2217099 (Refugee) - [2023] AATA 1476

2217099 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 1476 (23 March 2023)
.
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Sam Issa
CASE NUMBER:  2217099
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Uzbekistan
MEMBER:Brendan Darcy
DATE:23 March 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 23 March 2023 at 1:45pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Uzbekistan – race – Armenian – religion – Christian – particular social group – relapsing drug users – evangelising – compulsory registration for drug rehabilitation treatment – fear of detention – extensive criminal history – forced labour – discriminatorily enforced laws – significant harm – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5AAA, 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 424A, 499, 501
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
Applicant S v MIMA (2004) 217 CLR 387
BBK15 v MIBP [2015] FCA 680
Chen Shi Hai v MIMA (2000) 201 CLR 293
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
MIMAC v SZRHU (2013) 215 FCR 35
MZZHY v MIBP [2013] FCCA 1246
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
SZSPT v MIBP [2014] FCA 1254
SZVYD v MIBP [2019] FCA 648
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on [date] 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 citizen of the Republic of Uzbekistan (Uzbekistan), applied for the visa on [date]. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the delegate did not find the applicant’s claims to be credible, and that he did not have a genuine fear upon returning to Uzbekistan.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 17 January 2023 to give evidence and present arguments.
The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Russian and English languages.
The evidence at each hearing was provided via an audio-visual platform between the Tribunal’s Melbourne facilities, and facilities at the [named detention centre].
The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF Claims and evidence
The issue in this case is whether the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as outlined in s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
Background
The applicant was born on [date] in the city of Samarkand in Uzbekistan. He claims to be from the Armenian ethnic group and an Antiochian Orthodox.
The following identity documentary evidence was provided by the applicant to the Department:
· Expired Uzbek passport (issue date: [in] 1995).[1]
[1] [File number] Department efile Doc ID [number].
The applciant first arrived in Australia on [date] 2000 as a holder of a [temporary] visa which ceased on [date] 2000.
On [date], the applicant applied for a Class XA Subclass 866 protection visa which was refused on [date] 2000. A review of the decision to refuse the Protection visa was lodged with the then Refugee Review Tribunal on 15 January 2001 and withdrawn on 21 March 2002.
[In] 2002, the applicant voluntarily departed Australia while holding a Bridging visa A (BVA).
[In] 2003, the applicant returned to Australia after being granted a [temporary] visa. The applicant was later granted a [permanent] visa on [date].
An application for citizenship by conferral was lodged on 10 April 2007 and was refused on 14 August 2007.
On 11 February 2016, the Department cancelled the applicant’s [permanent] visa under s 501 of the Act. The cancellation of the visa was revoked on 29 April 2016 under s 501CA(4) of the Act.
On 17 November 2020, the visa was cancelled under s 501 of the Act and the applicant became unlawful. Application for revocation of the cancellation were refused by the Department. Review of the cancellation of the visa commenced on [date] with the [Tribunal].
On [date] 2022, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Department not to revoke the cancellation of the visa.
On [date], the applicant lodged an application with the Department for a Class XA Subclass 866 protection visa which was refused on [date] 2022 and is the subject of this review.
Claims for protection
The applicant’s claims for protection are summarised as follows:
·     The applicant claimed to be born in the Uzbekistan’s largest city of Samarkand, and to be a citizen of Uzbekistan;
·     The applicant claimed to be of Armenian ethnicity and is identifiable as an ethnic Armenian by his name;
·     Born to an Orthodox Christian Armenian family, the applicant claimed to identify as a Christian, and that his religious practice involves evangelising;
·     If he returns to Uzbekistan, the applicant claims he will continue to practice his religion and he believes he will be persecuted by Muslims and the Uzbek authorities;
·     It was further claimed that the applicant’s father was murdered in [year]. Religion and ethnicity were ‘central motivating factor[s] in his murder.’ The person who murdered his father was convicted and imprisoned for 12 years. He has now been released and the applicant fears he will target him and seek retribution;
·     The applicant has a history of drug dependency which is currently being managed through prescription drugs. He will not be able to access the same level of health care in Uzbekistan. Without this treatment, the applicant further claimed that he is likely to relapse into illicit drug addiction;
·     Compulsory registration is required to access drug rehabilitation treatment in the public healthcare system in Uzbekistan. By registering to receive this treatment, the applicant claimed he will be vulnerable to being convicted as an illicit drug user, despite the fact he has not used illicit drugs for years. The applicant fears that if he is imprisoned, he would be subject to harsh prison conditions;
·     If he returns to Uzbekistan, it is claimed that the applicant will be harmed because he is of Armenian descent and he will be subjected to severe workplace discrimination because he is an Armenian Christian, but also because he has a history of drug dependency and has a criminal record;
·     He would not be able to relocate to another part of Uzbekistan because the drug laws are applicable nationwide and religious and ethnic persecution occurs throughout the country; and
·     If the applicant returns to Uzbekistan, he will be separated from his partner, [Partner A] (born [date], CID: [number]) and son, [Son A] (born [date]) who are both Australian citizens. His only remaining relatives in Uzbekistan are his elderly grandmother and [another relative].
The applicant speaks English and Russian and was educated up until [grade] in Uzbekistan. The applicant claims to have undertaken a [vocational] course as [an occupation 1] whilst concurrently assisting his aunt care for horses on her farm, and training to become an [occupation 2].
He was previously married to [Partner A] [in] February 2002, with whom the applicant had a son who was born in [year]. The applicant is no longer married to [Partner A], but they continue to be in a de facto relationship.
The applicant was invited to attend an interview by the Department of Home Affairs, which was conducted on [date] 2022.
A delegate acting on behalf of the Minister refused to grant the applicant a protection visa on [date] 2022.
Relevant information arising from the Tribunal’s s 501 decision record
On [date] 2022, the applicant appeared before the [Tribunal] to review the Ministers decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his [permanent] visa.
Due to the combined effects of ss 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act, the applicant did not pass the character test. In determining whether there is ‘another reason’ for revocation, the Tribunal applied the Direction to the specific circumstances of his case. The Tribunal saw no reason to depart from the guidance in the Direction that greater weight ‘should generally be given’ to the primary considerations, rather than other considerations.
The presiding Member considered the applicants criminal offending, finding that the totality of the offences and other conduct is such that the Tribunal was unpersuaded by the applicant’s latest claims about remorse, insight, and rehabilitation.
Having weighed all relevant considerations individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal found there was no reason why the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s visa should be revoked. The primary considerations of the protection of the Australian community and expectations of the Australian community; considerably outweighed the combined weight of the best interests of children, and the other countervailing considerations.
Below is an extract from the Tribunal decision dated [2022] (a copy of the decision record was submitted to the Department);
[Information deleted]
According to the Tribunal’s [2022] decision not to revoke the cancellation of his [permanent] visa, the applicant has an extensive criminal history, which is summarised below;
·     [In] 2020, the applicant was sentenced to [term] imprisonment for Home Invasion (steal) – Person Present;
·     [In] 2020, the applicant was sentenced to [term] imprisonment for committing an indictable offence whilst on bail;
·     [In] 2020, the applicant was sentenced to [term] imprisonment for impersonating a police officer;
·     [In] 2020, the applicant was sentenced to [term] imprisonment for common law assault;
·     [In] 2020, the applicant was sentenced to [term] imprisonment for Burglary Theft;
·     [In] 2015, the applicant was convicted of contravening a suspended sentence order, Burglary, and ‘Equipped to Steal/Cheat’, and ‘Dealing in Property Suspected Proceed of Crime’. A Community Correction Order was imposed for [term];
·     [In] 2014, the applicant was convicted of Providing a false name when requested, 4 charges of theft and 4 charges of burglary, [term] imprisonment;
·     [In] 2010, the applicant was convicted of driving whilst disqualified, serving [term] in jail;
·     [In] 2010, the applicant was convicted of 14 charges of Burglary and 13 charges of Theft, serving [term] imprisonment;
·     [In] 2008, the applicant served [term] imprisonment for Theft;
·     [In] 2008, the applicant served [term] imprisonment for Burglary, ‘Theft Without Authority/Excuse to Enter Private Place’, ‘Equipped to Steal/Cheat’; and
·     [In] 2007, the applicant was convicted of 2 charges of Theft From Shop (Shopsteal);
Evidence provided to the Tribunal
The applicant validly applied for a review of the Delegates decision with the Tribunal on [date] 2022. A copy of the delegate’s decision record was attached.
Prior to the hearing on 16 January 2023, the Tribunal received a detailed legal submission prepared by the applicant’s representative with the following attachments:
·     Reference letters dated [in] October 2022 signed by [detention centre] detainees, [named] which both attested the applicant to a be a former criminal who has been pushed towards God and talks about God and Jesus;
·     A reference letter from [Mr A] dated 10 October 2022 claiming to know the applicant since 2017 and to know his wife and child. The letter attested that the applicant previously used drugs and was not religious, but is now a religious person who is on a drug treatment plan which he takes seriously;
·     An Amnesty International report on human rights abuses towards the freedom of religion and belief;
·     A Christian Faith report about the harassment of and restrictions on Church activities;
·     A report by the International Christian expressing concerns of ongoing widespread violations being committed against the minority Christian community, since 2007;
·     Cannabis and Illegal Drugs in Uzbekistan states that Uzbekistan has among the most restrictive drug laws in Central Asia. For possession and use, individuals may be punished with correctional labour or imprisonment of up to three years, or five years in the case of prior convictions;
·     An article entitled ‘Overview of the drug situation in Uzbekistan (2014)’ by EMCDDA (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drugs Addiction) states that treatment for opiood addiction include the register of substance abuse (the narcological register) is a dispensary register and preventive register of people who use drugs, and is based on the regulations approved by Order NQ 278 of the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Uzbekistan, dated 15 July 2005; and
·     An article entitled “Report to the International Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR).
As mentioned above, the applicant attended a scheduled hearing on 17 January 2023.
On 13 February 2023, the Tribunal summonsed the Department to obtain copies of the applicant’s health records for the period 1 July 2021 and 13 February 2022 while the applicant was in immigration detention, and to respond by 22 March 2023.
On 7 March 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant via his representative under the Act’s adverse information provisions. The Tribunal put to the applicant, among other things that, when considering this information, the applicant has stabilised his illicit drug habits through available treatments since 2017 and he does not have any significant or severe mental health problems. This may indicate to the Tribunal that the applicant’s addiction has long been managed and stabilised and that he could return to his country of nationality and avail himself to the available services in that country and that he would not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal further acknowledged that the treatment options for reforming drug addicts in Uzbekistan is not as broad or as sophisticated as they are in Australia. However, there is no country information before it to indicate that the applicant will not be denied any health treatment for any of nexus reasons mentioned under s 5J(1)(a); or that the applicable Uzbek laws and treatments, including those which are compulsory, amount to the applicant suffering , as necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Uzbekistan, a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm. Attached to the letter was the summonsed redacted health records.
On 10 March 2023, the Tribunal received a legal submission and some additional country information, in response to the above. In particular, the submission drew the Tribunal’s attention to “Report to the International Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR January 2022)”[2] which states that:
[2] The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) is the body of 18 independent experts that monitors implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights by its State parties.
·     Uzbekistan enforces heavy-handed drug policy aimed at people who use drugs rather than at people engaged in wholesale commercial trafficking. In addition, Uzbekistan enforces laws that discriminate against people who use drugs, including those with drug dependence;
·     Uzbekistani drug enforcement agencies target primarily people who use drugs rather than commercial drug traffickers. Many people who use drugs suffer from chronic health conditions and/or poverty. By way of disproportionate drug policy, Uzbekistan deploys harsh law enforcement against these people, rather than providing them with health and socio-economic support;
·     There are \very low threshold amounts for the purpose of criminal liability for simple possession;
·     The only method of drug dependence treatment available in Uzbekistan is detoxification with subsequent abstinence-based short rehabilitation. WHO-recommended opioid substitution therapy (OST) is not available. In 2014, during the constructive dialogue with CESCR, representatives of the Government of Uzbekistan informed the committee that the Government would resume OST soon. But as of 2021, the Government had not fulfilled this promise. In response to the lack of access to effective drug dependence treatment, Uzbekistan employs coercive drug treatment, as well as such coercive measures as drug registry and unreasonable limitations of social and economic rights of people who use drugs. The Law No. ЗРУ-644 of 27 October 2020, “On prevention and treatment of narcological illnesses,” provides for two coercive measures:
o   Coercive drug dependence treatment, including in labour camps, and mandatory registration of drug users leading to limitation of their socio-economic rights; and
o   Coercive treatment is stipulated as one of measures to improve drug dependence treatment. This is despite the fact that most available scientific literature evaluating compulsory drug treatment do not demonstrate better outcomes with such coercive treatment, but some studies suggest potential harms.
·     According to CESCR, obligations to respect include a State’s obligation to refrain from applying coercive medical treatments, unless on an exceptional basis for the treatment of mental illness or the prevention and control of communicable diseases. Such exceptional cases should be subject to specific and restrictive conditions, respecting best practices and applicable international standards, including the Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and the Improvement of Mental Health Care21 Mandatory registration of people who use drugs goes far beyond the public health needs;
·     According to Article 24 of the Law No. ЗРУ-644, medical information about people registered as using drugs should be shared with law enforcement for crime prevention purposes. Because of this, mandatory registration discourages people who use drugs from seeking medical help;
·     It also creates the atmosphere of distrust between patients and doctors;
·     Mandatory registration also influences the family rights. According to Article 79 of the Family Code of Uzbekistan, the diagnosis of chronic drug dependence can be a sole reason for the deprivation of parental rights. A good parent can be deprived of parental rights simply because he or she is registered as a person with drug dependence. Because of this, parents, and in particular women, who suffer from drug dependence, refrain from seeking medical help; and
·     Labour laws stipulate that drug dependence is a legal barrier for dozens of occupations in food industries, education, as well as driving a vehicle. In order to avoid limitations of their labour rights, people with drug dependence avoid seeking medical help to prevent mandatory registration.

No further submissions were received. There are non-disclosure certificates attached to the applicant’s Departmental and Tribunal files in relation to this Protection visa application.
Country information: Uzbekistan
There is no country information report prepared by DFAT that pertains to the Republic of Uzbekistan.
The 2021 Human Rights Practice Report prepared by the United States’ Department of State[3] states the following executive summary about Uzbekistan:
Uzbekistan is a constitutional republic with a political system led by President Shavkat Mirziyoyev and his supporters. On October 24, the government held presidential election and President Mirziyoyev won re-election with 80.2 percent of the total votes. A genuine choice of political alternatives was not available to voters because true opposition candidates were unable to register or run for office. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe stated, “while election day was peaceful, significant irregularities were observed and important safeguards were often disregarded during voting, counting, and tabulation.”
The government authorizes four different entities to investigate criminal activity and provide security. The Ministry of Internal Affairs controls police, who are responsible for law enforcement, maintenance of order, and the investigation of crimes. It also investigates and disciplines police officers if they are accused of human rights violations. The National Guard provides for public order and the security of diplomatic missions and radio and television broadcasting, and other state entities. The State Security Service, whose chairperson reports directly to the president, deals with national security and intelligence matters, including terrorism, corruption, organized crime, border control, and narcotics. The Prosecutor General’s Office is mandated to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens and legally protected interests of the state, to conduct preliminary investigations of crimes, and to prosecute persons and entities accused of crimes. Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control over the security forces, but security services permeated civilian structures. Civilian authorities opaquely interacted with security services’ personnel, making it difficult to define the scope and limits of civilian authority. There were reports that members of the security and law enforcement agencies, particularly police and prison officials, committed abuses.
Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; arbitrary arrest or detention; political prisoners; politically motivated reprisal against individuals in another country; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media, including censorship and the existence of criminal libel and slander laws; substantial interference with freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including restrictions on civil society organizations, human rights activists, and others who criticized the government; severe restrictions on religious freedom; restrictions on freedom of movement; inability of citizens to change their government peacefully through free and fair elections; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; trafficking in persons; and existence and use of laws criminalizing consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults; and significant restrictions on workers’ freedom of association.
Impunity of government officials remained pervasive despite some efforts by law enforcement agencies to investigate officials for human rights abuses and corruption.
ASSESSMENT OF CLAIMS AND FINDINGS
[3] 2021 US Human rights practices report: Uzbekistan, US Department of State, of reference
The applicant was born in Uzbekistan when it was a constituent republic of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics (USSR). The applicant had had been a citizen of the USSR until Uzbekistan became an independent sovereign state in 1991.
The applicant has submitted a copy of his expired passport issued by the Uzbek authorities to the Department. The Department accepted that he was an Uzbek citizen and national of the Republic of Uzbekistan and assessed his claims against Uzbekistan. The Tribunal is similarly prepared to accept, for the purposes of this decision, that the applicant is a national of Uzbekistan and that the appropriate country of reference for the assessment of his refugee claims and the receiving country for the purposes of his complementary protection claims, is Uzbekistan.
Third country protection
Australia is taken not to have protection obligations in respect of a non-citizen who has not taken all possible steps to avail himself or herself of a right to enter and reside in, whether temporarily or permanently and however that right arose or is expressed, any country apart from Australia, including countries of which the non-citizen is a national.
The Full Federal Court in MIMAC v SZRHU (2013) 215 FCR 35, has held that the term ‘right’ in s.36(3) should not be restricted to a right in the strict sense which is legally enforceable. Rather, it should include the notion of liberty, permission or privilege lawfully given, albeit capable of withdrawal and not capable of enforcement; or a liberty, permission or privilege which does not give rise to any particular correlative duty upon the state in question. In determining whether these provisions apply, relevant considerations include: whether the applicant has a liberty, permission or privilege lawfully given to enter and reside in a third country either temporarily or permanently; whether he or she has taken all possible steps to avail himself or herself of that right; and whether s.36(3) does not apply because of the operation of s.36(4), (5) or (5A).
The delegate noted in the decision record that there was no material available indicating that the applicant held another citizenship nor held a current right to enter and reside in another country.
The Tribunal however discussed the applicant’s eligibility for Armenian citizenship at the scheduled hearing. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is an Uzbek citizen of Armenian ethnicity and that he speaks Armenian. It accepts that the applicant visited Armenia with his family when Armenia was a constituent republic of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics in or around 1986. In September 1991, Armenia became an independent sovereign country after it voted to secede from the Soviet Union. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant does not have a current visa to enter into Armenia; neither is he a citizen of Armenia. It was noted that the applicant could have applied for citizenship of Armenia, on the basis that ethnic Armenians in general have favourable conditions to obtain citizenship in Armenia through simplified procedures. Country information in Attachment B does not suggest that there is an automatic right to citizenship, though it appears to the Tribunal that the applicant is likely to eligible.
The right referred to in s 36(3) must be an existing right, and not a past or lapsed right, or a potential right or an expectancy. The relevant ‘liberty, permission or privilege’ must be a permission which obtains its effective substance from its grant ‘and thereafter from the lack of any withdrawal of it and from the lack of any existing prohibition or law contrary to its exercise’.[4]
[4] MIMAC v SZRHU (2013) 215 FCR 35 at [45], citing Allsop J in V856/00A v MIMA (2001) 114 FCR 408 (at [31]). The construction by Allsop J was endorsed by Buchanan J (at [89]), with all other members of the Court agreeing (at [7], [93], [130], [131])
As the applicant does not have an existing right to enter Armenia, the Tribunal accepts that there is no evidence that the applicant has a right to enter and reside, whether temporarily or permanently, in Armenia.
The Tribunal notes that the applicant has a [sibling] who migrated to [Country 1]. With no evidence of any existing right to enter into [that country], the Tribunal accepts that there is no evidence that the applicant has a right to enter and reside, whether temporarily or permanently, into [Country 1] or any other third country for the purposes of s 36(3).
Credibility assessment and findings
When assessing claims the Tribunal must make findings of fact in relation to the claims. In doing so, the Tribunal is mindful of the difficulties faced by refugee applicants, including issues related to the use of interpreters, nervousness and anxiety in a Tribunal environment, and stress caused by separation from home and family. There may also be memory issues resulting from the lapse of time, and cultural issues which may affect how an applicant answers questions by the Tribunal. The benefit of the doubt should be given to an applicant who is generally credible but unable to substantiate all his or her claims. All this is considered in these findings.
The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is ‘well-founded’ or that it is for the reason claimed. Similarly, that an applicant claims to face a real risk of significant harm does not establish that such a risk exists, or that the harm feared amounts to ‘significant harm’. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant’s case for him or her. It is the responsibility of the applicant to specify all particulars of the 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 in specifying any particulars of the claim, or to establish or assist in establishing the claim.[5] Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any or all the allegations made by an applicant.[6]
[5] Section 5AAA of the Migration Act 1958.
[6] MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169–70.
Overall, the applicant has approached his claims in a frank and reliable manner, although he has embellished the level and degree of risks to him as a forced returnee from Australia to Uzbekistan. With family in Australia, such embellishments are understandable. With this in mind, the Tribunal accepts the applicant has a genuine fear of returning to Uzbekistan.
Based on this overall credibility finding, the Tribunal accepts the following about the applicant’s personal circumstances:
·     The applicant was born in [year] in Samarkand in Uzbekistan;
·     The applicant’s parents were of Armenian background and travelled to Armenia prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but were not citizens of Armenia;
·     The applicant’s father was an [occupation 2] and was killed in Samarkand in [year], as claimed;
·     The applicant’s mother passed away in 2005 from [a medical condition] while the applicant was in Australia;
·     The applicant has [specified siblings]; one [sibling] migrated from Uzbekistan to [Country 1] in 2011; while [sibling] has migrated to Australia and became an Australian citizen;
·     The only relatives of the applicant currently residing in Uzbekistan include an aunt and cousin;
·     The applicant speaks, reads and writes in the Russian language and understands some Armenian and Uzbek, but cannot read or write in the those languages;
·     The applicant was educated in Uzbekistan where he completed the equivalent of [grade] in the Australian education system, and also began but did not complete a qualification to become [an occupation 1];
·     The applicant arrived in Australia as a professional [occupation 2];
·     The applicant was married and then divorced the mother of his child and later, lived with his ex-wife in a de facto spousal relationship.
The applicant made a number of separate dispositive or critical claims, that are examined below both individually and cumulatively.
Claims regarding the applicant’s ethnic and religion
It is the applicant’s claim that he holds a well-founded fear of persecution based on his ethnicity as an Armenian Uzbek.
The applicant has claimed that he was born into and raised by a Christian Armenian family belong to the Armenian Apostolic Church (AAC). (The AAC is the independent Oriental orthodox denomination that has not been in communion with Rome and Constantinople since 554 AD). The applicant claimed to have been previously subjected to serious mistreatment and discrimination whilst residing in Uzbekistan on account of his Christian faith in combination with Armenian ethnicity. The applicant relatedly claimed his religious practice involves evangelising.
There is very limited information about the situation for Uzbeks of Armenian ethnicity. According to Wikipedia,[7] ethnic Armenians living in Uzbekistan number around 40,000. The Armenian community of Uzbekistan is the largest community in Central Asia, and most of them live in Tashkent. The modern-day community formed during the Armenian genocide when many Armenians fled through Azerbaijan to Uzbekistan for safety in the Russian empire, and then made communities in Samarkand, Tashkent, Andijan, Fergana, and many other cities. After the Soviet Union was formed, the Armenians became significant contributors to the Uzbekistani economy and agriculture, with many holding high positions in government and skilled labour. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, many Armenians moved mainly to Russia, but also to Armenia and the United States. There are nevertheless many Armenians living in Uzbekistan. Their main language is Russian, but some still speak Armenian at home. Instead of seeing the typical "ian" or "yan" at the end of Uzbek-Armenian last names, many will encounter Armenians with "ov" or "ts" at the end. This gives great insight into the heavy amount of Russian influence on Armenians in Uzbekistan. The Armenians still keep their traditions alive by their music, religion, and food. Additionally, there are many Armenian cafes and restaurants in Tashkent and Samarkand. There are even two Armenian Churches in Uzbekistan, one in Samarkand and the other in Tashkent. The Armenian Church in Samarkand was firstly opened in 1905, but during the Soviet Union era it was closed and in 1995 a businessman from Samarkand of Armenian origin, Artur Martirosyan, donated to re-construct and re-open the church.
[7] Armenians in Central Asia, Wikipedia, >
The United States Department of State 2021 report outlines there are no legal impediments for citizens who belong to one of the country’s ethnic minorities. By law all citizens have equal rights without regard to their ethnicity. It further reports that complaints of societal violence or discrimination against members of ethnic minority groups were rare. The law does not require Uzbek language ability to obtain citizenship, but language often was a sensitive matter. Uzbek is the state language, and the constitution requires that the president speak it. The law also provides that Russian is “the language of interethnic communication.” There are criminal penalties for conviction of stirring up discord through inflammatory statements against other ethnic groups. Officials reportedly reserved senior positions in the government bureaucracy and business for ethnic Uzbeks, although there were numerous exceptions. There were no government programs to mitigate societal, racial, or ethnic biases.
The applicant outlined to the Tribunal that he experienced humiliation and violence while at school and that this bullying was racially or ethnically motivated and that the teachers did not meaningfully intervene. The bullying was so severe his parents moved the applicant and his [siblings] to different schools. The Tribunal accepts this occurred but does not find it relevant in evaluating any foreseeable chances of serious harm or risk of significant harm.
The Tribunal also noted that the applicant claimed to hold fears on the basis on his ethnically Armenian father being killed by a Muslim Uzbek in [year]. The applicant elaborated that his father once saved the life of his assailant when he attempted to kill himself, but later fatally stabbed him in Samarkand. The Tribunal asked about the motivation of the assailant. The applicant said the killer had been a ‘crazy’ of a Muslim background, and that he owed money. The applicant said that at the trial of his father’s killing, the assailant threatened his mother and [sibling] and his family in general. As the applicant was in Australia, he did not receive any specific direct threats at any time. Nonetheless, it is claimed the applicant holds urgent fears of persecution or significant harm arising from the direct threats, and that since the convicted killer has been released from gaol after 12 years, he will harm the applicant upon return. The Tribunal asked if that was unlikely given the passage of time and given no close family members reside in Uzbek. The applicant responded, stating that the convicted killer had influential connections with the authorities allowing him to locate and then harm the applicant. The applicant added that his [sibling] left for [Country 1] after his release for fear of reprisals.
The Tribunal accepts the thrust of the applicant’s claim about his father’s death, but the claim contains a number of embellishments. The Tribunal does not accept a convicted killer of 12 years has any influence with the authorities. Neither does it accept his [sibling] departed [Country 1] after the release of his father’s killer. Nor does it accept the killing of the applicant’s father by this Uzbek Muslim was or remains religiously or ethnically motivated to harm the applicant. It is the Tribunal’s assessment that the applicant does not have a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm arising from his father’s historic killing or the release of the Uzbek national who was convicted for this crime, on return.
The applicant has claimed to hold fear that should he return to Uzbekistan and practice his Christian faith in accordance with his religious convictions, he will also be subjected to persecutory mistreatment at the hands of antagonistic Muslims as well as the Uzbekistan authorities who are pursuing an unofficial policy of uprooting the minority Christian population from that country. The Tribunal accepts that since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Christians of Armenian or Russian ethnicity have migrated out of Uzbekistan. The Tribunal has not been able to locate any information about the Christians being target by any official policies or that the Christian populations has been uprooted from Uzbekistan through social discrimination or by militant Islamicists. It notes that since the invasion of Ukraine in early 2022 by the Russian Federation, Russians fleeing conscription to fight to occupy Ukraine have moved to former Soviet republics to avoid being drafted into fighting.[8] This strongly indicates that Uzbekistan is not a hostile place for ethnic Russians, Russian speaking Uzbeks, many of whom belong to the Orthodox or other Christian denominations, including ethnic Armenians who are Christian.
[8] ‘A flood of Russians arrive in Uzbekistan to avoid being drafted and sent to Ukraine’, by Phillip Reeves, NPR, 29 December 2022, / Russia’s Great Reverse Migration by Evan Pheiffer, Foreign Policy online magazine, 25 November 2022, type="1">
The applicant outlined to the Tribunal he has become closer to God through prayer, after being not very religious for most of his life. He said that has received some spiritual guidance by a visiting Greek priest while in detention and described himself as religious. Letters of support submitted to the Tribunal also attest to them. When asked about how Christians are treated in his country of nationality, the applicant stated that in Uzbekistan the authorities favour Muslims over Christians, that he will not be allowed to talk about Christianity, and that the police plant drugs on Christians to put them in gaol. He further stated he would be better off in Australia where there is religious freedom.
The applicant said he had Christian bible in English but struggled to read it. The Tribunal asked into the reasons he had not sought to obtain a Christian bible in the Russian language. The applicant unpersuasively attributed this to Covid restrictions. The Tribunal asked a few questions to gauge his depth of religious knowledge of Christianity. The Tribunal stated his depth knowledge was shallow and he was unlikely to proselytise, should he return to Uzbekistan. The applicant retorted that he was not planning on becoming a priest and that his faith contributing to his recovery from narcological addiction
The Tribunal accepts that there are laws in Uzbekistan that limit the proselytization of religions. Such laws affect Uzbek citizens evangelising Christianity as they do to proselytising Muslims. The applicant has not demonstrated to the Tribunal that he has the capacity or motivation to proselytise Christianity, especially among Muslim Uzbeks given the applicant is Russian speaking. The Tribunal does not accept the laws in Uzbekistan prevent the applicant from practising his Christian faith as auspiced under the AAC. Based on the applicant’s oral evidence, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant to be a Christian who faces a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm as a proselytising Armenian or Orthodox Christian or Russian speaking Christian, should he return to Uzbekistan.
The applicant further claimed that whilst the situation in Uzbekistan has always been bad for the minority Christian population, it was claimed that that Christian persecution in the applicant’s country of nationality has dramatically escalated in the past 5 to 20 years with attacks being perpetrated against individual Christians as a well as Christian Churches and other Christian institutions. In particular, Christians who are actively practicing their faith including regularly attending Church service, and engaging in overtly spreading the redemptive message of Christ are targeted not only by hostile Muslims but also the Uzbek authorities.
He fears that should he return to Uzbekistan and practice his Christian faith in accordance with his religious convictions, he will also be subjected to persecutory mistreatment at the hands of antagonistic Muslims as well as the Uzbekistan authorities who are pursuing an unofficial policy of uprooting the minority Christian population from that country.
The Tribunal accepts that there is some antagonism towards Christian minorities, Russian minorities and Armenian minorities by some members of the Uzbek and Muslim majority of the applicant’s country of nationality. It accepts that the applicant will face a real chance of discriminatory behaviour towards him on the basis of his Christian religion, his Armenian ethnicity, a Russian speaking Uzbek or a person imputed with Russian ethnicity. However, the country information and the applicant’s own personal background and experiences, do not support that real chance of harm arising from such discrimination – cumulatively considered, amounts to serious harm. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant will face a real chance of significant physical ill-treatment; of significant economic hardship that threatens his personal capacity to subsist; or of the denial of access to basic services or of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind where the denial threatens the applicant’s capacity to subsist, or any other serious harm non-exhaustively listed under s 5J(5) or as required by s 5J(4)(b).
In this regard the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution based on his race or ethnicity as an Armenian, his imputed ethnicity as a Russian speaking Uzbek or his religion as a Christian or for a combination of these reasons or any related reasons mentioned under s 5J(1)(a), and does not satisfy s 36(2)(a) in this regard.
Noting that serious harm under the refugee criterion is similar but different to significant harm under the complementary protection provisions, the Tribunal does not have any substantial reasons to believe the applicant faces, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Uzbekistan, face a real risk of the same harm for the same reasons related to ethnicity and religion. However, it is not satisfied that the harm amounts to any of the significant harm listed under s 36(2A), including cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or degrading treatment or punishment (which is defined under s 5(1) as extreme humiliation).
Accordingly the applicant does not satisfy s 36(2)(aa) in this regard.
The applicant’s Australian criminal history and double jeopardy in Uzbekistan
The applicant has a history of extensive criminal offending with convictions in Australia. He holds a fear that that his criminal history in Australia will cause him harm on return to Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (acceded 28 September 1995) which prohibits double jeopardy per article 14, subarticle 77.[9] Uzbekistan has not registered any reservations in relation to double jeopardy.[10]
[9] ‘Chapter IV - Human Rights - 4. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’, United Nations Treaty Collection, 5 September 2016, CIS38A80121789
[10] 'International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights', opened for signature 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976), United Nations Treaty Series, CIS38A80122362
The US Department of State country reports on human rights practices in Uzbekistan have consistently included the sentence that ‘Legal protections against double jeopardy were not applied.[11]
[11] 2 For example, see: 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2017 – Uzbekistan', US Department of State, 20 April 2018, p.11, OGD95BE927487; ‘Uzbekistan- Country Reports on Human Rights Practices’, US Department of State, p.4, 11 March 2007
A November 2018 COISS report into double jeopardy in Uzbekistan[12] did not find reports of the authorities in Uzbekistan seeking to re-prosecute an individual for offences they have been convicted of abroad, but noted that the penal code permitted it.[13] It did however refer to a 2014 Human Rights Watch (HRW) report profiling one political prisoner who was convicted and sentenced and then convicted and sentenced again months after his original conviction.[14]
[12] Uzbekistan: CI181102120201014 – Double jeopardy. Date of Report 12 November 2018, Country of Origin information Service Section, Department of Home Affairs.
[13] The latest English translation was found on the Legislation Online website: 'Criminal Code of the Republic of
[14] '"Until the Very End": Politically Motivated Imprisonment in Uzbekistan', Human Rights Watch, September 2014, p.33, CISEFCB23F7671
Based on this country information, the Tribunal accepts the applicant has a chance of serious harm arising from a lack of protections against a second prosecution for crimes he committed in Australia. The serious harm arises from the loss of life or liberty and the inhumane conditions to be found in Uzbek prisons, wherein some circumstances are harsh and life threatening due to food shortages, gross overcrowding, physical abuse, and inadequate sanitary conditions and medical care, according to the US Department of State. It further reports that the prison population exceeded capacity by approximately 40 percent. There were no reports of authorities holding men, women, or juveniles together during pretrial detention or following conviction, and no reports indicating that conditions varied by gender. Access to potable water and food of good quality and to showers or other sanitary facilities was poor. Inmates often relied upon visiting family members to provide necessary provisions.
However, such re-prosecutions are rare and are reportedly to be politically motivated by the state. At no stage has the applicant advanced any claims about fears arising from anti-government political opinions, imputed or otherwise. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the chances of serious harm from the prosecution of the applicant for his offending in Australia to be remote and far-fetched and do not amount to being a real or substantial chance, should he be returned to Uzbekistan.
As the ‘real chance’ standard is the same as the ‘real risk’ standard: MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33, the Tribunal does not have any substantial reasons to believe the applicant, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Uzbekistan, will suffer a real risk of significant harm.
In this regard, the applicant does not satisfy either s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa).
Refugee criterion: drug addiction and treatment
It is accepted that the applicant experienced serious abuse/abuses in or around 2008, which affected his capacity to earn a regular income to support himself and his family and that it adversely affected his marriage and family life. It is accepted that it contributed to his criminal offending, his imprisonment and his marriage breaking down (ending in formal divorce in 2012).
The applicant further claimed during the hearing that Uzbekistan’s restrictive drug laws for possession and use of illicit drug use will lead to compulsory registration for public health treatments of his addiction and the potential imprisonment of himself up to 5 years in an Uzbek prison, and that conditions in such prisons fall well short of international prison standards.
As outlined in its s 424A letter dated 7 March 2023, the Tribunal acknowledged that the review applicant has been receiving treatment for opioid dependence, namely buprenorphine under the trademarked Buvidal injections on a four or three weekly basis since 2017 and throughout 2022. The Tribunal also acknowledged that his addiction has long been managed and stabilised.
It was discussed at some length during the hearing that voluntary measures exist in Uzbekistan. According a 2014 EMCDDA (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drugs Addiction) report on Uzbekistan states that treatments are available under a dispensary register and a preventative register of people who use drugs in Uzbekistan. The register records those who use psychoactive substances without prescription, and voluntarily attend or are redirected by the law enforcement authorities or medical facilities to attend public drug treatment centres for medical examination. If drug dependence is diagnosed, individuals are subject to regular medical check-ups and dynamic observation in outpatient substance abuse treatment units. The diagnosis can be made in both outpatient and inpatient facilities, but only by narcologists and on the basis of a thorough examination. If an individual disagrees with the diagnosis of drug dependence, they may make a complaint to higher health authorities or to the court.
It appears, on balance, that the applicant could avail himself to these treatments on return.
However, as the representative has pointed out in his final submission, independent country information outlines that opioid substitution therapy (OST) is not available in Uzbekistan, despite some trialling more than 10 years ago. This lack of access to effective drug dependence treatment is troubling as there appears to be an overemphasis in Uzbekistan away from prevention and treatment of narcological illnesses towards coercive measures, being coercive drug dependence treatment, including in labour camps, and mandatory registration of drug users.
According to Alcohol and Drug Foundation’s website,[15] buprenorphine treatment is more likely to be successful if it is part of a comprehensive treatment program, which addresses the body, mind and environment in which opioids have been used. For example, treatment may include a combination of buprenorphine, counselling, alternative therapies and the development of a positive support network of peers, friends and a support group. It further states withdrawal from long-term use of buprenorphine may produce some symptoms similar to those experienced through heroin withdrawal. It is recommended that withdrawal from buprenorphine is achieved gradually under medical supervision to prevent discomfort and unpleasant effects for the person.
[15] >
The representative argued the treatment options in Uzbekistan lack effective treatment, such as OST, which the applicant has benefited from in Australia, allowing his condition to stabilise. In the absence of effective treatment options, the applicant will be denied effective health treatment in Uzbekistan and his condition will likely deteriorate, and, as a likely consequence, result in rapid deterioration and relapse. The independent evidence, it was further argued, informs that medical information about people registered as using drugs should be shared with law enforcement for crime prevention purposes, creating an atmosphere of distrust between patients and doctors. In order to avoid such serious implications, the applicant may be forced to avoid seeking medical help to prevent mandatory registration. It was further submitted that the impact of compulsory registration presenting a legal barrier for dozens of occupations, education, as well as driving a vehicle will impede his capacity to subsist. Additionally, his status as drug user will also act as a disincentive to potential employers who may shy away from employing a registered drug user. Yet again, in order to avoid limitations of his labour rights and the ignominy or stigmatisation of being a registered drug user, the review applicant may be forced to avoid seeking medical help to prevent mandatory registration.
Should the applicant return to Uzbekistan, the Tribunal cannot be sufficiently confident that, without OST and without supportive family members, that the applicant will not relapse into illicit opioid use. Should the applicant participate in a voluntary setting, the Tribunal is not sufficiently confident that the authorities will not treat him as a patient without remission. Under these circumstances, the applicant’s lack of effective voluntary treatments will mean the authorities will employ compulsory drug treatments for narcological illness which including abstinence in labour camps and the mandatory registration of drug users leading to limitation of their socio-economic rights.
According to the US Department of State report on human rights in Uzbekistan, the law prohibits all forms of forced or compulsory labour, except as legal punishment for conviction of such offenses as robbery, fraud, or tax evasion or as specified by law. Certain sections of the criminal code allow for compulsory labour as a punishment for conviction of offenses including defamation and incitement of national, racial, ethnic, or religious enmity. As mentioned above, the available country information indicates that forced labour is entwined with the mandatory drug treatments. The International Labour Organisation increased the scope of its third-party monitoring on child and forced labour in the cotton harvest during the year. However, government-compelled forced labour of adults remained in other sectors as well. Despite a government prohibition against forced labour, reports continued of local officials forcing rural farmers to work in noncotton agriculture and other adults to clean parks, streets, and buildings. Officials occasionally compelled labour by labelling these tasks as voluntary work for the community’s benefit.
Uzbekistan has had a notorious reputation for labour exploitation in its cotton harvesting industry and announced, with some fanfare, its elimination in 2021.[16] There is no information that forced labour in prisons or in rehabilitation centres has been abolished.
[16] ‘The historic elimination of state-imposed forced labour in Uzbekistan’ Anti-slavery International, 10 March 2022, >
Based on the available, albeit limited, country information, it is the Tribunal’s assessment that the chances of being subjected to forcible rehabilitation whereby the applicant will be directed to Uzbekistan’s labour camps are not remote or far-fetched but real and substantial. It also indicates that the majority of Uzbeks who are dependent upon illicit drugs face a real chance of encounter abusive practices such as beatings and forced labour occur ostensibly as rehabilitation settings.
The Tribunal is satisfied there is a real chance of the applicant being directed under public health measures to drug rehabilitation centres in Uzbekistan. It is also satisfied that Uzbekistan’s compulsory treatment of illicit drug users lead to exploitative practices of persons with narcological additions amount to modern slavery and therefore, serious harm as required by s 5J(4)(b).
Such harm obviously arises from a deliberate and systematic manner to address the illicit drug use. Illicit drug use and dependency poses complex social, legal and health issues and governments across the globe struggle with the demands drug and alcohol use and treatments have on their health and criminal justice systems, economies and social fabrics as well as on individuals and families.
In this matter, the question arises whether Uzbekistan’s approach to drug addiction is (for the essential and significant reasons) because the applicant’s membership of a particular social group, namely relapsing drug users, or whether the regulations and practices in relation to illicit drug use represent the law of general application.
During the hearing and in its s 424A letter, the Tribunal raised with the applicant will not be denied the available rehabilitation, both voluntary and forced, be denied to him for any of the reasons mentioned under s 5J(1)(a) as the essential and significant reason for that real chance of serious harm, as required by s 5J(4)(a)

100. A law of general application is capable of being implemented or enforced in a discriminatory manner.[17] Where laws of general application are selectively enforced, in that the motivation for prosecution or punishment for an ordinary offence can be found in a nexus ground mentioned under s 5J(1)(a), or the punishment is unduly harsh for a nexus reason, then protection under the refugee criterion may be attracted.
[17] Chen Shi Hai v MIMA (2000) 201 CLR 293 at [21], Applicant S v MIMA (2004) 217 CLR 387 at [42]
101. In SZVYD v MIBP it was argued that the Tribunal had misdirected itself regarding the object of a Bangladeshi law prohibiting alcohol consumption by Muslims, as it was one which essentially effected Sharia law and therefore was not legitimate. In rejecting this argument, the Federal Court held that:
The values informing the law in question are not to be dismissed as illegitimate because they may not reflect values in Australia…How one society controls or regulates the use of one drug or another, or regulates social behaviour (unless striking at fundamental human rights), is a matter for it.[18]
[18] SZVYD v MIBP [2019] FCA 648 at [14]

102. Likewise, in MZZHY v MIBP, the Court found no error in the Reviewer’s findings that even though laws about tattooing and Islamic dress code in Iran sought to promulgate Islamic values, they were generally applicable laws governing the act of offending a moral or religious value in public, and were not enforced in a discriminatory manner in that instance.[19]

[19] MZZHY v MIBP [2013] FCCA 1246 at [18]–[22], [28]–[34]. See also MZZTW v MIBP [2014] FCCA 2083, where the Court accepted a submission that a law with respect to Islamic dress that patently sought to promulgate Islamic value in Iranian society applied to all Iranians and did not constitute persecution: at [62] (judgment upheld on appeal in MZZTW v MIBP [2015] FCA 475).
103. Uzbekistan’s approach to the distribution, possession and consumption of illicit drugs and the ancillary approaches to deterrence and treatment can reasonably be described as punitive, especially compared to Australia. Even in Australia, legal approaches include penalties overseen by its criminal justice jurisdictions. There is wide spectrum of views in Australia variously characterise its own laws and treatments towards illicit drug use and treatments. Some argue they are too lax, other call for liberalising law reform and innovative health treatments. It is open to Uzbekistan, which is a majority Muslim nation, to control and regulate the use of opioids and other illicit substances and social behaviour in a manner it finds fit at any given time.
104. Laws can be selectively but not discriminatorily, enforced when considering the general application of the law. Bangladeshi laws about alcohol consumption selectively impact on consumers of alcohol, including, alcoholics; and Iran’s codes and practices against tattooing selectively impact on tattooists and those who are inked by tattooists. Such laws and practices remain generally applicable laws that are not necessarily and discriminatory when enforced. It is with Uzbek’s approach to illicit drugs which selectively impact upon those suffering substance abuse and addiction without being discriminatory.
105. With this case law in mind, there is nothing in Uzbekistan’s laws, which are not without a religious dimension, to indicate that they are applied in a manner that is not consistent with the general laws of application. The laws, penalties and treatments are selectively but not discriminatorily employed towards drug users or relapsing drug users. In this case, there is nothing to suggest the laws in question will be applied to the applicant, in both a selective and discriminatory manner, based on his religion or his ethnicity or any other nexus reason.
106. The applicant, the Tribunal finds, is a member of a particular social group as a recovering drug addict susceptible to relapsing into illicit drug use because he shares these common characteristics. However, the applicant’s membership of this social group is not the essential and significant reasons for the real chance of serious harm should he return to Uzbekistan, now or into the foreseeable future.
107. Therefore, in this specific regard, the Tribunal finds the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the reasons mentioned under s 5J(1)(a), including his membership of a particular social group as a recovering drug or opioid addict or in combination with his ethnicity or religion or other reasons, should he return to Uzbekistan into the foreseeable future.
108. Having considered all the applicant’s dispositive claims, both individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Act’s refugee criteria.
109. Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).
Complementary protection provisions: drug addiction and treatment
110. Based on the above reasonings and available country information, the Tribunal made findings that the applicant has a real chance of serious harm but not for a nexus reason mentioned under s 5J(1)(a).
111. Notwithstanding the operation of s.36(2B), the Tribunal accepts that the applicant, as a necessary and foreseeable consequences of being removed, has a real risk of harm arising from the Uzbekistan laws and compulsory treatments against illicit drug use, under the Act’s complementary protection provisions.
112. The question is whether the real risk of harm to be suffered by the applicant amounts to significant harm as defined under s 36(2A).
113. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the kind of serious harm outlined above amounts to capital punishment, torture or the arbitrary deprivation of life, as required by s 36(2A)(a), (b) and (c).
However, it has turned its mind to whether the applicant will suffer a real risk of being cruelly or inhumanly treated or punished under part (d) of s 36(2A). Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment is an act or omission must cause either ‘pain or suffering’ or ‘severe pain or suffering’, which can be either physical or mental. Whether an act or omission will cause pain or suffering, and whether such pain or suffering will be ‘severe’ is a question for the decision-maker in each case. The infliction of pain and suffering must also be intentional.
114. Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment does not include an act or omission that is not inconsistent with art 7 of the ICCPR: s 5(1). Article 7 provides that ‘no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation’.
115. The available country information outlines that forcible and compulsory rehabilitation of narcological illness includes beatings and exploitative practices in labour camps. The Tribunal is satisfied that these treatments do cause severe pain and suffering, and it that the authorities are intentionally aware that this is the effect. The authorities in Uzbekistan have wilfully ignored the provision of more efficacious treatments through opioid substitution, despite the urgings of civil society organisations and the European Union. As the imposition of such treatments are without consent and involve the absence or inadequacy of known alternative medical treatment and therapies, it appears the non-refoulment obligations under Article 7 of ICCPR are enlivened in this matter.
116. Notwithstanding s 36(2B), the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant faces a real risk of the harm that amounts to significant harm by being subjected to cruel and inhuman treatment and punishment, as defined in s 36(2A)(d) of the Act
Taken Not To be a Real Risk of Significant Harm
117. Section 36(2B) qualifies s 36(2)(aa) by setting out three circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that a non-citizen will suffer significant harm in a country. In order to find that an applicant meets s.36(2)(aa), decision-makers will need to be satisfied that none of these circumstances exist. The circumstances are:
·     where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm, pursuant to subsection.36(2B)(a); or
·     where the applicant 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, pursuant to subsection.36(2B)(b); or
·     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non-citizen personally, pursuant to subsection.36(2B)(c).
118. The Tribunal finds that it would not be reasonable to relocate the applicant to a different area of Uzbekistan as the appreciable risk of significant harm through the operation of national laws and available treatments exits throughout the applicant’s country of reference.
119. Furthermore, as it is the state which is the persecutor in this matter, the applicant could not obtain, from any authority of the Uzbek nation, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm, pursuant to s 36(2B)(b).
120. The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant’s circumstances may be at odds with the final qualification in criterion regarding taken not to be a real risk to the applicant facing significant harm: s.36(2B)(c).
121. The Federal Court has held that the natural and ordinary meaning of s 36(2B)(c) requires the decision-maker to determine whether the risk is faced by the population of a country generally, as opposed to the individual claiming complementary protection based on his or her individual exposure to that risk.[20] In SZSPT v MIBP [2014] FCA 1254, the Court held that, while every citizen who broke a law of general application would necessarily face a risk of punishment personally, s.36(2B)(c) applied because it was no different from the risk faced by the population generally.[21] The Court’s reasoning suggests that the ‘faced personally’ element of this qualification requires the individual to face a risk of differential treatment, or because of characteristics that distinguish them from the general populace.[22]
[20] SZSPT v MIBP [2014] FCA 1245 (Rares J, 3 November 2014) at [11]-[13]. An application for special leave to appeal this aspect of the judgment was dismissed by the High Court: SZSPT v MIBP [2015] HCASL 114 (Kiefel J, 18 June 2015). See also comments of the court to similar effect in: the judgment at first instance in SZSPT v MIBP [2014] FCCA 1388 (Judge Raphael, 1 July 2014) at [15] (the provision would apply in a situation of ‘universal danger’, but not where the situation was ‘worse for a person of [a particular] ethnicity’); SZSFF v MIBP [2013] FCCA 1884 (Judge Lloyd-Jones, 22 November 2013) at [33], [49] (risk must be ‘faced by the individual personally in light of the individual’s specific circumstances’); SZTES v MIBP [2014] FCCA 1765 (Judge Cameron, 12 August 2014) at [24] (risk must be ‘particular to’ the individual); SZSRY v MIBP [2013] FCCA 1284 (Judge Driver, 13 December 2013) at [43] (risk must be faced ‘in light of [the applicant’s] specific circumstances’).
[21] [2014] FCA 1245 (Rares J, 3 November 2014). In this regard, the Court observed that there was no differential treatment as the law was one of general application and was not applied in a discriminatory manner: at [12]-[14].
[22] SZSPT v MIBP [2014] FCA 1245 (Rares J, 3 November 2014) at [11]-[15]. Contrast SZSFF v MIBP [2013] FCCA 1884 (Judge Lloyd-Jones, 22 November 2013), where the Court endorsed a submission by the Minister to the effect that where serious human rights violations in a particular country are so widespread or so severe that almost anyone would potentially be affected by them, this may disclose a sufficiently real and personal risk: at [34], [49]; however, these obiter comments should not be followed as they are inconsistent with other authorities including the appellate level judgment in SZSPT v MIBP [2014] FCA 1245 (Rares J, 3 November 2014).
122. Furthermore, in BBK15 v MIBP [2015] FCA 680, it was noted that the then Tribunal Member was correct to draw attention to a circumstance where a real risk of harm faced by a visa applicant is a risk shared by the general population, rather than one to which the visa applicant particularly is exposed in some individual or personal sense and upheld that the appellant was not more exposed to real risk of significant harm. A risk shared with the general population is taken not to be a ‘real risk of harm’ for the purpose of s.36(2)(aa).
123. The Tribunal has already made specific and cumulative findings that it does not accept the applicant will be targeted for any refugee nexus and other reasons, including as an ethnic Armenian, imputed with Russian ethnicity, a Christian, or as a recovering drug addict susceptible to relapsing. These are the same risk factors the Tribunal has considered under the complementary protection criterion. Based on the Tribunal’s assessment of the country information and the applicant’s accepted personal circumstances, the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s drug addiction as one of those risk factors which specifically and substantially elevates or heightens the applicant’s risk of significant harm over and above the general population.
124. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds this accepted and appreciable risk factor is sufficiently distinguishable for the purposes of s 36(2B)(c), if he were to return to Uzbekistan, as it is assessed the risk of significant harm to the applicant is distinctly or differentially greater than the risk facing other citizens of Uzbekistan, that is the general population.
125. Based on the above findings regarding ss 36(2A) and 36(2B), the Tribunal is satisfied, having considered the claims individually and cumulatively, there are substantial reasons for believing there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm if removed from Australia to Uzbekistan.
126. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
Conclusion
127. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).

Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).

129. As mentioned above, the applicant does not have any right to enter and reside in any third country and therefore, section 36(3) is not applicable.
130. Accordingly, the applicant satisfies the criterion in section 36(2).
131. Prior to this application for a protection visa, the Department cancelled the applicant’s [permanent] visa under s 501 of the Act. In [2022], a Member from the [Tribunal] decided not to revoke the cancellation.

Even if the Tribunal has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm, he or she may be ineligible for a Protection visa by operation of s 36(2C). Section 36(2C) provides that an applicant is taken not to satisfy the criterion in s 36(2)(aa) where the Minister has serious reasons for considering that they have committed a war crime, crime against peace, crime against humanity or an act contrary to the purposes and principle of the United Nations. A person will also be taken not to satisfy s 36(2)(aa) if the Minister considers, on reasonable grounds, that they are a danger to Australia’s security or the Australian community (having been convicted by final judgment of a particularly serious crime).
However, the Migration and Refugee Division of this Tribunal, considering an application for review of a decision to refuse or cancel a Protection visa under Part 7 of the Act, has no power to determine s 36(2C) issues: ss 411(c), (d).
DECISION

134. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.
Brendan Darcy
Member

ATTACHMENT A - 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.
…

ATTACHMENT B – ARMENIAN CITIZENSHIP

The 2016 Danish Immigration Service report Armenia: State Actors, Political Situation, Vulnerable Groups and Citizenship provides the following information on ethnic Armenians’ entitlement to citizenship:
Ethnic Armenians in general have favourable conditions to obtain citizenship in Armenia. As stated in article 1 in the Armenian Law on Citizenship:
“Every person in the Republic of Armenia has a right to acquire citizenship as set forth by the law. A person of Armenian ethnicity may acquire RA citizenship pursuant to a simplified procedure”

According to Article 13 in the same law, it is possible for persons who are Armenian by origin to obtain citizenship through naturalisation by simplified procedures, which include exemption from the demand of language skills and knowledge of the Armenian Constitution, and exemption from continuous residence for three years. The Passport and Visa Department of the Police confirmed that there is a simplified procedure for ethnic Armenians to apply for citizenship based on a government decision.
According to the UNHCR Handbook, ethnic Armenians have to provide one or several of the following documents to certify being of Armenian origin:
· Passport bearing a note about being of Armenian nationality;
· Birth certificate bearing a note about being of Armenian nationality;
· (Armenian) residence certificate of a stateless person, travel document, document certifying the residence status in the Republic of Armenia, bearing a note about being of Armenian ethnicity;
· Document on baptism issued by church institutions listed in the Annex 4 of the RA Government decree No. 1390-N (adopted on November 23, 2007), and approved by a Republic of Armenia diplomatic representation or a consular body in foreign countries, bearing a note about the baptized person or his/her parent being of Armenian ethnicity;
· Document on being of Armenian ethnicity issued by authorized bodies in a foreign country and approved with an apostil or consular validation;
· Other documents substantiating the circumstance of being of Armenian origin, approved by a Republic of Armenia diplomatic representation or a consular body in foreign countries;
·The birth certificate of a parent (or grandfather, grandmother, sister or brother) or other identification document bearing a note about being of Armenian ethnicity. You may also submit the birth certificate (or another document certifying ethnicity) of your brother or sister from father’s or mother’s side if your consanguineous parent is ethnic Armenian. In case of submitting a document stated in this point it is also necessary to submit a document confirming the relationship with the relevant person.

The list of documents was confirmed by the Passport and Visa Department of the Police which added that any identification document, by which it would be possible to establish Armenian ethnicity, may be used.
The Minister of Diaspora stated that baptism in the Armenian Apostolic Church is always a condition for ethnic Armenians born outside of Armenia. The Passport and Visa Department of the Police added that Armenian ethnicity and the Armenian Church are interlinked.
As for ethnic Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh, some sources noted that these persons could easily relocate to Armenia. Ethnic Armenians all have Armenian Passports, and it is stated in the passport that he/she origins from Nagorno-Karabakh, but this would not cause any troubles in Armenia, according to the sources.[23]
[23] Danish Immigration Service, Armenia: State Actors, Political Situation, Vulnerable Groups and Citizenship, September 2016, pp. 49–50, para [4.6], (accessed 12 June 2019).

The European University Institute, European Union Democracy Observatory on Citizenship 2013 report on Armenia stated the following:
Facilitated naturalisation is available for several categories of persons – (a) persons who have married a citizen of Armenia or have a child who is an Armenian citizen; or (b) have a parent who previously held Armenian citizenship or was born in Armenia, then these persons are eligible for facilitated naturalisation if they have applied for citizenship of Armenia within 3 years of becoming 18. Before 2007, only the three years of residency requirement was fully waived if the person met any of those criteria. Since the 2007, amendment, both the three years residency and the language proficiency requirements have been waived for all these eligible persons. Moreover, the 2006 amendment added two new categories of persons for this waiver mentioned above – persons whose ancestors were Armenians by ethnic origin (edited and replaced with a new clause in 2011 amendment) and persons who since 1 January 1995 have renounced Armenian citizenship by their own application (Article 13).
The amendment of 8 December 2011 expanded the facilitated naturalisation for persons with Armenian origin. All requirements for naturalisation three years of permanent residency in Armenia prior to the application, language proficiency and knowledge of the Constitution were fully waived (Article 13). These requirements were also fully waived for the person who had provided distinguished service to Armenia.
Those persons who qualify for facilitated naturalisation and do not have to meet the residency and language proficiency requirements can file their applications in the Armenian embassies abroad (Embassy of the Republic of Armenia in the United States n.d.a).
The application fee is 1,000 Armenian Drams (Article 8 and Article 13, Law on State Fee) which is equivalent to two US dollars. Applications are submitted to the Passport and Visa Agency of the Armenian Police.
…
The current Citizenship Law of Armenia does not require any additional condition for naturalisation. If the citizenship application is approved, then Armenian citizenship is granted one year later (Embassy of the Republic of Armenia in the United States n.d.a). once citizenship is granted, the person reads a loyalty oath in the Armenian language and signs it (Article 13). The person also receives a copy of the Armenian Constitution and a guide to Armenia’s legislation, prepared by the authorised body of the Armenian government (Article 13). If the person is granted citizenship of Armenia, then the population register records the name and the permanent address of the person, and for dual citizens permanently living abroad the address of the country of residence.
…
The person may be denied Armenian citizenship if he or she presents a threat to the Armenian state and poses health risks to the society, or jeopardises the rights, freedoms, and the honour of Armenian citizens (Article 13). If the citizenship application is denied, the person can reapply from one year after the date of the first application was denied (Embassy of the Republic of Armenia in the United States n.d.a).[24]
[24]Shushanik Makaryan for European University Institute, European Union Democracy Observatory on Citizenship, Country Report: Armenia, March 2013, pp. 17–18, (accessed 12 June 2019).

Uzbekistan (1994, amended 2002)', Government of the Republic of Uzbekistan, CIS0F8D95852