threats of harm, and the information that the applicant had provided about her relationship and the threats of harm was not consistent over time. The Tribunal detailed the differences in the information provided in the application, in response to the delegate’s request for more information and at the hearing. The Tribunal invited the applicant to comment on or respond within 14 days, or to request an extension of time within 14 days. At the time of this decision, the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal.
Section 5AAA of the Act makes clear that it is the applicant’s responsibility to specify all particulars of a claim to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and to provide sufficient evidence to establish the claim. The Tribunal does not have any responsibility or obligation to specify, or assist the applicant in specifying, any particulars of her claims. Nor does the Tribunal have any responsibility or obligation to establish, or assist in establishing, the claim. This is consistent with the well-settled proposition that it is for the applicant to make his or her own case.[1]
[1] Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at [169]–[170]; SZBEL v MIMIA (2006) 228 CLR 152 at [40]; Re Ruddock; ex parte Applicant S154/2002 [2003] HCA 60 (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Callinan and Heydon JJ) at [57]; WAKK v MIMIA [2005] FCAFC 225 (Marshall, Mansfield and Siopis JJ) at [72]; MIMA v Lay Lat (2006) 151 FCR 214 at [76]; and Abebe v Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR 510 at [187].
Based on the information before it and that the applicant built on her claims over time and told different versions of events to the delegate and the Tribunal, the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the versions of events occurred. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was in a relationship with a Hindu man or an inter-caste man. It follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant or her family received threats of harm from anyone, including hardliners and extremists, the Sikh community, the purported boyfriend or his family, because of that relationship. It also follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was physically or emotionally harmed or threatened by her family because of that relationship.
At the hearing, the applicant also said that she feared returning to India because if she goes back to India and gets married to ‘another guy’, members of the community may kill her. The applicant’s claim is speculative and hypothetical. She did not suggest that she had a prospective marriage partner in mind, so the caste and religion of her possible future husband is unknown.
The criterion in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act contains a subjective requirement, that an applicant must in fact hold a fear of being persecuted, while s 5J(1)(b) imposes an objective standard, that there be a real chance the person would be persecuted. 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.[2] The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s evidence that is relevant and material to her claimed real chance of serious harm arising from her marital status or prospective marriage partner is insufficient to establish to the satisfaction of the Tribunal the requisite real chance of serious harm if the applicant is returned to India now or in the foreseeable future.
[2] Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379.
Section 36(2)(aa) of the Act refers to a ‘real risk’ of an applicant suffering significant harm. In MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505, the ‘real risk’ test was held to imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in the Refugee Convention definition and that reasoning appears equally applicable to the refugee criterion in s 5J(1)(b) of the Act.
On the information before it, considering the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds that it does not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm and, for the same reasons, finds that there is no real risk of the applicant suffering significant harm on her return to India now or in the foreseeable future.
CONCLUSION
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).
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). For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was in a relationship with either a Hindu man or an inter-caste man nor that she received threats of harm. Considering all of the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are grounds for believing that there is a real risk the applicant will face significant harm if she returns to India. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under 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.
Katherine Harvey
Senior MemberAttachment - 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.
…
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Jurisdiction
0
7
0