2403188 (Refugee)

2403188 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 2619 (26 April 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER: 2403188

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Vanuatu
MEMBER:Mia Bailey
DATE:26 April 2024
PLACE OF DECISION: Brisbane
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 26 April 2024 at 9:04am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Vanuatu – fear of physical harm – extra-marital affair – physical assault – family inheritance dispute – property dispute – state protection – delay in applying for protection – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5AAA, 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 56, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510
Chan Yee Kin v MIEA [1989] HCA 62
Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547
MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505
Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
Selvadurai v MIEA (1994) 34 ALD 347
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 (delegate) on 13 February 2024 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 29 September 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.
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. Relevant provisions of the Act are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
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 (Department), 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 engages Australia’s protection obligations under the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion in
s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
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.[1] For the following reasons, I have concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
[1] s 5AAA of the Act; Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510
Background and receiving country
The applicant, [an age]-year-old male, arrived in Australia [in] August 2019 on a Temporary Work (International Relations) (subclass 403) visa under the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme.
The applicant provided a copy of the biodata page of his Vanuatu passport as part of his protection visa application. The delegate accepted that the applicant is a citizen of Vanuatu and there is no information before me to the contrary. I find that the applicant is a citizen of Vanuatu, and that Vanuatu is his receiving country for the purposes of assessing his claims for protection.
Evidence before the delegate
According to the applicant’s protection visa application, he was born in Port Vila; completed primary school and was never employed in Vanuatu. His relationship status is recorded as ‘separated’ and no details are provided of any family members.
Regarding his protection claims, he stated that he left Vanuatu due to threats and bodily harm from his ex-partner’s relatives because he had an extra-marital affair. He sought help from the police and his family. He moved to ‘my province’ to seek safety but support for his family ‘is less’. If he returns to Vanuatu, he fears possible threats and bodily harm from his ex-partner’s relatives because he has brought shame to the family. The police will not protect him because of nepotism and some members of the police are related to his ex-partner’s family.
On 15 December 2023 the Department sent a letter to the applicant under s 56 of the Act

(s 56 letter) inviting him to provide further details regarding his protection claims. In response, the applicant submitted a Form 1023 to notify the Department of incorrect information provided in his protection visa application (Form 1023) together with a copy of his passport biodata page and birth certificate and a death certificate for his wife. Relevant details from the Form 1023 are summarised below:
i.The protection visa application was made on his behalf by a person named ‘[Person A]’, but he sent money to a person named ‘[Person B]’. He told [Person A] the reasons why he needed protection, but [Person A] lodged the application on his behalf ‘under false pretences’. He only realised that incorrect information had been provided in his application when he received the s 56 letter.
ii.Screen shots of conversations and transactions between [Person A] and [Person B] are stated to be attached (no such documentation was provided to the Department).
iii.The correct information is that his wife passed away in 2018 and since then he has been the sole provider for his [number] children. The applicant’s issue is that as the only child and son of his parents’ marriage, traditionally he would have inheritance rights and ‘the main to consult in terms of land matters’. However, his half-siblings on his mother’s side have ‘overstepped’ his rank and caused a lot of ‘disruptions and physical harm and threats’.
The applicant was not invited to attend an interview with the delegate. Based on the evidence provided, the delegate did not accept that the protection visa application was lodged by a third party. The delegate did not accept the applicant’s claims as raised in the Form 1023 to be credible and did not undertake any assessment of them with respect to the refugee or complementary protection criteria.
Evidence before the Tribunal
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 24 April 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Bislama and English languages.
Regarding the preparation of his protection visa application, the applicant stated that he paid a man called [Person A] from [Country 1] to prepare the forms but does not agree with the information that was included. He tried contacting [Person A] after he realised the information was incorrect but was unable to speak with him. He corrected the information to the Department with assistance from a third party (the authorised recipient on his review application). He provided the person who assisted him with the Form 1023 with documentation regarding his contact with [Person A].
Regarding his family members, his parents are deceased. He is unable to recall when his father passed away. His mother passed away in 2020 or 2021. Both his parents had children from previous marriages. He has [number] half-sisters from his father’s first marriage and [number] half-siblings ([genders specified]) from his mother’s first marriage. He is the only child of his parents’ marriage. [Number] of his half-brothers reside in Port Vila and the third on [Location 1].
He married in July 2006 and has [number] children: [genders and ages specified]. His wife passed away in October 2018. His [children] are living in his house in [Village 1] near Port Vila.
He grew up in Port Vila, but his family originate from [Location 1]. He completed primary school and did not undertake any further schooling. He was employed in various jobs in Port Vila, including as a [roles specified].
Asked why he left Vanuatu in 2019, he stated that before his wife passed away, he had planned to come to Australia to work and help his family. Following his wife’s death, he decided to come to Australia under the seasonal worker program. Because of the COVID pandemic, his visa was renewed several times. When his visa expired last year, he started to look for options to remain and it was around that time that he learnt of a protection visa.
Asked why he cannot return to Vanuatu, he stated that he shares the land on which he lives in [Village 1] with one of his half-brothers. They live in separate houses on the same land. After his father’s death, his half-brother has been bossing him around and they have had many fights. This started in around 2002 and continued until he left for Australia in 2019. In 2018, on the day of his wife’s funeral, they had a big argument and he felt like knifing his half-brother. He was worried that if he remained, he would either end up dead or in jail.
Asked about the cause of the arguments, he stated that it is mainly related to disputes over the maintenance of the property. His half-brother lives in his late father’s house but makes no contribution to maintaining the property or to paying bills. His half-brother always teases him about his level of education and does not listen to what the applicant says. As the older sibling, his half-brother wants the applicant to leave the property and his half-brother’s sons are helping their father to push him off the property. After arriving in Australia, he has felt free of the drama and would like to remain in Australia so he can stay away from the situation.
I discussed with the applicant that the issues with his brother have been ongoing for about 17 years. Asked whether he experienced any harm during this period, he stated they had lots of arguments; each of them had access to knives and a crowbar but did not use them against each other.
The applicant confirmed that his children continue to live in his house in [Village 1], on the same land as his half-brother’s house. Asked whether his children have experienced any problems since he left Vanuatu, he responded that they have not mentioned anything to him.
I discussed with the applicant that, while I do not have concerns with the credibility of his account, I may not accept that his claims give rise to protection obligations. I explained the concepts of persecution under the refugee criterion and real risk of significant harm under the complementary protection criterion and that I may not be satisfied that his claims would meet those requirements. The applicant indicated that he understood but stated that he is a ‘half-caste’. When asked for further details, he stated that he is treated as an outcast from the rest of his family and reiterated that he could end up dead or in jail.
I discussed with the applicant that there was a 4-year delay between his arrival in Australia and his application for protection. Asked why he did not apply earlier if he feared harm from his half-brother at the time of his arrival, he responded that between 2019 and 2023 he was not worried about his visa. He only started considering other visa options when his visa was expiring, and this is when he heard about a protection visa.
Asked whether there was any other reason he could not return to Vanuatu or anything else that he wished to tell me about his protection claims, he responded no.
Findings and assessment
In determining whether an applicant engages protection obligations, it is necessary to make findings of fact on relevant matters which may involve an assessment of the credibility of the applicant’s claims. I have had regard to the Tribunal’s Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility[2] and accept that the benefit of the doubt should be given to asylum seekers who are generally credible but unable to substantiate all of their claims.[3] However, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any or all of the allegations made by an applicant. Further, the Tribunal is not required to have rebutting evidence available to it before it can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been made out.[4]
[2] Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Migration & Refugee Division, Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility, July 2015
[3] United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, Geneva, 2019 at pages 43–44.
[4] Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at [451] per Beaumont J; Selvadurai v MIEA (1994) 34 ALD 347 at [348] per Heerey J; Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547.
I accept the applicant’s explanation, as raised in the Form 1023, that he did not prepare the protection visa application and was unaware of its content until he received the s 56 letter. I accept that he provided supporting documentation to the person assisting him with the Form 1023, but this was not attached to the material submitted to the Department. I find the applicant’s claims as stated in the Form 1023 to be generally consistent with his oral evidence to the Tribunal. In the circumstances, I have given no weight to the information in the protection visa application and have based my assessment on the applicant’s oral evidence to the Tribunal.
Considering the above, I find that the applicant does not fear harm for the reasons provided in the protection visa application and have not considered these claims further.
I find the applicant’s claims regarding his experiences in Vanuatu to be generally credible. I accept the following as credible:
i.He and his older half-brother live in separate houses on the same parcel of land in [Village 1].
ii.Since around 2002 he and his half-brother have regularly argued over the maintenance of the property and his half-brother has indicated that he wishes the applicant to leave the property. They had a heated argument on the day of his wife’s funeral in 2018.
iii.The applicant has not experienced any physical harm from his half-brother or other family members.
iv.His half-brother makes belittling comments to the applicant regarding his level of education and the applicant feels that he is treated by his half-siblings and their families as an outsider or outcast.
v.The applicant’s children have remained living in his house in [Village 1] since his departure from Vanuatu and have not reported any incidents of harm.
The applicant claims to fear that he will be physically harmed or killed by his half-brother in connection with arguments over the maintenance of the property in [Village 1] or that he will be provoked to harm his half-brother, resulting in his imprisonment. He has also raised claims that his half-brother is trying to remove him from the property in [Village 1] and that his half-siblings and their families look down on him and treat him as an outcast.
I find that the applicant’s claims to fear harm are not for any of the reasons in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act. I therefore find that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution and is not a refugee as defined in s 5H(1).
I have therefore considered the applicant’s claims with respect to the complementary protection criteria in s 36(2)(aa), namely whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant’s removal from Australia to Vanuatu, he will suffer significant harm. ‘Significant harm’ is exhaustively defined in
s 36(2A) of the Act to mean that a person will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; the death penalty will be carried out on them; or they will be subjected to torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or degrading treatment or punishment.
The ‘real risk’ threshold for complementary protection has been held to be the same as the ‘real chance’ threshold under the refugee criterion,[5] being a substantial chance, as distinct from a remote or far-fetched possibility.[6] Considering my findings above, I am satisfied that there is not a real risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm for any of the reasons claimed. Regarding the risk that the applicant would be physically harmed or killed, I have considered that the arguments over the property have been ongoing for approximately 17 years and the applicant has not previously experienced any physical harm from his half-brother or other family members. Further, the applicant’s children remain living on the property and have not reported any incidents of harm since the applicant’s departure from Vanuatu. I find there to be no real risk that the applicant would be physically harmed or killed by his half-brother or relatives as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Vanuatu.
[5] MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505
[6] Chan Yee Kin v MIEA [1989] HCA 62
I have considered the applicant’s claim that he may be provoked to harm his half-brother, resulting in his imprisonment. Given that he has taken no such action since the arguments began in 2002, I find there to be no real risk that he would harm his half-brother if he were to return. Further, even if he were provoked to harm his half-brother, I find that this would be a result of the applicant’s own actions, rather than a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal.
I have considered the applicant’s claim that his half-brother may force him to leave the property in [Village 1]. Considering that the arguments have been ongoing for approximately 17 years and the applicant has not been removed from the property and his children remain living on the property without incident, I find there to be no real risk that his half-brother will force him off the property if he were to return. Further, I find that this would not amount to any of the types of significant harm in s 36(2A).
Regarding his claims that his half-siblings and their families look down on him because of his level of education and treat him as an outcast, I find this to not amount to any of the types of significant harm in s 36(2A). I acknowledge that this may cause the applicant some degree of dismay. However, I am not satisfied that this treatment would amount to the infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering or extreme humiliation which is unreasonable. I therefore find that it would not satisfy the definitions of torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or degrading treatment or punishment in s 5(1) of the Act.
Considering the above, I find that there are not substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant’s removal from Australia to Vanuatu, he will suffer significant harm.
The applicant has not raised any other claims to fear harm in Vanuatu and I am satisfied that none arise on the facts.
Conclusions
For the reasons given above, I am not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa). There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION

The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Mia Bailey
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 2619

26 April 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction