2433181 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 2016

2433181 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 2016 (18 SEPTEMBER 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Representative: Mr Christopher David Parish (MARN: 9791199)
Respondent:Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Tribunal Number: 2433181
Tribunal:General Member A Goldsworthy
Date:18 September 2025

Place:Perth
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 18 September 2025 at 8:54am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Fiji – political opinion – supporter of and volunteer for political party in local area – abused and threatened, and house attacked and dog killed by unknown persons – applied on day second temporary visa ceased – vague and inconsistent claims and evidence – vague knowledge of party’s policies and party no longer registered – intention to work and support family financially, including son with physical health condition and treatment, or return if application not successful – movement record – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), 65, 359A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 25 August 2024 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant is a [Age]-year-old national of Fiji. He applied for the visa on 21 July 2024. The delegate refused to grant the visa and the applicant appealed to the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 11 September 2025 to give evidence. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Fijian and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
CRITERIA FOR 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.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
In his protection visa application, the applicant claimed that:
I am applying for the Protection Visa to highlight the nightmare I went through during the 2014 and 2018 election campaign in Fiji. I suffered from verbal abuse and I was sworn at and my life was threatened and my house in my village in [Village 1] was stoned at night. All because I was bold enough to reveal that I was voting and supporting Bainimarama and his FijiFirst Party. My village hated him because of the Bainimarama led 2006 Clean Up Campaign which ousted the Qarase Elected Government. I dared to oppose the status quo and I had to go through a friendly fire because of my opposition. The Police we notified but what can they do? There was no proof that an assault causing serious bodily harm can be produced. I was told not to waste their time. I did not try to move. Fijian village life is unique. We can fight today but the next day, the trouble-maker will come up with a whales tooth and seek forgiveness, and the problem is solved, forgiven and we are friends again. As a Fijian and knowing our village life and protocol; I knew that after the Elections, things will cool down and be normal again. Fiji is back to normal now with the Rabula Coalition leading Fiji. Bainimarama is serving a one year sentence in jail and his FijiFirst Party has been de-registered. The water will rumble again come the next elections, if I choose to again stand up and vote and support a leader my people hate. I think I will be harmed if returned. If come the next election, I go against the village flow in voting and supporting a leader they hate, I will be harmed. If in the next election, my village all vote for a popular leader who puts the interests of the people first I will not be harmed. The authorities may or may not help. As mentioned above, my situation has nothing to do with the military or police or all the peace and prosperity reports on Fiji. Nightmares can happen within a Fijian iTaukei village, settlement or community when one stands for a leader the people all hate. It happened in 2014 and 2018 and I believe it will happen again in the next election if I choose to vote against their chosen leader. I can’t relocate because the Fijian iTaukei mindset is the same, wherever you live in Fiji. The Chief is the boss and the people all want Itaukei interests to be foremost. When they come to learn that you are the opposition, your nightmare begins. After the election, it is as if nothing had happened. Right now, life in Australia appeals to me and I guess, it is best to stay in heaven than living in hell.
The applicant provided the Department with ID, including a copy of the biographical data page of his passport. The applicant was not interviewed by the Department.
The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that they found the claims were not credible and therefore:
a.they were not satisfied that the applicant was a refugee as defined in s5H(1) of the Act; and
a.they were not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed to Fiji, there was a real risk the applicant would suffer significant harm.
The applicant did not return a pre-hearing information form.
Prior to the hearing, the applicant submitted a work reference from his current employer, and a personal/character reference from his aunt with whom he lives in Australia.
At the hearing the applicant said that a friend had completed his protection visa application form for him and that he did not really understand some of what was written in it. When asked which parts he did not understand, he specified the part about his family. The Tribunal later went through that information with him, and he both confirmed its accuracy and provided further information.
Relevant evidence is included below.
Background
The applicant was born in [Village 1] in [Town], [Province] in Fiji, and lived there his whole life before coming to Australia. He is married and has two sons, born in [Year] and [Year] respectively. His wife and sons live in a house that they own in [Village 1]. The applicant’s parents also live in [Village 1] in a separate house. The applicant’s two brothers live in Suva. One works for a company that makes [deliveries] to [workplace 1s] while the other is retired. The applicant is in daily contact with his parents, wife and children, and has a good relationship with his brothers though speaks with them less often.
The applicant completed high school and then worked as [an occupation 1] for two years from 2003 to 2005. He then [did job task 1] at a [workplace 2] until 2007, then worked as [an occupation 2] selling [produce] until 2013. From 2014 to 2016 he did [job task 2] at [Employer 1] and was then [an occupation 3] on a [workplace 3] until he resigned and departed to Australia. He said that he resigned because he was not getting good wages. The applicant separately said that if he was returned to Fiji, he would return to work as [an occupation 2].
According to the applicant’s Movement Record, which the Tribunal raised with him in a manner consistent with s359A obligations, the applicant arrived in Australia in October 2022 on a Temporary Work (International Relations) visa that ceased on 21 July 2023. On 21 July 2023 he was granted a Temporary Activity visa that ceased on 21 July 2024. The applicant then lodged his Protection visa application on the same day, 21 July 2024.
The applicant told the Tribunal that since having been in Australia he had worked as [an occupation 4] in Victoria from October 2021 to December 2022, then as [an occupation 5] in Melbourne from January 2023 to July 2024. He then moved to Western Australia and has been working at an [Employer 2] since July 2024.
The applicant sends about AUD 250 home to his wife every week or fortnight.
Clarification about arrival dates
The Tribunal noted that the applicant had consistently written throughout his protection visa application form that he had first arrived in Australia in October 2021, but the information before the Tribunal showed that it was 2022; could he explain the discrepancy?
The applicant confirmed that he had arrived in 2021. The Tribunal again noted that this was strange as the Movement Record showed that it was October 2022. The applicant told the Tribunal that he was 100 percent sure that it had been 2021. When asked, he said that he had never used any other name or passport. When the Tribunal sought to confirm the dates of employment in Australia that he had provided, he said that he had worked as [an occupation 4] from October 2021 in Victoria.
Brief outline of claims for protection
When asked to briefly outline his claims for protection to assist the Tribunal in structuring the hearing, the applicant said that he would like to remain in Australia so that he could help his family financially; his son had a [body part]-related health problem.
When asked if there was any other reason that he was claiming protection, the applicant said there was not.
The Tribunal read out the basis of the claims recorded in his protection visa application form, being that he had suffered harm during the 2014 and 2018 Fiji elections, and that he feared he would suffer harm again at the next election. The applicant then claimed that this was correct and that he had forgotten to mention those details.
The Tribunal put to him that it was difficult to understand how he would forget to mention the significant claim for protection, and asked if he wanted to say anything more about it.
The applicant said that the main reason he was here was for his family and his sick child.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that it had asked him for all of the reasons he was claiming protection and not just his main reason. It forecast that it would be asking him to detail what had happened regarding his election violence claim, and may draw an unfavourable inference if that was substantively different to what had been in his application form.
Political involvement
The applicant told the Tribunal that he had supported the FijiFirst political party. He explained that ‘supporting’ them meant that he had distributed their stickers and banners around his [village] that had a population of around 200 people.
He said that he was not a member of the party but had volunteered for a few weeks prior to the election and had no further involvement. When asked which election he was referring to, he said ‘the year they won the elections’, though he did not recall which year that was, and did not provide further details.
The applicant confirmed that he had only volunteered that one time and was not involved in other elections. He said that no one else in his family had volunteered, nor did they make any comments to him about him volunteering.
When asked where he would live if his claim was unsuccessful and he was returned to Fiji, the applicant said that he would live in [V 2] which was about a kilometre away from [Village 1]. He said that he had an aunt there and that his wife and sons were already there.
The Tribunal put to him that he had earlier said that his wife and sons lived in [Village 1]. He clarified that they went back and forth between the two and stayed at his aunt’s house when in [Village 2]. When invited to give further detail, he said that they lived in [Village 1] but visited his aunt on weekends.
When asked why he would live in [Village 2] given that he had a house in [Village 1], he said that it was because his house had been stoned in [Village 1]. It had happened the week of the election. When asked when this was, he said that he had been in Australia when it happened, so maybe it was 2022.
When asked to describe what had happened, he said his house had had a FijiFirst banner hanging up and people had not liked this. He said that nothing had happened to his wife and children as they had been asleep.
The applicant said that ‘the people’ had thrown stones at the house, though he did not know who was involved. No one had ever said anything to his family afterwards. He said that he had reported it to the village head man but nothing further had happened.
When invited to give more detail, the applicant said that the stones had been the size of a fist, and many had been thrown. When asked about damage, the applicant said that all of the front windows had been broken.
The Tribunal sought to confirm that nothing else had happened. He then said that they killed his dog on the same night, having beaten it with a piece of timber.
The applicant confirmed that he had never had any trouble prior to that night.
When asked who he supported now in politics, he said FijiFirst. The Tribunal asked how he supported a party that was no longer registered. He said that he had heard they had changed their name, though he did not know what to.
When asked how he could support them if he did not know what they were called, the applicant said he had only seen on Facebook that they had changed their name.
When asked to describe any of their policies, he said he did not know anything about their policies. When asked why he supported them, he said he just continued to support them because he had volunteered in the last election. He confirmed that he had volunteered for the 2022 election.
When asked why he could not return to Fiji, the applicant said that he had asked the village head in [Village 2] if he could build a house there. He said he wanted to move there to protect his family from what had happened to their house at the last election.
The Tribunal asked if there was anything else he wanted to say about why he could not return. He said he was helping with his son’s hospital and medical bills.
When asked why he had waited a couple of years before submitting his protection visa application form and had submitted it only when his last visa expired, he said that he could see at that time that there was no other visa that he could apply for in order to remain in Australia.
Supporting statements
The Tribunal referred to the two statements the applicant had submitted from his current employer and his aunt with whom he lived. I put to him that the employer’s letter was an employment reference, and his aunt’s letter read as a personal or character reference. I noted that neither supported his protection claims other than his aunt making passing reference to him having ‘political reasons’ for seeking to remain. I noted that his aunt’s statement indicated that he was here to work rather than any other reason.
I invited the applicant to comment. He said that working here was his intention, and that if this application for protection was not successful, he would return to Fiji.
Concerns
I put to the applicant that it was his responsibility to provide relevant evidence in as much detail as necessary for me to establish the relevant facts of his case. I asked whether there was anything more he wanted to tell the Tribunal, and he said there was not.
I told the applicant that I had some concerns about the reliability of his evidence, some of which I had already put to him.
I said that another concern was that he had been in Australia at the time he said that he had been volunteering for FijiFirst in his village. He replied that he had been volunteering before he came here. I reminded him that he had told the Tribunal that he had volunteered for a few weeks before the election. The applicant confirmed this and said that immediately after that, he had come here. He confirmed that this had been the 2022 election, but the applicant was unable to say which month it had been in.
I shared with him that the election had been on 14 December 2022 and observed that he had come to Australia well before that, so it was difficult to understand how he had been volunteering in an election for a few weeks before the election day, when he had been in Australia. The applicant said that he had been helping and had then left in the midst of it.
I put to him that he had told the Tribunal that he was certain that he had come to Australia in 2021. He replied that he had come in 2022.
I reminded him again of the evidence he gave early in the hearing in which he had said he was ‘100 percent sure’ that he had come in 2021. The applicant responded that he had thought the Tribunal had been asking about the date, and he had not realised that the discussion was about the year.

The Tribunal reiterated its earlier comment that the information before it showed that he had arrived in October 2022, and noted that whether he had come then or earlier, it did not fit that he had been volunteering for a few weeks before election day which had been 14 December 2022. The applicant said that he was home and had gone to support them where they were volunteering, before he came.
S359A materiel
I advised the applicant that I had in front of me his Movement Record which showed all of the details of his travel into and out of Australia, including on which visas and on which dates, among other things. I told him that the record held information that may be adverse to his case, subject to his comments. I noted that I had already had regard to his remarks on it to date. The applicant chose not to comment further.
I told the applicant that the information may be adverse because it indicated that he was seeking to extend his stay in whichever way possible to work, and that this was evidenced by him having only applied for protection on the day of expiration of his last work visa. I told the applicant that I may find that he did not in fact fear harm in returning to Fiji. When invited to comment, the applicant opted not to.
When asked if there was anything else the applicant wanted to tell the Tribunal, he said that he wanted to remain in Australia to work in order to look after his family and also to build a house.
Findings of fact and reasons
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
I have a number of concerns about the credibility of the applicant’s claim to have suffered harm for his involvement in supporting the FijiFirst Party during an election.
a.When invited to briefly tell the Tribunal about his protections claims, the applicant did not mention politically-related harm. It was only after the Tribunal raised the claim from his protection visa application form, that he ‘remembered’. I am doubtful that he would have forgotten to mention such harm.
b.The applicant’s oral account of the harm he suffered was largely inconsistent with what was written on his protection visa application form. The written claims related to harm suffered in the 2014 and 2018 elections while the applicant claimed that his harm had arisen only during the 2022 election. He included a significant detail orally – that his dog was killed - that was not contained in his written claims. Conversely, he included significant claims in his written form – that his life was threatened or that he suffered serious bodily harm – that he did not raise orally.
c.The applicant claimed to have only volunteered during one election campaign but could not, for some time, recall the year nor did he provide an approximate description. I am doubtful that the applicant would not have been able to immediately recall which election his involvement and subsequent alleged harm was related to, particularly given the 4-year intervals between elections, that 2022 was the last election, that it was only a few years ago, and that it had allegedly triggered his fleeing from Fiji.
d.The applicant told the Tribunal that he had volunteered in the year that FijiFirst had won the election. The applicant later recalled that it was the 2022 election that he had been involved with. FijiFirst did not win the 2022 election. I find it highly doubtful that the applicant would have only volunteered for one election yet mistakenly recalled that election’s outcome.
e.I am doubtful that if the applicant feared harm based on his house having been stoned in a village of about 200 people, that he would have plans to flee to another village only a kilometre away if returned to Fiji, and that he would leave his wife and children alone in the house that had allegedly been stoned, for years afterwards.
f.The applicant’s evidence was that he had volunteered in the 2022 election campaign for the few weeks leading up to election day. The applicant was in Australia at that time and when this concern was put to him, his response did not address the concern.
g.I am doubtful that, in a village of around 200 people, the applicant and his family would never have learned about who was involved in any night-time stoning of his house or killing of his dog.
Having regard to the concerns above, I do not accept that the applicant suffered harm as claimed, for any involvement in Fiji’s elections.
I am willing to accept that, for a time, the applicant supported the FijiFirst Party. I find that he no longer actively supports FijiFirst. This is based on him having very limited knowledge of the party he claimed to support, which is no longer registered. He said he had heard the party had changed its name but did not recall what it was. He did not evidence any awareness of the publicly stated plans of former members of the party, nor any policies, and could not describe in a convincing manner why he maintained his support.[1]
[1] accessed on 10 September 2025.
Having had regard to all of the applicant’s evidence and to my findings above, I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm into the reasonably foreseeable future, or a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal for reasons of his support of any political parties in Fiji.
I place significant weight on the applicant’s comments about being in Australia to work. I accept that the applicant came to and wishes to remain in Australia to work and earn more than he did in Fiji, so that he can better support his family and also so that he can afford to build a new house. The applicant did not claim, nor did he indicate, that he would be unable to earn a living such that he would be unable to subsist.
I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm into the reasonably foreseeable future, or a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal for economic reasons, nor for economic and political reasons combined.
Conclusion
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).
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).
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.
Date(s) of hearing:    11 September 2025
Representative for the Applicant: Mr Christopher David Parish
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.
…