Background
Background to the litigation
The issue in this case is whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution on return to Sri Lanka or whether there is a real risk of significant harm if the applicant is removed from Australia to Sri Lanka. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.Applicant’s personal background The applicant is [an age]-year-old woman of Tamil ethnicity and Hindu religion. She was born in [Town 1], Batticaloa district[1] and grew up in [Town 2], [in Eastern Province]. She has [specified family members], all of whom still reside in [Town 2], as do the applicant’s parents. [1] The applicant’s date and and place of birth are confirmed by her identity documents and were accepted by the delegate. The applicant is estranged from her husband [named], who she married in 2011. They have a son, [named], who is [age] years old. The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s marriage and son’s birth are confirmed in documents she provided.[2] The applicant’s son lives with his father in [Eastern Province]. [2] See paragraph [18] of this decision noting the applicant provided English translations of her marriage certificate and her son’s birth certificate. The applicant completed her high school education up to [grade] in Sri Lanka. She was a homemaker and shop owner prior to coming to Australia. Departmental records confirm the applicant travelled to Australia using a [Country 1] passport issued in another name and entered Australia without a visa [in] January 2024. She was not immigration cleared and has been in immigration detention since [January] 2024. She applied for a Safe Haven Enterprise Visa on 25 January 2024. Applicant’s claims for protection Evidence before the Department Material provided by the applicant to the Department in support of her visa application included:a.Statements dated 10 February 2024 and 25 March 2024;b.Submissions from her current representatives dated 10 February 2024 and 2 April 2024;c.Copy of Sri Lankan national ID card and English translation;d.Photograph of the biodata page of the applicant’s Sri Lankan passport issued [in] 2022;e.English translation of the applicant’s birth certificate;f.English translation of marriage certificate between the applicant and her husband;g.English translation of her son’s birth certificate;h.Photographs described as stills from video of CID visits, dated [two days in] January 2024;i.Photograph captioned ‘Shop front picture’;j.Undated letter from [Lawyer A], lawyer in Sri Lanka, recounting the applicant’s treatment in Sri Lanka;k.Untranslated document titled ‘police complaint’, dated [in] January 2024;l.Two articles on memory and the impact of trauma;m.Decision 2311589 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 4431 (10 October 2023);n.Several hundred pages of country information about Sri Lanka. In her pre-interview statement of 10 February 2024, the applicant states that she fears persecution in Sri Lanka because she is a Tamil woman who has been sexually assaulted and raped by agents of the Sri Lankan authorities including Criminal Investigation Department (CID) officers. Specifically, she fears being detained, interrogated, tortured, sexually assaulted, raped or killed by the Sri Lankan authorities. She fears suffering from significant economic hardship and the denial of basic services such that she cannot support herself or her son because she will be targeted by the Sri Lankan authorities. She also fears being ostracised from her family and community because she is a victim of sexual abuse and rape. She is further at risk of harm as a failed asylum seeker returning to Sri Lanka from a western country, having used a false passport to travel to Australia.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
The most recent DFAT report in respect of Sri Lanka was published on 2 May 2024. Where relevant to the applicant’s claims it is discussed below. CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE The issue in this case is whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution on return to Sri Lanka or whether there is a real risk of significant harm if the applicant is removed from Australia to Sri Lanka. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.Applicant’s personal background The applicant is [an age]-year-old woman of Tamil ethnicity and Hindu religion. She was born in [Town 1], Batticaloa district[1] and grew up in [Town 2], [in Eastern Province]. She has [specified family members], all of whom still reside in [Town 2], as do the applicant’s parents. [1] The applicant’s date and and place of birth are confirmed by her identity documents and were accepted by the delegate. The applicant is estranged from her husband [named], who she married in 2011. They have a son, [named], who is [age] years old. The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s marriage and son’s birth are confirmed in documents she provided.[2] The applicant’s son lives with his father in [Eastern Province]. [2] See paragraph [18] of this decision noting the applicant provided English translations of her marriage certificate and her son’s birth certificate. The applicant completed her high school education up to [grade] in Sri Lanka. She was a homemaker and shop owner prior to coming to Australia. Departmental records confirm the applicant travelled to Australia using a [Country 1] passport issued in another name and entered Australia without a visa [in] January 2024. She was not immigration cleared and has been in immigration detention since [January] 2024. She applied for a Safe Haven Enterprise Visa on 25 January 2024. Applicant’s claims for protection Evidence before the Department Material provided by the applicant to the Department in support of her visa application included:a.Statements dated 10 February 2024 and 25 March 2024;b.Submissions from her current representatives dated 10 February 2024 and 2 April 2024;c.Copy of Sri Lankan national ID card and English translation;d.Photograph of the biodata page of the applicant’s Sri Lankan passport issued [in] 2022;e.English translation of the applicant’s birth certificate;f.English translation of marriage certificate between the applicant and her husband;g.English translation of her son’s birth certificate;h.Photographs described as stills from video of CID visits, dated [two days in] January 2024;i.Photograph captioned ‘Shop front picture’;j.Undated letter from [Lawyer A], lawyer in Sri Lanka, recounting the applicant’s treatment in Sri Lanka;k.Untranslated document titled ‘police complaint’, dated [in] January 2024;l.Two articles on memory and the impact of trauma;m.Decision 2311589 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 4431 (10 October 2023);n.Several hundred pages of country information about Sri Lanka.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Section 36(3) of the Act provides that Australia is taken not to have protection obligations in respect of a non-citizen who has not taken all possible steps to avail themselves of a right to enter and reside in a third country. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the applicant has any right to enter and reside in any other country and the Tribunal finds that s 36(3) does not apply in the circumstances of this case.DECISION The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.Adrienne AndersonMemberATTACHMENT - 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.…