2206176 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1997

2206176 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 1997 (8 September 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent:Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Tribunal Number: 2206176
Tribunal:General Member M Brereton
Date: 8 September 2025

Place:Melbourne
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 08 September 2025 at 11:19am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – particular social group – LGBT – fears discrimination and mistreatment – decision on the papers – too nervous and anxious to attend hearing – frequent relocations – no further information provided – issues adequately determined – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), s 106
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 5AAA, 5H, 5J–5LA, 36, 56, 65, 348A, 369, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 5 April 2022 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 national of Malaysia, applied for the visa on 17 September 2018. The applicant was invited to attend an interview with the delegate but did not do so. The delegate refused to grant the visa because they found no factual basis on which they could accept that the claims for protection advanced by the applicant are credible. The applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of this decision.
On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.
The applicant was invited to attend a hearing before the Tribunal on 11 July 2025 at 2:00 PM. On the afternoon of 10 July 2025, the applicant returned the invitation stating:
I’m feeling very nervous and lack the confidence to attend the hearing. I’m honestly quite scared and unsure of how to handle the situation. This is something I’ve never experienced before, and I don’t know how to speak or respond properly in official matters like this. It makes me feel very anxious, and I truly don’t know how to face it.
The applicant also refers to “frequent relocations” and states that she is currently living in [State 1] and is unable to attend the Tribunal for a hearing. The applicant marked the box stating:
No, I will not participate in the hearing, and request the Tribunal to make a decision on the papers without holding a hearing
On 10 July 2025, the Tribunal responded to the applicant:
The Tribunal has received your request for it to make a decision on the papers. The Tribunal Member has considered this request and the reasons you have given.
The Member has instructed me to write to you and inform you that the hearing listed for 11 July 2025 has been cancelled, but the Member would like to speak with you before deciding how to progress the matter.
The Member acknowledges that you are now living in [State 1] and is going to invite you to attend a direction hearing by way of video or telephone.
The directions hearing will be conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages. The Member has asked if you will please confirm your current address and mobile telephone number.
I have attached a change of contact details form and ask that you complete this and return it within seven days.
On 22 July 2025, the Tribunal listed the matter for a video directions hearing, to take place on 18 August 2025. The Tribunal invited the applicant to attend the directions hearing and also arranged a pre connection test (PCT) for 11 August 2025. The Tribunal file records that the applicant did not appear at the PCT. A Tribunal Officer made three attempts to contact the applicant on the mobile telephone number she had provided with her application for review. The calls were not answered.
The applicant did not appear before the Tribunal at the directions hearing on 18 August 2025. A Tribunal Officer attempted to call the applicant’s mobile telephone number. The call went to voicemail and the Tribunal Officer left a message, with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages, asking the applicant to contact the Tribunal before close of business on 19 August 2025. The applicant did not respond to these requests.
On 21 August 2025, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and stated:
You have asked the Tribunal to proceed to make a decision on the information before it and without holding a hearing. The Tribunal invited you to attend a video direction hearing on 18 August 2025, to discuss this request. You did not attend the direction hearing. Before the Tribunal proceeds to make a direction on the papers, it brings to your attention that it is not able to make a decision wholly in your favour on the basis of the information before it. The Tribunal extends a further offer for you to attend a hearing to discuss your claims and provide further evidence. This hearing may be conducted as an in person hearing in your nearest capital city, or as a video hearing. The Tribunal will consider any request you make for a female interpreter. The Tribunal will consider any application for the hearing to be relisted to a female member. The Tribunal will also consider any information or evidence that you wish to provide in writing.
Please consider the contents of this letter and tell the Tribunal if you still wish to proceed to a decision on the papers. If you wish to proceed by way of hearing, please advise the Tribunal of that, and any arrangements the Tribunal may make to assist your appearance. If there is any additional information or evidence that you wish the Tribunal to consider, please provide this to the Tribunal in writing.
Please provide your response and any additional information or evidence on or before 5 September 2025. If we have not heard from you by that date, the Tribunal will proceed to make a decision on the information and evidence already before it.
The applicant did not respond to this invitation, provide any information, or contact the Tribunal.
Request for Decision on the Papers
Section 106(3) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (the ART Act) states that the Tribunal may make a decision without hearing where:
(a) the only parties to the proceeding are the applicant and a non-participating party to the proceeding or the hearing of the proceeding; and
(b) either:
(i) the decision is wholly in favour of the applicant; or
(ii) the applicant requests the Tribunal to make its decision without holding the hearing of the proceeding; and
(c) it appears to the Tribunal that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to the proceeding.
Section 348A of the Act states that the Minister is taken to be a non-participating party to a proceeding for, as applicable here. review of a reviewable protection decision for the purposes of the ART Act. The Tribunal is satisfied that s 106(3)(a) applies.
The Tribunal has examined the information and evidence in the Departmental file and has reached the view that it is not able to make a decision wholly in favour of the applicant based on that information. The Tribunal is not satisfied that s 106(3)(b)(i) applies.
As noted above, on 10 July 2025, the applicant asked the Tribunal to make a decision without having a hearing. The Tribunal was troubled by the applicant’s wording that they are nervous and anxious, do not know what to say at the hearing, and do not think that they can face the hearing. The Tribunal listed the proposed directions hearing because it wanted to explore the applicant’s concerns further and offer alternative approaches. The applicant did not attend the directions hearing. On 21 August 2025, the Tribunal provided a further invitation and options for the applicant to consider. The applicant has not responded to this invitation. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has been given opportunity to request a hearing and/or provide further information and has not done so. Having regard to the above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has requested the Tribunal to make a decision on the papers without holding a hearing. The Tribunal is satisfied that s 106(3)(b)(ii) applies.
The Tribunal must next consider whether it appears that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be ‘adequately determined’ in the absence of the parties (s 106(3)(c)). The Tribunal does not consider that ‘adequately determined’ means a decision favourable to the applicant. If it did, there would be no point to s 106(3)(b)(i). ‘Adequately determined’ is not defined in the ART Act. The Macquarie Dictionary defines ‘adequate’ as ‘equal to the requirement or occasion; fully sufficient, suitable or fit’ and in a legal context as ‘reasonably sufficient for starting legal action’ in the sense of ‘adequate grounds’.[1]
[1] Word Search
The issue before the Tribunal is whether the applicant engages Australia’s protection obligations because she is a refugee or because there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm. The Tribunal has set out the procedural history above, noting that the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence or information for the delegate to be satisfied that she met one of the visa criteria. The applicant has responded to the Tribunal’s hearing invitation and requested the Tribunal to make a decision without a hearing and on the basis of the information already before the Tribunal. The applicant has been invited to request a further hearing and/or provide further information. The applicant has not asked for a hearing or provided further information.
Having regard to all the above, the Tribunal considers that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to the proceeding. The Tribunal has decided to proceed to make a decision on the information before it, in accordance with the applicant’s request.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is [an age]-year-old Malaysian Chinese female from the state of Sarawak. She arrived in Australia on a visitor visa [in] August 2018. She applied for the protection visa on 17 September 2018.
Evidence before the Department
Protection visa application
The applicant has provided identity documents as proof of identity and citizenship. In her application for the protection visa she states:
I am a lesbian and experienced many bullies from people who disagree with me. Because of them, my families also upset with me. I have suffered not only these but also long term pressure due to discrimination during my stay in Malaysia. That is why I have decided to leave my country and went to overseas, Australia where I might could have a new start here.
People who do not accept homosexual, they have bullied me not only mistreat but also despise my families. I have experienced a lot of unjust treatment.
She states that if she returns to Malaysia:
I would be suffered from discrimination, this could be bully, mistreatment or abuses. This will be endless unless people are ready to accept homosexual.
The interview
The applicant was invited to attend a video interview with the Department. She did not attend the scheduled interview and did not respond to telephone calls from the Department.
Summary of the delegate’s decision
The delegate made the following findings:
As the applicant did not attend the scheduled interview to discuss and elaborate her claims for protection, I find, on the basis of the evidence before me, that it remains unestablished that the applicant is a lesbian and that she has been harmed in the past due to her sexual orientation in Malaysia. Without further context, I do not accept that the applicant would be subjected to harm that would enliven Australia’s protection obligations, upon her return to Malaysia.
It follows that I cannot be satisfied that I have been offered a factual basis to accept that the claims for protection advanced by the applicant are credible.
The delegate refused to grant the visa.
Evidence before the Tribunal
The application for review lodged with the Tribunal does not contain any additional claims, information, evidence, or submissions. The applicant did not provide pre-hearing submissions. As noted above, the Tribunal invited the applicant to a hearing, but the applicant stated that she wants the Tribunal to proceed to a decision on the papers. The applicant did not attend an offered video directions hearing or respond to other attempts to contact her.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Criteria for 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.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
The issue in this case is the applicant’s fear of harm in Malaysia because of her sexual orientation. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Identity
The applicant claims to be a citizen of Malaysia. She provided the Department with proof of identity including a copy of the biodata page of a Malaysian passport confirming her birthdate, place of birth, and nationality. There is no other information before the Tribunal as to her identity. The Tribunal finds that she is a citizen of Malaysia, and that Malaysia is the country of reference and receiving country for the purposes of this review.
Claims
The applicant has not provided any evidence, information, submissions, or other material in support of her claims to fear harm. 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.
The claims before the Tribunal are broad and do not provide any context, dates, details, or any other information. The Tribunal is not able to be satisfied on the claims before it that the applicant has faced, or will face, harm from any person or persons for any reason relating to her sexual orientation. The Tribunal is not able to be satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance or real risk of harm because of her sexual orientation, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, should she return to Malaysia.
The applicant has referred to being nervous, scared, and unsure in relation to the hearing, but she does not claim to fear harm in Malaysia for any reasons relating to anxiety or any other psychological or physiological conditions. The Tribunal is not satisfied that she faces any harm because of any psychological or physiological conditions should she return to Malaysia. She does not claim to fear harm of any other kind, or for any other reasons or reasons should she return to Malaysia, nor does any claim appear to arise on the information before the Tribunal.
Having regard to all the above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance or real risk of any harm that could be considered serious harm or significant harm as contemplated by the Act, for any reason or combination of reasons, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, should she return to Malaysia.
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.
Date(s) of hearing:  On the papers.
Representative:
None.

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.
…