2210757 (Refugee)
[2025] ARTA 2103
•5 September 2025
2210757 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 2103 (5 September 2025)
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2210757
Tribunal:Susan Waring
Place:Brisbane
Date:5 September 2025
CORRIGENDUM
Date of Corrigendum:8 October 2025
Pursuant to s 114 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), the following alteration is made to the decision:
The decision is altered to read:
The representative is ‘Ms’ on the cover page but referred to ‘Mr’ in the decision.
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Representative: Ms DHARAMPREET KAUR (MARN: 1576492)
Respondent:Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2210757
Tribunal:General Member S Waring
Date:5 September 2025
Place:Brisbane
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants a protection visa.
Statement made on 05 September 2025 at 4:43pmCATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Philippines – politics – war on drugs – extrajudicial killings and corruption within government institutions – family targeted – extortion – fears being targeted for perceived wealth as returning overseas workers – inconsistencies in materials and evidence – financial and employment uncertainties in home country – no political profile – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 5AAA, 5H, 5J–5LA, 36, 65, 369, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2CASES
Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
MIMA v Respondent S152/2003 (2004) 22 CLR 1
Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
Selvadurai v MIEA (1994) 34 ALD 347
SZLVZ v MIAC [2008] FCA 1816Any 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 25 July 2022 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicants who claim to be nationals of the Philippines, applied for the visas on 6 June 2020. The delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that the applicants do not engage Australia’s protection obligations under refugee or complementary protection criteria in s36(2)(a) or s36(2)(aa) of the Act.
The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 7 July 2025 to give evidence and present arguments.
The applicants were represented in relation to the review by Mr Kaur who was unable to attend the hearing. Regarding his absence, Mr Kaur advised the Tribunal that [the applicant] was thoroughly prepared, and all written submissions and supporting evidence had been lodged ahead of the hearing.
Following the hearing, the Tribunal invited the applicants to provide further materials, if needed, due to Mr Kaur’s inability to attend the hearing. The applicants advised that they did not seek to file further materials.
BACKGROUND
[The applicant] is now [age] years-of-age having been born in [City 1], Philippines. He and the second applicant ([the second applicant’s name] now [age] years-of-age) were married [in] August 2021. The applicants have [children of varied ages], living in the Philippines.
[The applicant] first arrived in Australia [in] September 2018 on a student visa having worked in [Occupation 1] in the Philippines since November 2003.
[The second applicant] applied to [Country 1] for a permanent (family migration) visa on 10 January 2011. The visa was refused. She first arrived in Australia [in] May 2018 on a student visa having worked in [Occupation 1] in the Philippines between 2006 and 2018.
The applicants travelled overseas between [October] 2019 and [November] 2019 and applied for protection on 6 June 2020. They were each granted a Bridging Visa B on 2 August 2022 and travelled overseas again between [August] 2022 and [August] 2022.
Evidence before the Department and the Tribunal
No interview was undertaken by the Department.
Materials taken into account by the Department included the protection visa application and attached documents including:
·birth certificates, marriage certificate and personal identifiers sighted by the Department as part of an identification test
·confirmation of [the second applicant’s] employment dated 1 June 2020
·materials accessed online regarding COVID-19 in Negros Oriental (3 June 2020)
·materials accessed online regarding the New People’s Army, drugs and extra-judicial killings in the Philippines (published between March 2019 and March 2020) including search results, excerpts and links
·official investigation data form ([May] 2018) Department of Justice, [City 1]
·official recommendation for prosecution made to Provincial Prosecutor [in] May 2019
·affidavit (of Mr [A] - [Occupation 2 of City 1] District Office) sworn [in] May 2019 verifying screenshot evidence (attached) for prosecution
·official court documents relating to criminal charges and a complaint (brought by [Ms A]) against [Extortionist A]
Prior to the hearing, the applicants provided:
·on 25 February 2025, a written submission of their claims in a pre-hearing response form together with a list of proposed witnesses as follows:
- [Witness A]
- [Witness B]
- [Witness C]
- [Ms A].
·on 1 July 2025, a further written submission relating to their claims, documented by their representative Mr Kaur. This was accompanied by witness statements from:
- [Witness A], dated 1 July 2025
- [Witness B], dated 2 July 2025.
In addition to providing the above documents, [the applicant] gave oral evidence to the Tribunal at the hearing on 7 July 2025. After conferring together at the hearing, the applicants decided not to call [Witness A] (who had provided a sworn statement) to give oral evidence as a witness.
A movement record of the applicants’ transits into and out of Australia is also before the Tribunal.
The totality of evidence before the Tribunal is discussed and examined below.
Claims before the delegate
In the protection visa application, both applicants disclose claims summarised as follows:
·while they did not experience harm in the Philippines, the applicants fear returning to financial and employment uncertainties in their home country
·they have a [family] to support and due to this financial burden, particularly during the pandemic, they have not had enough money to relocate elsewhere in the archipelago
·they have concerns that the ongoing war on drugs and the New People’s Army (NPA) in the Philippines involves extra-judicial killings and corruption within government institutions. They do not want such events to become normalised with their children
·the government in the Philippines did not respond effectively to the Covid pandemic and is ‘too weak’ to execute existing laws in its ongoing war on drugs and in addressing the activities of the NPA (which has operated in the Philippines for more than 50 years)
·a close relative of theirs was allegedly targeted by the NPA for robbery and extortion. This incident increased the applicants’ concerns about the safety of themselves and their family. This incident continues to make them fearful about returning to the Philippines.
Pre-hearing submissions
In submissions dated 25 February 2025, the applicants elaborated on their fear of harm:
·at the hands of Communist Party of the Philippines – New People's Army (CPP-NPA):
- extortion directed at [the applicant’s] sister Ms [A] (in March 2019) is described as part of a long-standing pattern of extortion, intimidation, and violence directed at individuals and families who refuse to comply with the group’s demands
-[the applicant] is said to have refused to submit to extortion demands which resulted in continued harassment and direct threats
-internal relocation is said to be impractical and unsafe and, despite law enforcement efforts, [the applicant] has no confidence in the ability of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) or the Philippine National Police (PNP) to provide effective protection
-[the applicant’s] fear is said to be(not speculative but) based on direct threats
·due to the ‘war on drugs’ in the Philippines:
- [the applicant] is said to have firsthand knowledge of extrajudicial killings warrantless arrests, and violent abuses carried out by law enforcement and vigilante groups
- [the applicant] is said to have personally witnessed law enforcement officers’ illegal activities including planting evidence, conducting unlawful raids and using threats and extortion tactics to extract money from civilians
- [the applicant] is said to have received direct threats from individuals claiming connections to law enforcement authorities. The applicant is said to have a deep sense of insecurity about returning to his home country because of these threats.
The summary of claims advanced in the applicants’ 1 July 2025 submission appears as follows:
The applicants claim they fear returning to the Philippines due to:
·threats and extortion from the New People’s Army (NPA), including direct targeting of [the applicant’s] family till date
·the ineffectiveness of state protection in their locality, particularly in rural or conflict-affected provinces
·the widespread violence associated with the Philippine government’s “war on drugs,” including extrajudicial killings
·concerns for their children’s safety and mental well-being in this volatile environment. The applicants have [children], all of whom are currently residing in the Philippines and are unmarried. [Children’s names, birth order and birth dates deleted]
·systemic corruption, weak rule of law, and unreliable institutional responses in the Philippines.
In more detail, the submissions dated 1 July 2025 state that:
·civilians in the Philippines face ongoing risks of violence, including extrajudicial killings, abductions, and physical abuse
·gender-based violence is a persistent and deeply rooted issue in the Philippines
·human rights violations are of ongoing concern in the Philippines as they impact a wide range of civil, political, and social rights
·the Communist Party of the Philippines – New People's Army (CPP-NPA) remains operational in Negros Oriental (including [City 1]) and actively engages in systematic coercion, particularly targeting civilians, farmers, small business owners, and local families. Residents in and around [City 1] are routinely subjected to threats, forced “donations,” and intimidation. [the applicant’s] family was targeted in this way in March 2019
·at a mediation to settle compensation (following a straightforward road accident) the applicants’ daughter received a direct threat delivered by the at-fault party with the intention of intimidating her into silence. The applicants (and their daughter) have lived in fear since this threat was made as they believe individuals with histories of violence operate freely and with the confidence that their actions will go unpunished
·the applicants’ family has previously faced coercion, including extortion threats by individuals with suspected ties to insurgent networks such as the NPA and fear that, if returned to the Philippines, they would again be exposed to those perpetrators who are known to track family networks, and anyone returning from abroad—especially those who may be seen as ‘wealthy’ or ‘successful’
·the protection provided by authorities against non-state actors in the Philippines is ‘patchy’ or ‘ineffective’ so a real risk of harm to the applicants remains. State protection available to the applicants is not practical and effective
·the applicants’ daughter has been subjected to molestation, abuse, and attacks - highlighting her extreme vulnerability. Targeted gender-based violence is widespread in the applicants’ home region. Reports from local NGOs and child protection agencies confirm a disturbing rise in sexual violence and harassment against young girls in [City 1], often under conditions of impunity, where perpetrators are seldom held accountable. The applicants fear that returning to [City 1] would expose their daughter to further physical and psychological harm
·the applicants are unable to relocate within their home country due to financial hardship and significant family responsibilities, including caring for their elderly relatives and [children]
·in relation to the ongoing ‘war on drugs’ a pervasive environment of violence, fear and impunity persists throughout the Philippines, with at least dozens of deaths linked to anti-drug operations in 2024/2025. There is lawlessness and politically sanctioned violence in the Philippines associated with anti-insurgency and anti-drug campaigns. Between 2023 and 2025, independent monitors documented over 1,000 deaths without due process
·taken together cumulatively, the risks to the applicants satisfy the threshold for a well-founded fear of persecution under section 5J(1) of the Migration Act. It is the aggregate effect of these risks, rather than any isolated incident, which justifies the applicants’ claim for protection
·the NPA continues to operate in 73 out of 81 (or 90%) of the country’s provinces and 23% of families in rural provinces like Negros Oriental live below the poverty line
·a reasonable (not overly stringent) approach should be taken to findings of credibility in this case.
Evidence at hearing
[The second applicant] acknowledged that she (together with her husband) is a review applicant in this matter. She advised that she would not be giving evidence at the hearing. [The second applicant] remained present as a support person.
The Tribunal enquired regarding the current status of the Covid epidemic in the Philippines and whether this remains a concern for the applicants in returning to their home country. [The applicant] stated that, while COVID has “gone a bit into the background” he believes the epidemic led to a deterioration in healthcare facilities. He believes (based on news reporting of Senate and Congress hearings) that there is insufficient budget for effective health care services in the Philippines.
The availability of effective health care for the applicants is a concern because neither of them have (or could afford) private health insurance. The children of the applicants have some health coverage through their schools which allows them a discount for in-hospital treatments.
The youngest child of the applicants is [age]. Their older [children] are attending university in [City 1]. The applicants are paying for the tuition and living expenses of their children who live with their grandparent.
The applicants last visited their children in the Philippines between 6 and 30 August 2022 when [the applicant] was invited to return to Manila, for business training, by his “closest friend back in college.” This travel was paid for by his friend (a business owner) and the training was conducted in the Manila corporate offices - approximately a one hour flight from the applicants’ home town. [The applicant] stayed with his friend, in Manila and visited his home town toward the end of the trip.
[The applicant] told the Tribunal that he was fearful of returning to the Philippines for this trip and asked his family members not to tell anyone that he was visiting. He did not want “anyone else outside of the family (especially those who knew about his sister’s situation) to know that he was there - or where his exact location was.”
The Tribunal heard that, in March 2019, a Communist group extorted [the applicant’s] sister (Ms [A]) with threats of arson against her [business]. The extortionist sent messages demanding payments from Ms [A] which were ultimately reported to the police. A recommendation for prosecution of an individual was made [in] May 2019 and the applicants became aware of the extortion events in early 2020 when details appeared in the family’s [Social media 1] chat. The charged individual was found guilty. [The applicant] believed that a custodial sentence of some months was imposed.
[The applicant] stated that, although the extortion of his sister was investigated and successfully prosecuted, he remains fearful of being targeted in a similar way (if he returns to Philippines) because:
·even after the investigation (which included raids on properties) crimes of targeted extortion continued in his home province albeit at a ‘lower level’
·he sees a lot of news about these types of extortion occurring
·the perpetrators “always keep an eye on your business and might extort [him] for protection money”
·as he is well known within his small home town, the NPA will know who he and his wife are and will think they are easy targets because they have been working in Australia
·because he and [the second applicant] would be viewed as lucrative targets, the perpetrators might think it is worth running the risk of criminal charges. And, in any event, the police could be ‘easily bought off’ to look the other way
·the same perpetrators who victimized his sister “might actually know where we are still and may run after us or do something to us later on.”
[The applicant] stated that his sister was not targeted for extortion because of any involvement she has had in politics. He does not believe he, or [the second applicant], would be targeted because of any involvement they have had in politics. Rather, he believes they could be targeted because they have money from living and working in Australia.
The Tribunal enquired whether the applicants fear they could be personally caught up with a drug gang or with a government crackdown on a drug gang. [The applicant] said that, again, he and his wife would be “perceived as having wealth [and] the drug users or drug gangs could target [them] for extortion.” The applicants have never been involved in drug-related activities.
The Tribunal enquired whether the applicants could avoid harm if, upon returning to the Philippines, they located away from their home town. [The applicant] stated that he would ‘probably not’ return to live in [City 1] and would have to consider where they could afford to live. They were previously employed in [Occupation 1] in their hometown.
[The applicant] stated that, in terms of protection by authorities, the situation is getting worse with drugs all over the country. He stated that his “fear level is just enormous” as “there might be harm (or anything that might happen) to our family or any drug people who will go after our kids or even our kids being a victim of drugs from either their classmate or friends.”
The Tribunal heard of an incident in February 2025, when the applicants’ daughter was trying to resolve a matter of compensation for damage of her motor vehicle. The person who caused the damage was supposed to compensate her - but he refused. Their daughter did not pursue the payment of damages because of threats made against her (at a formal mediation) by the other party. Both the vehicle incident and the threats that followed caused the applicants a great deal of worry.
[The applicant] stated that the core of his concern is that, being perceived back in the Philippines as wealthy returning overseas workers, he and [the second applicant] will be more at risk as targets of crime than the general population. The applicants believe that, as overseas workers returning home, they are in a ‘different risk category’ to other citizens in terms of being targeted for crime.
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.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Each applicant provided a copy of the biodata page of their Philippines passport to the Department showing a photograph of themselves. These photographs were accepted by the delegate as identifying each applicant and there is no information before the Tribunal to the contrary in regard to identity or origin. The Tribunal finds that the applicants are citizens of the Philippines, and that the Philippines is their receiving country for the purposes of assessing the claims for protection.
At hearing, the applicants made submissions based (in part) on the evidence of [Witness A] who provided a witness statement dated 1 July 2025 stating:
I am [Witness A], presently [holding a role in Occupation 3], and a cousin of [the applicant], who, together with his wife [the second applicant], has applied for a protection visa in Australia. I am writing this statement not only as a family member but also as someone deeply familiar with the harsh realities that [the applicant’s] family faces here in the Philippines, especially since his [children] still live in [City 1] under increasingly perilous circumstances.
Working within [Sector 1], I have seen firsthand how law enforcement struggles to provide genuine protection in this region. Crime rates have been rising, and with them, so have incidents of violence against women and children. In 2024 alone, [there was] a 15 per cent increase in such cases, with over 180 reports of child harassment and abuse, many unresolved due to a lack of resources and fear from victims to come forward. Drug gangs and criminal syndicates are deeply entrenched, operating openly in numerous barangays classified as high-risk for youth recruitment. The police are often understaffed and hamstrung by corruption and political interference, making it difficult to confront these powerful groups effectively.
[The applicant’s] children, who remain in the Philippines, live in constant vulnerability. Their connection to Australia marks them as targets in the eyes of local criminals and opportunists. The perception that [the applicant] is wealthy and connected only heightens this risk. Girls, in particular, face the constant threat of harassment and exploitation. Reports from the local Women and Children Protection Unit indicate hundreds of incidents each year, many of which remain unreported. Neighbours have told me about unknown men lurking near the home where [the applicant’s] daughters live and the community whispers of stalking and intimidation. The girls have been forced into near isolation to avoid becoming victims.
[Boys], between 14 and 30 years old, are not spared either. Drug syndicates aggressively recruit young males for drug running and gang activity. The provincial police office has reported a 20 per cent increase in juvenile involvement in drug-related crimes just in the past year. My own relatives have been followed and threatened for refusing to cooperate with these gangs. Unfortunately, attempts to seek protection through local police are often futile; officers are either unwilling or unable to intervene against these well-connected criminals.
The broader situation in Negros Oriental is bleak. The assassination of Governor Roel Degamo in 2023 exposed the deep ties between armed groups, political players, and corrupt officials, contributing to a culture of fear and impunity. [The applicant’s] family is particularly vulnerable due to his international background and the attention that comes with it. Their return would not be a quiet homecoming but would put them squarely in the crosshairs of those who see them as threats or sources of extortion.
[The applicants’] children deserve safety and a chance to live without fear. Their current reality is one of constant threat and uncertainty, with law enforcement unable to guarantee their protection. Forcing this family to return to the Philippines would expose them to immediate danger and likely severe harm. Australia offers their only hope for security and a stable future.
I implore the Department to consider the real and present dangers facing [the applicant’s] family and grant their protection visa. Their lives, and the lives of their children, depend on it.
The applicants also rely on the statement of [Witness B] who is a resident of [City 1]. [Witness B] gives an account of the ‘every day realities’ of street crime he has witnessed in [City 1] – particularly during his work commute before sunrise and late at night. [Witness B] states that:
·systemic gender-based violence is endemic across Visayas and Mindanao. The Philippine Commission on Women and human rights groups have documented an alarming rise in gender-based violence. Most cases go unreported, either because families fear retaliation or because police are ineffective, under-resourced, or complicit
·women walking alone after dark are often stalked or approached by men offering rides with malicious intent
·law enforcement offers no safety. Police stations are either underfunded, uninterested, or infiltrated. Many victims are silenced with money or threats. Families seeking help from authorities are met with shrugs or deflection. One chilling police response being "It's better not to get involved. Just tell them to avoid those people."
[Witness B] states that many in the community believe the applicants to be ‘wealthy Australians now’ which makes them prime targets for criminal syndicates, corrupt local officials, and extortionists.
Assessment of Claims
The Tribunal has had regard to all the evidence submitted by the applicants as outlined above. The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant’s [children] reside in the Philippines where they experience the social and economic conditions to which others in the general population are subject. As discussed with the applicants at hearing, the role of the Tribunal is limited to assessing whether either one of them engages Australia’s protection obligations as a refugee or under complementary protection. The experiences of the applicants’ children are not in themselves, relevant considerations to the Tribunal’s assessment of whether the applicants engage protection obligations with respect to the Philippines.
In determining whether an applicant engages protection obligations, it is necessary to make findings of fact on relevant matters which may involve an assessment of the credibility of an applicant’s claims.
In making determinations on credibility, the Tribunal acknowledges and accepts that the benefit of the doubt should be given to asylum seekers who are generally credible but unable to substantiate all of their claims.[1] Notwithstanding this principle, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any or all of the allegations made by an applicant, and further, the Tribunal is not required to have rebutting evidence available to it before it can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been made out.[2] In circumstances where an applicant claims fear of persecution for a particular reason, this in itself, does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is ‘well-founded’. Similarly, that an applicant claims to face a real risk of significant harm, this does not establish that such a risk exists or that the harm feared amounts to ‘significant harm’. It is the responsibility of an applicant to specify all the particulars of his or her claim to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and to provide sufficient evidence to establish such a claim.[3]
Past harm
[1] SZLVZ v MIAC [2008] FCA 1816 at [25]
[2] Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at [451] per Beaumont J; Selvadurai v MIEA (1994) 34 ALD 347 at [348] per Heerey J; Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547
[3] Section 5AAA of the Act
In relation to the claims made (in submissions dated 25 February 2025 and 1 July 2025) regarding the applicants’ experiences of harm in the Philippines, the Tribunal has concerns around inconsistencies in the materials and evidence before it. The 25 February 2025 submission indicates that [the applicant] experienced continued harassment and direct threats in his home country (because he refused to submit to extortion demands) whereas:
·the protection visa application states ‘no’ in answer to the question “Did this applicant experience harm in [his home] country?”
·[the applicant] gave no evidence at the hearing that he or [the second applicant] had personally suffered harm or harassment (or received direct threats) when they were in their home country.
Based on the evidence tested at hearing and accepted by the Tribunal, the Tribunal is not satisfied that (as claimed in submissions dated 25 February 2025) either applicant experienced continued harassment and direct threats in the Philippines by reason of their refusal to submit to extortion demands (or at all).
In relation to the claims made (in submissions dated 25 February 2025) regarding the applicants’ experiences of corrupt actions by police in the Philippines, the Tribunal has concerns regarding inconsistencies in the materials and evidence before it. This submission indicates that [the applicant] personally witnessed police misconduct. He is said to have:
·firsthand knowledge of extrajudicial killings, warrantless arrests, and violent abuses carried out by law enforcement and vigilante groups
·personally witnessed law enforcement officers planting evidence, conducting unlawful raids and using threats and extortion tactics to extract money from civilians
·received direct threats from individuals claiming connections to law enforcement authorities and has a deep sense of insecurity about returning to his home country because of these threats.
Based on the evidence tested at hearing and accepted by the Tribunal, the Tribunal is not satisfied that (as claimed in submissions dated 25 February 2025) [the applicant] has personally witnessed police misconduct or that he has received direct threats from individuals claiming connections to law enforcement authorities (or at all).
Based on the court (and other) documents provided by the applicants, the Tribunal accepts that offences of robbery/extortion (committed in [Municipality 1 in March and April] 2019 by an individual) were reported to police, investigated by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and successfully prosecuted in court in the Philippines. Based on the available evidence, the Tribunal accepts that as part of the criminal conduct, threats were made by the offender referencing the NPA. While the Tribunal is prepared to find, based on [the applicant’s] evidence, that his sister Ms [A] was the victim of this crime, the Tribunal does not accept that she or [the applicant] were threatened (or experienced physical harm) during the course of the offending.
Based on the court (and other) documents provided by the applicants, the Tribunal accepts that a single offender was prosecuted on the robbery/extortion charges. The Tribunal does not find, based on the available evidence, that the offender was acting (or was alleged to have been acting) in concert with the NPA or another criminal syndicate. As such, the Tribunal does not accept the claim made in the protection visa application that the person charged was alleged to be a member of the NPA. For the reasons stated above, the Tribunal does not accept the claims (made in the 1 July 2025 submission) that [the applicant’s] family was directly targeted by the NPA or that the applicants have faced direct threats from the NPA.
Based on the court (and other) documents provided by the applicants, the Tribunal accepts that the NBI played an active surveillance role during the commission of the crime against Ms [A] and apprehended the offender at the scene. Based on the available evidence, the Tribunal does not find that:
·the police or NBI response to Ms [A’s] report of threats made against her was deficient or uninterested (as described by [Witness B])
·the response of prosecutors or the justice system to the crime committed against Ms [A] was deficient.
Future harm
Economic and health-related
In the protection visa the applicants state that one of the uncertainties they face in their home country is the ‘financial stability [if they are] unable to find a decent job to support their [family].”
Based on the materials submitted by the applicants (including birth certificates), the Tribunal accepts they have [children] who are each financially dependent on them to some degree.
In the 1 July 2025 submission the applicants state that approximately 23% of families in rural provinces such as Negros Oriental (where the applicants’ hometown is located) live below the poverty line.According to the World Bank “poverty [in the Philippines] declined from 23.3 per cent in 2015 to 16.6 per cent in 2018, although COVID-19 may reverse some of these gains. Poverty rates are higher in rural areas than in the cities.” [4]
[4] Cited in the DFAT Country Information Report: The Philippines 23 August 2021 para 2.10
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade reported in August 2021 (the DFAT report) that “During the height of COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020, unemployment reached an all-time high of 17.7 per cent before dropping to 10 per cent by the end of the year. Rates of underemployment are also very high...”[5]
[5] DFAT Country Information Report: The Philippines 23 August 2021 para 2.13
The applicants submit that they will be disadvantaged in the Philippines due to the state of its healthcare system which has become degraded after the COVID epidemic and by inadequate budget resources.
The DFAT report states that in the Philippines:
A national health insurance scheme, PhilHealth, was introduced in 1995. In February 2019, President Duterte signed into law the Universal Healthcare Act, which extends coverage to all Filipinos and expands its scope to include preventive, promotive, curative and rehabilitative healthcare services. Nevertheless, many Filipinos still struggle to access adequate healthcare, especially if they are poor or live in rural or remote areas. Those who can afford it usually take out private health insurance.
The quality of healthcare facilities and services is variable. While doctors in private and public hospitals are equally skilled, private hospitals tend to be better equipped, have more staff and shorter wait times, but are usually too expensive for the poor. Hospitals in cities tend to be much better equipped and staffed and offer a wider range of services than those in rural or remote areas. [6]
[6] DFAT Country Information Report: The Philippines 23 August 2021 paras 2.17 – 2.18
Based on available country information, the Tribunal accepts that in the Philippines, citizens face uncertainties regarding financial security and access to healthcare - particularly for unemployed citizens and those living in rural or remote areas.
At hearing, [the applicant] confirmed that he and [the second applicant] have worked [in Occupation 1] for more than a decade – including in senior roles. [The applicant] stated that this is “the kind of profession that we are really good at.” His evidence was that they have previously worked in [Workplace 1] located in their hometown. When asked whether he and [the second applicant] could return to their former place of work, he provided no response indicating that they could not. He stated ”I don’t think it would be sort of like an ideal decision for us to like go back there.”
Having regard to the available country information, the Tribunal accepts that many citizens in the Philippines live in conditions of poverty. However, given the applicants’ relatively young ages ([ages deleted]), extensive employment history and skills in [Occupation 1] and their commitment to providing for their family, the Tribunal considers that the applicants would be able to find employment in their home country to support themselves and their family.
As returning overseas workers
In the materials and testimony before the Tribunal, the applicants present statement evidence and submissions in support of the claim that they would be more likely than other citizens to be targeted for (general and/or NPA-related) crime because they would be perceived as lucrative targets if they return to their home country following overseas employment.
The applicants claim that they would not receive effective state protection.
In statements provided to the Tribunal:
·[Witness B] (resident of [City 1]) opines that “many believe [the applicants] to be “wealthy Australians now.” [which makes them] prime targets for criminal syndicates, corrupt local officials and extortionists.” [Witness B] states his opinion is based on his direct observations of “former OFWs, NGO workers, or public-facing professionals-who were harassed, extorted, or attacked upon re-entering society”.
·[Witness A] opines that [the applicant’s] family is “particularly vulnerable due to his international background and the attention that comes with it. [The applicants’] return would not be a quiet homecoming but would put them squarely in the crosshairs of those who see them as threats or sources of extortion.” [Witness A] states his opinion is based on observations he has made during his [role in Occupation 3]. He makes these statements “as someone deeply familiar with the harsh realities that [the applicants’] family faces in the Philippines.”
According to a 2023 survey[7] on Overseas Filipino Workers, 2.16 million Filipino citizens were working abroad between April and September 2023.
[7] Philippine Statistics Authority 2023 Survey on Overseas Filipino Workers (Final Results),13 September 2024 psa.gov.au accessed 4 September 2025
There is no country information or other evidence before the Tribunal that establishes ‘overseas Filipino workers’ returning home are targeted more often for (general and/or NPA-related) crime than other citizens.
For the reasons stated above, the Tribunal does not accept that the NPA was involved in the robbery/extortion offences committed against Ms [A]. The Tribunal does not find that, by reason of Ms [A] having been a victim of crime, the applicants are more likely to be targeted for (general and/or NPA-related) crime than other citizens.
The Tribunal has considered the extrinsic online materials provided by the applicants regarding the NPA, the ‘war on drugs’ and extra-judicial killings in Negros Oriental (published between March 2019 and March 2020) which included search results, excerpts and links.
The Tribunal also takes into account the more recent DFAT report (23 August 2021) assessing the operations of the NPA:
Besides conducting guerrilla attacks against Philippine government forces, the CPP-NPA engages in kidnapping, arson and assassinations, as well as demanding ‘revolutionary taxes’ from businesses operating in some parts of Mindanao, enforcing their demands by threatening or conducting attacks against infrastructure such as power and telecommunication facilities. Civilians have been caught up in fighting between CPP-NPA and government forces, and the CPP-NPA has also carried out targeted assassinations of its own former members, suspected informants, local government leaders, and tribal leaders.[8]
[8] DFAT Country Information Report: The Philippines 23 August 2021 para 2.47
According to DFAT, the CPP-NPA (which has waged a violent insurgency against the Philippine government for decades) is strongest in Eastern Mindanao but has a presence throughout the country.[9] The conflict has continued for some 50 years, resulting in more than 40,000 fatalities. Peace talks between the Philippine government and the CPP-NPA have been ongoing since 1986 with a pause in formal talks in 2017 under President Rodrigo Duterte’s presidency. Whilst the current Philippine government announced that peace talks would be resumed in November 2023, any formal peace agreement between the Philippines government and the CPP-NPA still appears some time away.[10]
[9] DFAT Country Information Report: The Philippines 23 August 2021 paras 2.46 to 2.48
[10] see, for example, ‘Philippine government, communist rebels agree to resume peace talks’, The Strait Times, 12 November 2024 ‘Philippine government, communist rebels to revive peace talks’, Aljazeera, 28 November 2023 and ‘Prospects shaky for Philippines’ government and communist peace talks’, Aljazeera, 6 February 2024
Having regard to the materials listed above, the Tribunal accepts that the NPA has operated like a criminal syndicate (particularly in Mindanao) however, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that either applicant has a profile such that, if they returned to [City 1], they would be of adverse interest to the NPA. There is no indication in the evidence that either applicant has gained a ‘political profile’ that would draw the attention of the NPA.
Having regard to the materials listed above, the Tribunal accepts that a ‘war on drugs’ is ongoing in the Philippines however, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that either applicant has a profile such that, if they returned to [City 1], they would be of adverse interest to drug gangs or drug enforcement authorities. There is no indication in the evidence that either applicant has had any connection with the drug trade in the Philippines.
Based on the available evidence and having regard to the findings above, the Tribunal accepts that Ms [A] was a victim of crime however, the Tribunal does not accept that either applicant has a profile such that, if they returned to [City 1], they would be targeted for crime by reason of being returning overseas workers (or at all).
The Tribunal finds that the applicants, if returned to the Philippines, will encounter risks of general crime to the same extent as other citizens.
Drugs and extra-judicial killings
The protection visa application and later submissions include a broad claim about fearing harm as a result of the drug war and extra-judicial killings in the Philippines. The news articles submitted by the applicants report incidents occurring in this war up to March 2020.
[The applicant’s] evidence at hearing was that he could not think of a reason he personally would get caught up with a drug gang or with a government crackdown on a drug gang.
The DFAT report indicates that the Philippines has been grappling with a drug problem for some years and acknowledges that there has been well-documented evidence of extra-judicial killings as a part of the government’s war on drugs. The DFAT report states that extra-judicial killings occur against accused drug users and dealers – perpetrated by vigilantes or (as highly likely) by uniformed police or soldiers.[11]
[11] DFAT Country Information Report: The Philippines 23 August 2021 para 4.1
The Tribunal accepts that there is a drug problem in the Philippines and that there is an ongoing campaign by the government which has historically resulted in extra-judicial killings and may well result in these types of crimes presently and into the future, albeit on a smaller scale.
However, because the applicants have had no involvement in illegal drugs in the Philippines or in Australia, and do not claim to have done anything while in Australia to give themselves any kind of profile as opponents of the government’s war on drugs, the Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance they will be harmed (or become innocent targets of extra-judicial killings) by reason of the ongoing war on drugs, if returned to the Philippines, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Fear of harm
[The applicant] informed the Department that he planned to travel to the Philippines to attend training in 2022. His travel restriction was lifted when, on 2 August 2022 he was granted a Bridging Visa B. He then returned to the Philippines for 24 days. The Tribunal has concerns that [the applicant’s] visit to his home country (after he applied for protection in Australia) is inconsistent with his claim to fear returning to the Philippines. [The applicant] told the Tribunal that upon completing his training, he travelled from Manila to his home town to visit his family. The Tribunal is satisfied that [the applicant] was not compelled to visit his hometown in 2022 but he chose to do so because he wished to see his family and was not fearful of becoming a victim of crime (or suffering physical harm) while he was there.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that [the second applicant] informed the Department that her presence was required in Philippines in 2022. Soon after she was granted a Bridging Visa B, [the second applicant] returned to the Philippines for 24 days. The Tribunal has concerns that [the second applicant’s] visit to her home country (after she applied for protection in Australia) is inconsistent with the claim that she fears returning to the Philippines. The Tribunal is satisfied that [the second applicant] was not compelled to visit her hometown in 2022 but she chose to do so because she wished to see her family and was not fearful of becoming a victim of crime (or suffering physical harm) while she was there.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
The issues in this case are whether there is a real chance that, if either applicant returns to the Philippines, he or she will be persecuted for one or more of the five reasons set out in s 5J(1)(a) for the purpose of s 36(2)(a) of the Act and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of them being removed from Australia to the Philippines, there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm for the purpose of s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Does either applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?
The criterion in s 5J(1)(a) 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.
In considering the scope of ‘persecution’ the Tribunal refers to s5J(4) of the Act which relevantly provides that the persecution must involve serious harm to the person. The Tribunal is also guided by judicial consideration of the ‘degree of harm’ required to constitute persecution. In MIMA v Respondent S152/2003[12] McHugh J stated that “for the purpose of the Convention, the feared harm will constitute persecution only if it is so oppressive that the individual cannot be expected to tolerate it.”
[12] (2004) 22 CLR 1
Section 5J(5) provides that the following are instances of serious harm: (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.
The applicants assert that they fear sustaining harm in the ‘war on drugs’ in their home country and being targeted for crime because criminal elements, including the NPA, will perceive them to be wealthy (having returned from overseas work).
For the reasons stated above, the Tribunal does not find that the applicants face a real chance of suffering harm the Philippines of such a nature and degree that it constitutes persecution. The Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance they will be harmed (or become innocent targets of extra-judicial killings) by the NPA or by reason of the ongoing war on drugs, if returned to the Philippines, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The Tribunal further finds that applicants’ concerns about being targets for crime is not essentially and significantly for any of the reasons outlined in s 5J(1)(a), namely their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group as defined under s 5K of the Act.
In light of the findings above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that for the purposes of s 5J(1) the applicants have a well-founded fear of persecution. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that neither applicant is a refugee for the purposes of s 5H. As such, the Tribunal is not satisfied that either applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Does either applicant meet the complementary protection criterion?
Having concluded that the applicants do 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 outlined above the Tribunal does not accept that that the applicants face a real risk being significantly harmed should they be removed to the Philippines.
In MIAC v SZQRB[13] the Full Federal Court held that the ‘real risk’ test imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in the Refugee Convention definition.
[13] [2013] FCAFC 33
Section 36(2)(aa) refers to a real risk of an applicant suffering significant harm. ‘Significant harm’ is exhaustively defined in s 36(2A): s 5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s 5(1) of the Act.
The Tribunal finds that the harm the applicants may face on return to the Philippines does not amount to significant harm. The Tribunal is not therefore, satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to the Philippines as the receiving country, there is a real risk that the applicants will suffer significant harm.
The Tribunal does not find that either applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
Member of family unit
There is no suggestion that either 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 applicants do not satisfy any of the criteria in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants a protection visa.
Date of hearing: 7 July 2025
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.
…
0
5
0