2402098 (Refugee)

2402098 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 2644 (18 April 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  2402098
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Solomon Islands
MEMBER:Clyde Cosentino
DATE:18 April 2024
PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 18 April 2024 at 1:29pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Solomon Islands – non-appearance before the Tribunal – claimed fear of relatives – land dispute – customary rights to tribal land – insufficient information before the Tribunal – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5AAA, 5H, 5J, 36, 65, 426A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
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 dependant.
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 10 January 2024 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 Solomon Islands, applied for the visa on 20 October 2023. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant does not engage Australia’s protection obligations under the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa) and does not satisfy any of the other criteria in s 36(2) of the Act.
A chronology of events relating to the applicant’s protection visa application is as follows.
On 20 October 2023, the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Home Affairs (the department).
On 10 January 2024, a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs refused the applicant’s Protection visa application under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
On 5 February 2024, the applicant lodged an application for review at the Tribunal seeking review of the delegate’s decision to refuse the applicant a protection visa.
In the application for review, the applicant listed his email address and his mobile number as points of contact. The applicant also provided a copy of the delegate’s decision.
CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
According to his Protection visa application, the applicant was born in [Village 1], Malaita Province, Solomon Islands in [year]. He lived at [Village 1], Malaita Province from [year] to May 2019. He completed his High school Certificate in [location] and passed an [Discipline 1] course at [University 1]. He claims that he was unemployed from [year] until May 2019.
He claims that he left the Solomon Islands under the seasonal worker scheme and that he was now employed as a farm worker. However, his intention of coming to Australia under the seasonal worker program was for him to move away from his abusive relatives who threatened to kill him over a land dispute. He claims that he took this matter to court. He claims that the matter occurred on three occasions – [date] October 2004, [date] July 2010 and [date] April 2021. He claims that he did a “submission” to the court for “Abarafi Customary Land” on [date] and [date] April 2021. He states that “Abarafi Customary Land” is his tribal land. This was one of three matters that he had before the courts relating to “Abarafi Customary Land”. He claims that he has suffered trauma because of this. He claims that he must move far away from them. He claims that he has attached a copy of the submission he gave on behalf of “Abarafi Customary Land” with the court decisions. (NB: No attachments were provided by the applicant).
He claims that he was threatened by axes, knives, spear guns and other weapons. These threats have caused him much emotional harm and they continue to do so. He claims that life is not the same for him in his village and other provinces that he goes to.
He claims that the first incident occurred at [Village 2] in [Province 1] on a late morning at 10am. He was home with his uncle at his house. People from the applicant’s village in Malaita province came over from Honiara to [Village 2] in [Province 1] by boat to “threaten to kill him” because of the court decision that was made [in] October 2004.
He claims that the second incident occurred at [Town 1]. It occurred at 3:00pm at his brother’s house (where his brother and sister-in-law were present) in his village in Malaita province. These same people came over from Honiara to [Town 1] to [Province 2] by boat to “threaten to kill” the applicant because of the court decision made in July 2010.
He claims that the third incident occurred [in] April 2021 and it occurred at Honiara at his brother’s home.
He claims that he did not seek help. He claims that help is scarcely found in his country which is still developing. He claims that the Solomon Islands is still very poor and no help can be expected given that government departments are poorly resourced.
He claims that he moved to two different provinces, namely [Province 1] and [Province 2] including Honiara. However, his perpetrators still looked for him there.
He claims that his life is in danger because he is the one who financially supports his tribe. He can only guess what will happen to him if he returned home knowing that these same people have already threatened him before in view of everyone there. He does not believe that it would be difficult for these people to do whatever they want to do to him upon his return to the Solomon Islands.
He claims that he believes that if he returns to his home village he will be killed. He claims that given the current circumstances already explained he will be mentally and psychologically harmed through the pressure of land disputes and there are no immediate solutions to these disputes.
He does not think that the authorities of the Solomon Islands will be able to protect him. He claims that the authorities cannot protect him or assist him in any way because his country is a poor island nation in the Pacific. He believes that Australia can help him in many ways because its way of life is good for those seeking to make a future for themselves and their families.
He claims that relocation is not an option because he does not have a formal job and qualifications that will help him survive when moving to the city. He claims that there are no jobs available for non-skilled labourers like himself in the Solomon Islands and his only livelihood depends on his customary rights to their tribal land which is well within the village boundaries. He does not think that there is a possibility for him to relocate to other places in the Solomon Islands. He claims that only in Australia can he find peace and the ability to move further in his life and assist his people back at home.
As already noted, the delegate refused to grant a protection visa to the applicant and the applicant applied for a review of that decision.
On 15 March 2024, the Tribunal sent to the applicant an “Invitation to Attend a Hearing” letter, advising that it had considered all the material relating to his application, but it was unable to make a favourable decision on that information alone. The Tribunal invited the applicant to give oral evidence and present arguments at a hearing on 18 April 2024 at 9:30 am (QLD time). A specific time, date and place of hearing was provided in the Invitation letter.
The Invitation letter was sent to the applicant by email to his last notified email address. The email, attaching the “Invitation to Attend a Hearing” letter, stated as follows:
Dear [applicant name],
I am writing in relation to an application for review by the Migration and Refugee Division of the AAT.
Please read the attached correspondence carefully, noting that we require a response from you before a certain date.
If you have any questions or are experiencing problems opening the document/s attached to this email message, please contact us immediately at [email protected], or call 1800 228 333.
… … …
On 11 April 2024, an SMS hearing reminder was sent to the applicant’s last provided mobile number. The message sent was as follows:
Reminder - Your AAT hearing is on 18/04/24. Please check the hearing invitation to confirm details. If you have not replied to your hearing invitation, please do so immediately. Please do not reply to this number. Any questions, call 1800 228 333.
On 17 April 2024, a second SMS hearing reminder was sent to the applicant’s last provided mobile number. The message sent was as follows:
Reminder - Your AAT hearing is on 18/04/24. Please check the hearing invitation to confirm details. If you have not replied to your hearing invitation, please do so immediately. Please do not reply to this number. Any questions, call 1800 228 333.
On 18 April 2024 at 9:15am, prior to the commencement of the hearing, a Tribunal registry officer attempted to contact the applicant on his mobile number but was unsuccessful in reaching him.
On 18 April 2024, the applicant failed to appear at the time, date and place of the scheduled hearing.
Under s 426A(1A)(a), the Tribunal proceeds to make a decision on the review without taking any further action to allow or enable the applicant to appear before it. This matter has therefore been determined on the evidence available to the Tribunal.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Relevant Law
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.
Analysis, reasons and findings
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
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: s 5AAA. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant (MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70).
The Tribunal has significant problems with the applicant’s claims. The evidence presented by him to the department is not sufficiently detailed to enable the Tribunal to be satisfied that he faces a real chance of persecution in the Solomon Islands or that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to the Solomon Islands, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.
There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal as to whether the threats of harm were ever carried out on him given that he has claimed that these land disputes with his relatives have continued since October 2004, and he has provided no evidence of ever being harmed. There is insufficient evidence of what trauma he has experienced as a result of these land disputes.
There is insufficient evidence of his relatives’ names, their interest in the disputed lands and exactly where they are from. There is insufficient detail of what the “submission” was that he made to the court/s and how this submission is relevant to his claims. There is insufficient evidence as to what were the specific courts that heard his land dispute claims and whether his relatives attended at these court proceedings to argue their own cases in the land disputes. There is insufficient detail or evidence provided of why the “Abarafi Customary Land” is relevant to the disputed land claims.
There is insufficient evidence of when and where he was threatened by axes, knives, spear guns and other weapons. There is insufficient detail of who threatened him on these occasions.
There is insufficient detail of the claimed incident that occurred at [Village 2], [Province 1]. There is insufficient evidence of what threats of harm were made to him on this occasion. There is insufficient detail of why he was at his uncle’s house on this occasion, and how his relatives and others in Malaita Province knew that he was at this residence at this time. There is insufficient detail of when this took place after the first court case. There is insufficient evidence of what was the court decision that might have triggered this response from his relatives.
There is insufficient detail of the second claimed incident that occurred at [Town 1]. There is insufficient evidence of what threats of harm were made to him on this occasion. There is insufficient detail of why he was at his brother’s house on this occasion, and how his relatives and others, who came over from Honiara, knew that he was at this residence in [Province 2] at this time. There is insufficient detail of when this took place after the court decision in July 2010. There is insufficient evidence of what was the court decision that might have triggered this response from his relatives.
There is insufficient detail of the third claimed incident that occurred at Honiara. There is insufficient evidence of what threats of harm were made to him on this occasion. There is insufficient detail of why he was at his brother’s house on this occasion, and how his relatives and others knew that he was at this residence in Honiara at this time. There is insufficient detail of when this took place after the court decision in July 2010. There is insufficient evidence of what triggered this incident that he claimed occurred [in] April 2021.
There is insufficient evidence as to why he believes that help is scarcely available in the Solomon Islands because of poorly resourced government departments.
There is insufficient evidence as to when he moved to [Province 1] and [Province 2] and how his relatives and their group were able to find out that he moved there. There is insufficient evidence as to where he resided in these two provinces and who he stayed with in these provinces and why he was not harmed by his relatives when they found him there.
There is insufficient detail as to how he financially supports his tribe and who provides him the funds to do so.
There is insufficient detail as to why he believes that he will be killed when he returns given his claims that he has received ongoing threats since 2004 but there has been no physical harm done to him. There is insufficient detail of how he will be mentally and psychologically harmed through the pressure of land disputes if he returned.
There is insufficient evidence and reasons given as to why he claims the authorities cannot protect him because it is a poor country.
There is insufficient evidence of why he believes that he cannot relocate given that he has provided evidence that he has moved to different provinces in the past. There is insufficient detail of what he means by his claims that his only livelihood depends on his customary rights to his tribal land which is well within the village boundaries. There is insufficient evidence of why he has claimed that he is a non-skilled labourer when he has claimed in writing that he passed an [Discipline 1] course at [University 1].
Given the lack of information identified above, without more detail, it is difficult to know what significance can be attached to the applicant’s assertions. He has not provided any further information to enable the Tribunal to determine if he has suffered persecution in the past; whether there is a real chance that he would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons listed under s 5J(1)(a) of the Act or if his fear is well-founded under s 5J of the Act.
In view of the insufficient information and lack of detail contained in the applicant's claims, the Tribunal is not satisfied that he has been persecuted in the past, or that there is a real chance that he will be persecuted in the reasonably foreseeable future. It is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution in the Solomon Islands. Therefore, 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). It is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to the Solomon Islands, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. The Tribunal, therefore, is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Clyde Cosentino
Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2024] AATA 2644

18 April 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice

Standing

Remedies