Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No 84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCEThe issues The key issue in this case is whether, on accepted evidence, [Mr A] is entitled to Australia’s protection as a refugee or, if not, on complementary protection grounds. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.Claims [Mr A] claims fear of being persecuted by his parents, uncles and other family members and friends because he has abandoned traditional Sikh beliefs and observances, and become “open minded”. He claimed in his original PV application that he changed his perspective after coming to Australia, “giving life threat” from the people just mentioned. He claimed he will not be able to subsist because he will be denied access to basic services and suffer significant economic hardship, threatening his capacity to survive. He claimed he would be tortured and/or murdered. Oddly he said the authorities in India could and would protect him if he returned there; this may have been a drafting error. [Mr A] claimed that he would not be able to relocate within India as his family would not accept his doing so. He said, “Because of all these threats to my life if I go back, could you please apply for bridging visa for me, so I can stay.” As such, [Mr A]’s claims were unsupported and factually threadbare. The delegate did not interview [Mr A] but asked for more detail. The adviser provided a schematic summary of claims that are accurately presented in the primary decision, which [Mr A] has submitted for the purpose of this review:On 10 August 2023, the applicant’s representative, Manoj Nanda, provided a response to the s56 invitation. The information of relevance to the applicant’s claims for protection in this submission are summarised below:· He is a member of the Saini caste.· His family are strict Sikhs, particularly his mother and uncles. His family often pray at the temple twice a week. His father would attend the temple every day in the morning.· He attended the temple once a week in India.· As part of his religion he was required to be a vegetarian. Within a year after arriving in Australia in 2008 he started eating beef, chicken and other meat.· He stopped practising as a Sikh in 2012. When he returned to India in 2014 he had to start praying in front of his family.· In 2015 he met his wife in India. She was a Christian so as per the requirements of the Rehat Maryada, she converted to Sikhism. His family still did not accept his wife.· He returned to Australia in March 2016 in order to obtain permanent residency.· In 2018 he travelled back to India by himself due to the way his family treated his wife. His visit was short.· He has been branded as a patit [sinner, apparently]. His family think he has shamed them because he failed in his religious belief.· He received threats over the phone from India. He was told not to return to India because he was not following the Sikh religion and was a patit. This was because: he was not engaging in religious worship; he was not eating a vegetarian diet and was eating meat; he was taking drugs, smoking, and drinking alcohol, and; he was not wearing a turban. His family threatened to kill him.· His family found out about his conduct in Australia via social media, and through social connections.· He has not reported the threats to the police in India as he is in Australia and is protected.· He no longer is in contact with his family and friends in India, aside from one sister. His sister has been telling him what his family are going to do to him.· In addition to moving away from his religious practises, he is open minded as he does not judge anyone of colour or religion.· He has accepted Australian culture due to living in Australia. He does not want to have to wear a turban or be told what he can and cannot do if he returns to India.· If he returns to India, his family and uncles will torture and murder him. The government and police cannot stop them. He has witnessed people being killed because they have stopped following traditions/religion.· If he relocated in India, people would talk about him and this would mentally harm him. His uncles and cousins will locate him anywhere in India, and they are connected to government officials and the police. Delhi and Bombay are not safe for him.· He delayed […] applying for a Protection visa because:·No one in the Indian community knew him and his family;·He did not need to apply because he had a Christian wife and a Partner visa application;·His issues arose when he was charged an went to jail; and·The Indian community subsequently told his family he was not a good person, and that he used drugs and alcohol.Material submitted in evidence
Decision
Reasons for decision
There is no suggestion that [Mr A] satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, he does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).DECISION The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.Luke HardyMemberATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 19585 (1) Interpretation…cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:(a) severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or(b) pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;but does not include an act or omission:(c) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or(d) arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.…degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:(a) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or(b) that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.…torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:(a) for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or(b) for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or(c) for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or(d) for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or(e) for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.…receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:(a) a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or(b) if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.…5H Meaning of refugee(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:(a) in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or(b) in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.Note: For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.…5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:(a) the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and(b) there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and(c) the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.Note: For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.Note: For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:(a) conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or(b) conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or(c) without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):(a) that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and(b) the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and(c) the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:(a) a threat to the person’s life or liberty;(b) significant physical harassment of the person;(c) significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;(d) significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;(e) denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;(f) denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.5K Membership of a particular social group consisting of familyFor the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:(a) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and(b) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:(i)the first person has ever experienced; or(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.5L Membership of a particular social group other than familyFor the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:(a) a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and(b) the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and(c) any of the following apply:(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and(d) the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.5LA Effective protection measures(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:(i)the relevant State; or(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and(b) the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:(a) the person can access the protection; and(b) the protection is durable; and(c) in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.…36 Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act…(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:(a) a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or(b) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or(c) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:(a) the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or(b) the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or(c) the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or(d) the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or(e) the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:(a) it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or(b) the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or(c) the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.…
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) ("the complementary protection criterion"). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision. Mandatory considerations In accordance with Ministerial Direction No 84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCEThe issues The key issue in this case is whether, on accepted evidence, [Mr A] is entitled to Australia’s protection as a refugee or, if not, on complementary protection grounds. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.Claims [Mr A] claims fear of being persecuted by his parents, uncles and other family members and friends because he has abandoned traditional Sikh beliefs and observances, and become “open minded”. He claimed in his original PV application that he changed his perspective after coming to Australia, “giving life threat” from the people just mentioned. He claimed he will not be able to subsist because he will be denied access to basic services and suffer significant economic hardship, threatening his capacity to survive. He claimed he would be tortured and/or murdered. Oddly he said the authorities in India could and would protect him if he returned there; this may have been a drafting error. [Mr A] claimed that he would not be able to relocate within India as his family would not accept his doing so. He said, “Because of all these threats to my life if I go back, could you please apply for bridging visa for me, so I can stay.” As such, [Mr A]’s claims were unsupported and factually threadbare. The delegate did not interview [Mr A] but asked for more detail. The adviser provided a schematic summary of claims that are accurately presented in the primary decision, which [Mr A] has submitted for the purpose of this review:On 10 August 2023, the applicant’s representative, Manoj Nanda, provided a response to the s56 invitation. The information of relevance to the applicant’s claims for protection in this submission are summarised below:· He is a member of the Saini caste.· His family are strict Sikhs, particularly his mother and uncles. His family often pray at the temple twice a week. His father would attend the temple every day in the morning.· He attended the temple once a week in India.· As part of his religion he was required to be a vegetarian. Within a year after arriving in Australia in 2008 he started eating beef, chicken and other meat.· He stopped practising as a Sikh in 2012. When he returned to India in 2014 he had to start praying in front of his family.· In 2015 he met his wife in India. She was a Christian so as per the requirements of the Rehat Maryada, she converted to Sikhism. His family still did not accept his wife.· He returned to Australia in March 2016 in order to obtain permanent residency.· In 2018 he travelled back to India by himself due to the way his family treated his wife. His visit was short.· He has been branded as a patit [sinner, apparently]. His family think he has shamed them because he failed in his religious belief.· He received threats over the phone from India. He was told not to return to India because he was not following the Sikh religion and was a patit. This was because: he was not engaging in religious worship; he was not eating a vegetarian diet and was eating meat; he was taking drugs, smoking, and drinking alcohol, and; he was not wearing a turban. His family threatened to kill him.· His family found out about his conduct in Australia via social media, and through social connections.· He has not reported the threats to the police in India as he is in Australia and is protected.· He no longer is in contact with his family and friends in India, aside from one sister. His sister has been telling him what his family are going to do to him.· In addition to moving away from his religious practises, he is open minded as he does not judge anyone of colour or religion.· He has accepted Australian culture due to living in Australia. He does not want to have to wear a turban or be told what he can and cannot do if he returns to India.· If he returns to India, his family and uncles will torture and murder him. The government and police cannot stop them. He has witnessed people being killed because they have stopped following traditions/religion.· If he relocated in India, people would talk about him and this would mentally harm him. His uncles and cousins will locate him anywhere in India, and they are connected to government officials and the police. Delhi and Bombay are not safe for him.· He delayed […] applying for a Protection visa because:·No one in the Indian community knew him and his family;·He did not need to apply because he had a Christian wife and a Partner visa application;·His issues arose when he was charged an went to jail; and·The Indian community subsequently told his family he was not a good person, and that he used drugs and alcohol.Material submitted in evidence