1411548 (Refugee) [2015] AATA 3687 (16 November 2015)

DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:	Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:	1411548
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:	Bangladesh
MEMBER:	Chris Thwaites
DATE:	16 November 2015
PLACE OF DECISION:	Sydney
DECISION:	The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 16 November 2015 at 4:18pm

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
1.  	This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
2.  	The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Bangladesh, applied for the visa [in] November 2013 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] June 2014. 
3.  	[In] June 2014 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for that matter to be reviewed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE 
4.  	The Tribunal has before it the Department’s files relating to the applicant’s protection visa application and the Tribunal’s file relating to the review application. The Tribunal has also had consideration of the documents in support of the application provided to the Department and Tribunal.
5.  	The applicant’s written reasons for claiming protection are contained in his visa application forms and can be summarised as follows: 
•	The applicant is married with [children] and comes from Satkhira in south-western Bangladesh;
•	The applicant was appointed [Leader 1] of [college] in Satkhira in [year];
•	In 2012 a dispute arose between the applicant and some college teachers in relation to money taken from HSC examinees and improper absences. The applicant instructed teachers to refund money to students, and under instructions from the college President, the applicant deducted wages from the teachers who had failed to attend classes without prior permission; 
•	In May 2012 an investigation team from the Department of Education conducted an investigation into irregularities and illegalities involving teacher recruitment. The investigation revealed that about [number] teachers forged academic papers to secure jobs in the college. The investigation also revealed the college administration authority had in the past appointed teachers who were aligned with the then ruling party the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and its politically aligned ally, Jamaat-e-Islami (JI); 
•	The teachers under investigation organised college students and local community members against the applicant. They falsely blamed him for being involved in corruption. The teachers and local BNP and JI politicians blamed the applicant for involvement with the ruling party, the Awami League (AL). The applicant claims he was never involved with politics however he liked the AL’s policies and ideology, and as the college [Leader 1] he had regular communications with the political representatives of the government;
•	Since the commencement of the preliminary investigation into the recruitments the applicant became the target of the accused teachers. He was threatened on several occasions, and the situation became more intimidating with the involvement of local crooked politicians aligned to JI. They consider the investigation as a blow to their long cherished goal of exerting control over the college administration;
•	The teachers opposed to the applicant started to threaten him and his family. The teachers held him in a college room and denied him access to the college on several occasions. The local government administration and political leaders tried conciliation between the applicant and the teachers but nothing was resolved. The teachers were desperate to avoid having to repay substantial amounts of money and did not wish to lose their jobs and they wanted to retaliate by harming the applicant and his family;
•	The applicant’s family members and children were repeatedly stalked and taunted. His children were threatened with kidnap. The situation culminated in brutal assaults on the applicant on several occasions. The applicant fears the ferocity of their attacks on him will increase when the investigation is complete and an order of the Ministry of Education directs dismissal of the teachers and repayment of monies is issued;
•	The applicant claims the police administration is unable to provide him and his family with durable protection. The police administration enjoys very little or no control over this lawless remote region of the country;
•	As a result the applicant decided to flee the country; 
•	The applicant claims that his wife had recently received a death threat and his family members are living in a horrible situation in Bangladesh;
•	The applicant fears the actions of the teachers backed by JI and the BNP should the opposition come to power in the upcoming election. The applicant claims that the local Jamat is making a list of people and supporters of the current ruling party that they have targeted, and that they will definitely take sever actions against them, as they did in 2001.
6.  	The applicant provided a range of documents (in Bengali with English translation from Bengali sources) to the Department in support of his application including:
•	reports on investigation into personnel and financial matters of the college;
•	proceedings of the governing committee meetings of the college held [in] July 2007;
•	media reports from February March 2012 relating to the events at the college;
•	application for a general diary report by the applicant [in] May 2013 relating to a death threat made to him;
•	application of a general diary report by the applicant’s wife [in] October 2013 relating to telephone death threats received [in] October 2013;
•	personal and educational records relating to the applicant;
•	newspaper reports regarding the law and order situation in Bangladesh and in Shatkhira;
•	reports on two (unrelated) cases filed against two of the teachers at the applicant’s college.
7.  	The applicant’s representative also provided a number of documents in support of the application to the Tribunal including:
•	translated copies of new newspaper reports of attacks on teachers;
•	translated copy of submitted answers of a broadsheet on the basis of investigation and inspection and audit report into the college dated [in] March 2013;
•	translated copy of memo in relation to the decision of the Minister on inspection and audit and investigation into the college dated [in] October 2014;
•	translated copy of a memo regarding the college investigation report dated [in] February 2015;
•	translated copy of a letter from Professor [name] dated [in] September 2014;
•	translated copy of the actual investigation report dated [in] June 2014;
•	copy of a High Court judgement dated 9 June 2014;
•	translated copies of letter and newspaper reports on an attack on the applicant’s home [in] July 2014;
•	translated copy of a general diary entry from the applicant’s wife in relation to the attack on her home [in] July 2014.
8.  	The applicant also provided a statutory declaration dated [in] July 2015 to the Tribunal. The declaration appears to address a number of issues raised in the delegate’s decision record and in summary clarified that his [child] ceased attending school in April or May 2014; that while the applicant was assaulted five times he was seriously assaulted once [in] February 2012 which he referred to during his interview with the delegate. The applicant declares he fears harm and based his protection visa application on his activities as a whistle blower and not on the basis of his political opinion supporting the Awami League, therefore he did not mention his membership of the Awami League in his interview with the delegate, although he is an ordinary general member of the Awami League at the local level. The applicant declares that in order to escape from harm the applicant sought help from an agent to assist him to leave Bangladesh who organised all the papers for the applicant’s visa and the applicant had no bad intention to deceive the Department but had to take steps in order to save his life. The applicant declares he fears harm from people who have influence with various political parties and the authorities in Bangladesh and who have their cardres throughout Bangladesh and therefore the applicant fears if he moves to other parts of Bangladesh the situation will remain the same. The applicant filed a general diary in the police station in Bangladesh [in] May 2013 regarding a threat of murder and named those who had threatened to kill him, and after his arrival in Australia his wife and children were threatened by the perpetrators, and his wife filed another general diary with the police station [in] October 2013. The applicant declares that in his case he is a whistle-blower who exposed corrupt activities which occurred in his college and he advised higher authorities to initiate an enquiry and then provided his comments on the report. Working as a [Leader 1] in the college he became aware that a few teachers were appointed by submitting fake documents of educational qualification and experience, and the applicant reported the matter to the education Ministry of the government, and because of this those teachers humiliated him in various ways and were angry with him in fear of losing their jobs. After their enquiry, the Education Ministry decided that the government portion of some teachers’ salary should be reimbursed to the government, and this was done due to the applicant’s activities exposing the illegal activities at the college. The Education Ministry decided to terminate the jobs of the accused people and the applicant is now certain they will kill him if he returns to Bangladesh as their jobs have been terminated. The applicant declares that during his time in Australia unknown miscreants tried to enter his house in Bangladesh by breaking the lock of the gate and the main gate and after failing to enter her house, vandalised valuable articles kept outside the house and caused damage. The applicant strongly believes that the college teachers against whom he lodged complaints were behind the attack on his residence. The goons also threatened his family members and said they would kill the applicant’s wife and children. After this attack the applicant’s wife filed a general diary with the police station [in] July 2014. The applicant lists the names of the teachers directly accused during the investigation either for their fraudulent documents used in the appointment process or for involving themselves in distorting the recruitment process. The investigation reports indicate that many of these teachers may lose their jobs permanently and some will face criminal charges, and many of them have to return government money to the government treasury, therefore the convicted teachers are very infuriated with the applicant and he believes they may try to assassinate him whenever they get the chance. The applicant declares he fears harm due to the following reasons: due to his activities exposing corruption within the college, and those affected consider him their enemy. The applicant claims he is a whistleblower and will face serious harm in Bangladesh; people who are affected by his whistleblowing activities have political affiliations with various parties including BNP, Jamaat and the Awami League. Due to that people who belong to those parties will perceive the applicant as their enemy holding an opinion against them.
9.  	The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 17 July 2015 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Bengali and English languages. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent who attended the hearing. During the hearing the applicant submitted copies of a number of newspaper articles and their English translations referring to issues at the college and to [Leader 2], including one article dated [in] February 2012 reporting a mob manhandling [Leader 2] and breaking his motorbike and the Upazila [senior official] rescuing [Leader 2]. During the hearing the applicant referred to photographs and a DVD video showing him at the college and at ceremonies at the college in his role as [Leader 1]. 
10.  	[In] July 2015 the Tribunal received a translated copy of a letter of acceptance for the Post of [Leader 1] dated [in] November 2000, and a translated copy of a letter from the [head of the college] dated [in] October 2000, as well as copies of the Pay Order for the applicant and photos and DVDs containing promotional advertising of the applicant’s college, from the representative. 
11.  	[In] August 2015 the Tribunal received a written submission from the representative stating the applicant fears that he will be seriously harmed if he returns to Bangladesh for reasons explained in his statement and in particular due to fears that: political opinion (imputed) -holding political opinion against the majority political parties in Bangladesh due to his opinion against corruption; particular social group being whistle-blower exposing corruption within the education sector in Bangladesh. The written submission refers to a number of country information reports including an Odhikar, Human Rights Monitoring Report November 1-30 2014, UN News Service Bangladesh: Crackdown on Opposition Media 8 January 2015, Human Rights Watch World Report 2015, International Crisis Group Mapping Bangladesh Policital Crisis 9 February 2015, Amnesty International Amnesty International Report 2014/15, United Kingdom Home Office County Information and Guidance Bangladesh Opposition to the government report February 2015, Odhikar Human Rights Monitoring report February to March 2014. The submission addresses whether the applicant’s activities exposing corruption within the education section constitute an expression of political opinion, as well as addresses determining a particular social group, and the issue of internal relocation.
12.  	[In] August 2015 the Tribunal received a copy of the applicant’s college prospectus with English translation and a copy of the annual newsletter from 2008 with an English translation.
13.  	[In] September 2015 the Tribunal received a memo and its English translation from the representative confirming that an inquiry was conducted against a number of teachers attached to [college] mentioned in the investigation and inspection an audit report. The representative submits the evidence shows that the teachers were required to answer to the inquiry, which was conducted due to the applicant’s and whistleblowing activity.
14.  	[In] November 2015 the representative forwarded a copy of a statutory declaration declared by the applicant dated [in] November 2015. In summary the declaration outlines the background to the applicant’s employment at the college, noting the applicant’s profile as [Leader 1], and that part of his responsibilities was to meet with Ministers and politicians and government officials, as well is people belonging to different mosques and madrassas. The applicant also declares the college attracted students from different parts of the country and that he was photographed in college promotional materials widely distributed, therefore people from other parts of the country have a good knowledge of the applicant. The applicant declares that even if he moves to other parts of the country, within a short period of time people will identify him as the ex-[Leader 1 of  the college]. He also declares that when he applies for jobs in Bangladesh, his work history will identify his past position as [Leader 1] of the college. The applicant declares that since he exposed teachers wrongdoing as a whistleblower, he is in a precarious situation through doing what he believes is right, exposing corruption and illegal practices within the college and the educational sector. The applicant declares that the [official], Directorate of Secondary and Higher Education in Dhaka, has advised that the acting [Leader 2] and [number] other teachers will face serious consequences as a result of the names mentioned in the investigation and inspection and audit report. The applicant declares that as a result of this the teachers are angry with him and he fears they would do anything to harm him through their political affiliations with various political parties. The applicant declares he has a genuine and real fear that he will be targeted and seriously harmed if he returns to Bangladesh. He fears internal relocation is not an option in his case for the reasons he has mentioned.
15.  	[In] November 2015 the representative provided a further written submission referring to relevant country information on targeted killing and severe harassment against human rights defenders, submitting that [college] is a comparatively large college, and the applicant served as [Leader 1] for a considerable period of time, and was involved in activities promoting his college. The representative submits that the lecturers who are under investigation have political and religious affiliations with various groups in Bangladesh including the Awami League, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, and the Jamaat-e-Islami. The representative submits that relocation is not a reasonable option in the applicant’s case as country information confirms that people like the applicant cannot get adequate state protection in Bangladesh.
16.  	The Tribunal has had the advantage of more evidence than was before the delegate. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
Nationality
17.  	On the basis of the applicant’s consistent information provided to the Department and Tribunal about his place of birth and citizenship of Bangladesh, and the applicant’s Bangladeshi passport produced at the hearing, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh. There is nothing in the evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant has a right to enter and reside in any country other than Bangladesh.  Therefore the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not excluded from Australia’s protection by subsection 36(3) of the Act.  As the Tribunal has found that the applicant is a national of Bangladesh, the Tribunal also finds that Bangladesh is the applicant’s “receiving country” for the purposes of s.36(2)(aa).
Refugee Convention
18.  	During the hearing the Tribunal discussed with the applicant his background, family composition, education and employment in Bangladesh, as well as the reasons he left Bangladesh and why he fears of returning.
19.  	During the hearing the Tribunal noted some inconsistencies and omissions between the applicant’s oral evidence and his written statement, as well as the concerns raised by the delegate in the delegate’s decision record. While the Tribunal remains concerned that the applicant may have exaggerated some of his claims in relation to what happened to him after he ceased working at the college, the Tribunal accepts the applicant did provide detailed and consistent oral evidence about his employment history with the college, his role in the development of the college, as well as detailed information about its governing structure. This oral evidence was consistent with and supported by the documents and material provided in support of the application. The applicant also gave detailed oral evidence about the investigation process undertaken by him and then the Education Ministry, which was consistent with and supported by the documents provided. 
20.  	The Tribunal notes the applicant’s claims have remained broadly consistent throughout the application and review process and the Tribunal has given weight to the numerous documents and investigation reports and memos and news articles all identifying the applicant as the [Leader 1] of the college. The applicant also provided DVD's at the hearing showing the applicant at a function at the college. Many of the documents in support refer to the disruption at the college caused by the investigation of some teachers and also refer to a number of incidents involving the applicant as the [Leader 1]. On the evidence before it the Tribunal accepts the applicant was appointed the [Leader 1 of college] in [year] and worked at the college in that position until 2012. The Tribunal accepts the applicant was involved in the investigation of a number of teachers in relation to irregular appointments, faked qualifications, and/or corrupt practices and payments, and that a dispute arose and that he was targeted and assaulted and injured a number of times and was unable to continue to attend the school and lost his employment due to the teachers ongoing threats and actions against him.
21.  	The Tribunal accepts the applicant has been identified and blamed by a number of the teachers and their political associates for the Education Ministry investigation. The Tribunal accepts the teachers and their political associates and supporters imputed the applicant’s actions, in undertaking the investigation and reporting to the Education Ministry, as politically motivated and linked to his support of the Awami League and government authorities, as well as a broader anti-corruption political opinion or imputed opinion, and that is why he is being targeted. 
22.  	During the hearing the Tribunal discussed with the applicant his activities after he stopped working at the college, including his claims to have been living in hiding and only moving around at night, as well as his travel to [other countries], and the Tribunal raised its concerns that the applicant had returned to Bangladesh and had also taken some time to leave Bangladesh for Australia. While the Tribunal remains concerned the applicant has exaggerated some of his claims, the Tribunal accepts the applicant continued to receive threats from the teachers under investigation, and that his family has been harassed and that they have made several reports to the police. The Tribunal accepts the Education Ministry investigation resulted in a number of teachers having their employment terminated in late 2014, and being required to pay back large sums of money. The Tribunal accepts the applicant continues to be blamed for the investigation and is the focus of threats of revenge. 
23.  	While the Tribunal remains concerned the applicant has exaggerated some of his claims, the Tribunal does accept the applicant has been targeted in the past, and harassed, assaulted and physically injured by some teachers and their political associates and supporters, and the Tribunal accepts there is a real chance they will seek to harass and assault and physically injured the applicant in the reasonably foreseeable future. Given the applicant’s career as a lecturer and [Leader 1] of a college, the Tribunal accepts the applicant would seek to work in the education sector if he returned to Bangladesh, and the Tribunal accepts that there is a real chance he would be located anywhere he chose to work in Bangladesh through that education sector network.
24.  	In the applicant’s circumstances the Tribunal finds that if returned to Bangladesh there is a real chance the applicant would come to the adverse attention of the teachers and their political associates and supporters, and that he will suffer significant physical harassment and ill-treatment, as he has in the past. Therefore the Tribunal accepts there is a real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm if he returned to Bangladesh, and the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s fear of persecution is well-founded.
25.  	The Tribunal accepts the applicant has been imputed with a political opinion and motivation by those who have harassed, threatened and physically attacked him in the past. While the Tribunal considers revenge is one of the motivating factors of the teachers and their political associates and supporters, the Tribunal also accepts that the applicant’s imputed political opinion is the essential and significant reason for the persecution as required by paragraph 91R(1)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal also finds that the harm the applicant fears involves ‘serious harm’ as it amounts to significant physical harassment and significant physical ill-treatment as listed in paragraph 91R(2), and as required by paragraph 91R(1)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal also finds that the persecution which the applicant fears involves systematic and discriminatory conduct, as required by paragraph 91R(1)(c).
26.  	The issue of whether it would be reasonable to expect an applicant to relocate within their country only arises if the circumstances indicate that there is a region where, objectively, there is no appreciable risk of the occurrence of the feared persecution, that is, where the feared persecution is localised rather than nation-wide. The Tribunal finds the applicant will seek to work in the education sector if he returned to Bangladesh, and the Tribunal accepts that there is a real chance he would be located anywhere he chose to work in Bangladesh through that sector network. The Tribunal accepts the authorities have failed to provide the level of protection which accords with international standards and will be unable to do so if he returns to Bangladesh. As such the Tribunal finds the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason throughout the entirety of Bangladesh.
27.  	The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant satisfies the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).
DECISION
28.  	The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Chris Thwaites
Member				16 November 2015

ATTACHMENT: RELEVANT LAW
29.  	The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (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, the applicant 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.
Refugee criterion
30.  	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 under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention). 
31.  	Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
32.  	Sections 91R and 91S of the Act qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the Regulations to a particular person.
33.  	There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.
34.  	Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s.91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve ‘serious harm’ to the applicant (s.91R(1)(b)), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s.91R(1)(c)). Examples of ‘serious harm’ are set out in s.91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.
35.  	Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors.
36.  	Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition - race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase ‘for reasons of’ serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s.91R(1)(a) of the Act.
37.  	Fourth, an applicant’s fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a ‘well-founded’ fear. This adds an objective requirement to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution under the Convention if they have genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted for a Convention stipulated reason. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.
38.  	In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. The expression ‘the protection of that country’ in the second limb of Article 1A(2) is concerned with external or diplomatic protection extended to citizens abroad. Internal protection is nevertheless relevant to the first limb of the definition, in particular to whether a fear is well-founded and whether the conduct giving rise to the fear is persecution. 
39.  	Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.
Complementary protection criterion
40.  	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 a protection 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 the applicant 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’).
41.  	‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s.36(2A): s.5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s.5(1) of the Act. 
42.  	There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s.36(2B) of the Act.
Section 499 Ministerial Direction
43.  	In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration –PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and any country information assessment 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.