2420874 (Refugee)

2420874 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 3972 (12 August 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  2420874
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Serbia
MEMBER:Sean Baker
DATE:12 August 2024
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 12 August 2024 at 11:22am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa – Serbia – Serbian ethnicity – Orthodox Christian religion – a victim of gang-related violence – work in the military and security – convictions in Australia – forced reenlistment – no real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm from the gang – credibility concerns – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 56, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
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 1 July 2024 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant, who is a citizen of Serbia, applied for the visa on 11 June 2024. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the delegate did not find the applicant’s claims to have been threatened and attacked by a gang to force him to join them, credible.
CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The applicant is a [age]-year-old Serbian national, born in [City 1], Vojvodina. He is divorced. He is of the Serbian ethnicity and Orthodox Christian religion.
Claims before the Department
In his application form the applicant claimed that he left Serbia in 2018 because it was safer in Australia. The applicant feared being a victim of gang-related violence in Serbia. There is corruption and he fears forced recruitment into violent gangs.
The applicant indicated he experienced harm in Serbia and stated that because of his involvement with a security agency and the military in Serbia, the applicant was fearful of violent gangs. He was contacted by known gang members who threatened the applicant in order to make him participate in gang activities. He was told he was either for or against the gang members.
He sought safety in Australia to avoid further exposure or threats from the gang members. The Applicant fears that he and his family will be killed if he returns to Serbia and continues to refuse requests from gang members to join their gang.
The Applicant did not seek help in Serbia, because he fears that the government and law enforcement authorities are corrupt and have some involvement with unlawful gang members.
The Applicant fears that the gang members are spread throughout Serbia's regions, meaning that no location in Serbia would be truly safe for the Applicant.
In his application form the applicant provided details of drug, firearm and other offences he had committed in Australia and was convicted of on 29 November 2019 and 31 May 2022 which led to periods of imprisonment from 15 April 2018 to 12 April 2019 and from 24 December 2021 to 13 August 2023.
In his application, his military service, first compulsory then voluntary, from June 2003 to November 2005 is set out. It also noted that if required, the applicant may be reenlisted involuntarily.
The applicant was assisted in the preparation of his application by a legal practitioner.
On 24 June 2024 the applicant was sent a request for more information pursuant to s 56 of the Act. This letter noted that their statement lacked substantiating detail and he was asked to provide further detail. The applicant did not respond.
The applicant was not interviewed.
The delegate refused the application, reasoning that the lack of detail and concerns with the claims led the delegate to find that the applicant’s claims were not credible.
Information provided to the Tribunal
The applicant sought review and provided a copy of the delegate’s decision.
The applicant provided a statement, dated 26 July 2024. In this, he set out his past working in security in Serbia from the age of [age] and his work in the army, as an instructor and a soldier. He served on the border between Serbia, Kosovo and Albania.
He describes the development of his relationship with his ex-wife, his migration to Australia and his ending up in jail in 2019 and 2021.
In 2018 he travelled to Serbia to visit his family
[A named] gang invited the applicant to join them. They expected him to work for the gang doing drug related and security related work. They offered to pay him a lot of money for the high-risk work. He refused their offers.
He was contacted through mutual friends and school friends. They had a drink and dinner together. They asked him to join and the applicant said he was worried about his family and did not want to be involved with illegal activities in Serbia. The gang continued to invite him to dinner and lunch. He would also run into them at the local gym. He knew of 20 members in his town alone.
One evening in the gym a young gang member tried to punch the applicant. The applicant pushed him away. He didn’t see this gang member for a few days but then the applicant’s car was burnt on the street where he parked it to go to the gym.
The applicant met with some of the gang members. The young gang member he had confronted at the gym later took responsibility for burning his car.
In the middle of February 2018, the young gang member pulled a gun on the applicant and started to stalk him.
The applicant left Serbia at the beginning of March 2018 due to ongoing conflict with the [gang]. He feared for his life.
He received death threats from some members of the gang, including [a] man named [Mr A].
A small shop the applicant owned was also burnt a day after the gun was pulled on him. This is when he decided to return to Australia in far of his life.
These things all happened in the space of one month when he was visiting his family.
He returned to Australia but continued to receive threats, some of them came via [social media] so he shut down his [social media] profile.
Since he has returned to Australia his sister has told him that the gang continued to hang around the house and told his sister that they would find the applicant in Australia.
He fears that if he returns to Serbia he will be targeted and killed by members of the [gang] because he has refused to work with the gang. He is a prime target because he is well-known in his home region and has an extensive background working in the military and security. The Government is corrupt and would not be able to protect him.
The gang operates throughout Serbia. He would not be safe anywhere.
He fears for his family. his brother [does specified work] but has not been targeted by the gang. The applicant thinks he was targeted because of his security work and is held in high regard because of his work in the military and security.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 7 August 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. He presented claims which were entirely consistent with his detailed statement provided to the Tribunal. The applicant also spoke at length about his convictions in Australia, his remorse, and explained the difficulties in his circumstances which had led, he believes, to him making mistakes which led him to being charged, convicted and imprisoned for these offences. He spoke also of wishing to be allowed to complete the community corrections order which was part of his most recent sentence but which, having been jailed and then detained, he had been unable to complete.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether there is a real chance the applicant will be persecuted, or a real risk he will be subjected to significant harm if he returns to Serbia. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Criteria for a protection visa
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
Credibility
Claims about the gang
The applicant’s claims at hearing were consistent with his detailed statement to the Tribunal. He claims that when he returned to Serbia in February 2018 to visit his family, he was approached by the [gang], who took him for drinks, dinners and lunches and tried to persuade him to join them. The applicant claims he put them off and this led to a confrontation with a young gang member in the gym, his car being burnt, the young gang member pulling a gun on him, and a shop he owned also being burnt. He was threatened by other members of the gang.
I explained to the applicant at hearing that I had several concerns with these claims. I explained to him that these concerns might lead me to doubt the general credibility of these claims.
Firstly, I put to the applicant a concern that it appeared to me not to make sense for a gang to approach him to work for them when the applicant had travelled to visit family in Serbia in a month, that is, that he was returning to Australia. The applicant responded that in their heads it did not matter what he is doing, one is either for or against them, the town is small, and he is respected. They feared that he would turn on them.
When I noted that he had been in Serbia for a visit of a month and then returned to Australia, he told me that they were probably thinking that he would stay longer and might ask him to do jobs in Australia, he did not know.
I noted that I was not sure why they would put so much effort into recruiting him if he was only temporarily in Serbia, he said maybe they were thinking that he would be useful for them in Australia and be involved in the business with drugs.
I do not find the applicant’s explanations convincing. I find that the applicant has not been able to explain why the gang would have had interest in him given that he was in Serbia for a short period of time and returning to Australia. I do not accept his claim that they might ask him to do jobs in Australia, if this had been the case I think that the applicant would have explained this much earlier in the hearing or in his detailed statement to the Tribunal. The applicant claims that the gang put considerable effort including taking him for drinks and dinner, before threatening him, to have him join them, yet he was only temporarily in Serbia to visit his family. Whilst it can be difficult to understand the motivation of the persecutor, this behaviour of the gang is so far from appearing rational given the applicant was only in Serbia temporarily, for a month, that I have reached a positive state of disbelief that the gang would engage in this activity for the claimed purpose of recruiting the applicant given he was returning to Australia shortly. This leads me to disbelieve this claim and to doubt the general credibility of the applicant’s claims.
Secondly, I noted to the applicant that I was also not sure I accepted his claim that the gang had been motivated to recruit him because of his security and military work, and noted that his experiences in these fields had been over eight years prior to his return to Serbia in 2018. He responded that they might think that he would go back and would still have that expertise. He said he was not sure what was in their head.
The applicant’s experience in the army was over ten years before 2018, and whilst he undertook a variety of roles, the total period of time he served in the army was only a number of years. His experience in security was prior to and after his army experience but at best it concluded when he travelled to Australia to live with his then wife, almost eight years before 2018. He confirmed at the hearing that he had worked [in] Australia. I understand the applicant believes that he continues to hold some sway in his local area due to his security work. I find his claims about his military experience less convincing given that at the time he served it was mandatory for all young men to undertake some period of military service, although I appreciate the applicant remained in the military for some time after his period of compulsory service. But both of these experiences were many years before he returned to Serbia in 2018. I find it unconvincing that the gang would have sought him out for these experiences, many years in the past. I find that this concern adds some weight to my general credibility concerns.
As I explained to the applicant at the hearing, these concerns may lead me to doubt the general credibility of his claims, to doubt he was threatened or had the interactions he claimed with the gang at all, and to doubt that he would face harm from the gang or anyone else on return. He responded that the decision was in my hands and that he had other ways to lodge an appeal to court.
I have considered the claims of the applicant, and I have considered these against the concerns above. My concerns remain. These concerns are so fundamental to the applicant’s claims that they lead me to disbelieve his claims to have been approached and taken to drinks or meals by the gang, to have the gang try and convince him to joint hem, to have been threatened by them, to have been confronted by the young gang member, to have had his car set alight by the gang, to have had the young gang member pull a gun on him, to have had his shop set alight, to have had threats made to him in Serbia and via [social media] in Australia or to have received death threats from [a] member of the gang, [Mr A], or anyone else, nor his claims that the gang had continued to hang around his house and told his sister they would find the applicant in Australia. I find that the applicant has invented these claims. I do not accept that he has had any contact with the [gang] or any other gang in Serbia, either in 2018 or at any other time.
Claims about forced reenlistment
The applicant claimed, in his application form and at the hearing, that if he returned to Serbia he would be forcefully re-enlisted in the army. When I asked him to tell me more about this at the hearing, he spoke about the problems in the South, at the border/administrative line with Kosovo. He said there was an unstable situation and he might be made to re-enlist because of this. I noted that on looking at the Serbia army website it appeared to indicate that from December 2010 the obligation of military service had been suspended, and it appeared from what I had seen that the Serbian army from that point had moved to a fully professional force.[1] Whilst there has been some discussion of reintroduction of compulsory military service, this has not gone further than discussion and I note also that I do not accept the applicant, who has fulfilled his military service, and is [age] years old, would be caught in such a proposal, even were it to come about.[2]
[1] Military Service | Serbian Armed Forces (vs.rs); Serbia Bids Goodbye To Conscript Army | Balkan Insight.
[2] Serbia's Vucic Weighs A Return To Military Conscription, Stirring Anger To His Left And Right (rferl.org); Serbia considers reintroducing conscription as regional tensions grow | Euronews
The applicant conceded that the army at the moment was entirely professional and voluntary. He said despite this he had experience in the army and if people had experience they start to call for training. He said he had heard from some others that they had been called back.
I do not accept, on the information before me, that the applicant, as a person who has previously completed his compulsory military service at 18, and who is now [age], would be forced to re-enlist in the army now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, even if compulsory military service, which would most likely target younger men, and/or those who had not completed their service, were re-introduced.
Is there a real chance the applicant will be persecuted on return to Serbia?
I have found above that the applicant’s claims are not credible. I have found that I do not accept he had contact with, was threatened and harmed by, the [gang] or any other gang in Serbia. I have found, above that the applicant will not be involuntarily re-enlisted. I do not accept that there is any basis for concluding there is a real chance the applicant will be forced to join any gang, or be involuntarily re-enlisted if he returns to Serbia now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
I find that there is no real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm from the [gang], any other gang due to a wish to enlist him, or from the authorities because of involuntary re-enlistment, or from anyone else for any reason, if he returns to Serbia now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Is there a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm if he is removed from Australia to Serbia?

I have found above that there is no real chance of the applicant suffering harm on return to Serbia. The applicant did not put forward any other claim to fear harm and I find there is no other basis apparent on the material before me. I therefore find on my reasoning on real chance that there is no real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm from the [gang], any other gang, the authorities or anyone else if he is removed from Australia to Serbia now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
Conclusions
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.
Sean Baker
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 3972

12 August 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction