ODI photo essay of rohingya refugees in KL



AATA November 2015 Refugee Matters

1510961 — Chinese Malaysian Applicant:

AATA upholds refusal of protection visa to applicant claiming fear of persecution for working knowledge of Police corruption in Malaysia and low level involvement in opposition political movements. The AAT decision’s reliance on DFAT country reporting – over and above applicant testimony is notable.



1415713 — Bangladeshi claiming to support the Bangladeshi BNP:

AATTA upholds refusal of protection visa to Bangladeshi BNP supporter where the original decision noted non-membership of the Chatra Dal student wing and a lack of evidence for real risks of harm underlying the applicant’s fears.

Applying the reasoning of the Federal court in SZGIZ v MIAC [2013] FCAFC71; (2013) 212 FCR 235 – the tribunal could only consider Complementary Protection provisions in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act (and not the Refugee Convention criterion in s.36(2)(a)) because the hearing related to a second onshore protection visa application.

The refusal was upheld due to the applicant’s testimony lacking credibility owing to multiple contradictions and inconsistencies.



1504780 — Application dismissed under section 426A(1A)(b) of the Act

Indian applicant refused visa for applying on non-convention grounds failed to show at the AATA resulting in the review application’s dismissal under s.426A(1A) of the Act.


1416877 — Nepalese anti-Maoist member of National Student Democracy Organization and supporter of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (“RPP”), Monarchism, and Hinduism.

Original decision found applicants were not owed protection under s.36(3) because they had not taken all reasonable steps to avail themselves of the right to enter and reside in India under the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between India and Nepal.

The applicants’ Migration agent submitted that the first applicant did not have legally enforceable right to remain in India on the basis of:

MIMAC v SZRHU [2013] FCAFC 91; (2013) 215 FCR 35.

The Tribunal affirmed the refusal decision finding that the applicant: did not consistently state his position with the NSDO; miscommunicated that organization’s political affiliation; unrealistically described his ability to regain and maintain student status and political involvement in Nepal; delayed in applying for protection; provided new claims after the hearing sufficiently. The Tribunal’s decision rested on the cumulative affect of the above undermine the first applicant’s credibility.



1421192 — South Korean citizen seeks protection out of fear of creditor harassment and poverty in South Korea

The tribunal found that the applicant’s claims were not Convention related and that there was not a real risk of the applicant facing serious harm back in South Korea.

Delays in leaving South Korea, retuning for vacation, lack of evidence of the debt and harassment claimed, overstaying for an extensive period before applying for protection — all counted against the applicant’s credibility.

The Tribunal cited measures taken by the South Korean state to protect against criminality within the loan shark sector as adequate. It cited a United States Department of State (USDOS) Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2014 in South Korea as evidencing progress on investigating and punishing Police abuse and corruption in the country.


1512311 — Feared reprisals from the Chinese Malaysian underworld 




The ‘Imagine’ project


It was interesting to witness yesterday a talented visual art presentation by Zahir Rafiq whose exhibition I will hope to attend next year.

Dr Kate Pahl’s academic framework for connecting Zahir’s work with the ‘Imagine’ project reminded, in its political and theoretic dimensions, of the cultural practice theory of state Bevir and Rhodes put forward in their 2010 work The State As Cultural Practice. It was also interesting to learn that seminal practice theorist Etienne Wenger is involved.

I look forward to following the project.

Student publication — UNHCR’s funding model