1413150 (Refugee)

[2015] AATA 3191

1413150 (Refugee) [2015] AATA 3191 (30 July 2015)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1413150

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Jordan

MEMBER:Rodger Shanahan

DATE:30 July 2015

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 30 July 2015 at 11:57am

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 Jordan, applied for the visa [in] February 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] July 2014.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 17 June 2015 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.

4. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by her registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

   CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   Protection Visa Application

5. The applicant claimed that she was Christian and while at [University] she was harassed by Muslim extremist students who wanted her to wear the hijab and cover herself.  Despite complaining about their actions nothing was done by the university. She quit university and joined [an organisation] where she graduated in [a course].

6. She began a job with a [firm] in 2010 but when she arrived at work by public transport she began to be harassed by a man called [Mr A] who said that he admired her beauty.  After a while she met him in a café and told him that she was Christian, he was Muslim and there was no future for them.  She also told her parents who began to fear for her safety, and suggested that she come to Australia on a visitor’s visa to visit her sister who had her second child.

7. She arrived in Australia in March 2012 and returned to Jordan in February 2013 but found out she had been fired from her [job] because there had been too much work.  She found another [job], however [Mr A] found out where she worked by following her from her home and began to harass her more aggressively to marry him.

8. In July after work she was walking to the bus stop when a [car] drove slowly beside her with [Mr A] in the back seat. The car stopped and [Mr A] tried to force her inside.  She began screaming and hitting him with her bag until another car stopped to help her, at which point [Mr A] and the driver fled.

9. She was scared from that point and began medication.  [Mr A] had threatened to kill her father and the rest of the family unless she married him but her parents refused for this to happen.  Her father reported this to the police but they didn’t have enough information to go on.  While there one of the policemen said that Islamic law allowed [Mr A] to ask the applicant to marry him and convert her to Islam.

10. They moved to her [relative]’s house in Amman, from where her parents emigrated to [another country] while the applicant was granted a visitor’s visa to Australia.  She was afraid to return to Jordan for fear of what [Mr A] would do.

    RRT Hearing

11. The applicant was asked if she was medically able to conduct the hearing and she stated she was.  There was also no medical certificate that stated she was unable to take part in the hearing.  She claimed that if she were to return to Jordan she was a Christian evangelist and would be targeted by Muslims.  Her mother and father had been attacked and she had been pursued by someone called [Mr A].  The family moved but the problems continued.  She feared that [Mr A] and others would attack and possibly kill her.

12. This group belonged to a mosque but she didn’t know where it was or what is was called.  Asked what the location of the mosque was, she claimed it was in [City 1] but they moved to a place [near] Amman.  [This place] was [number] minutes from Amman.

13. She had known [Mr A] since 2011.  The attacks against her parents had begun in 2005 but she didn’t know any of the details.  She claimed that they had converted to the Baptist faith in 2008 but had previously been practising Catholics.  They had family members and others around them who were Baptists.  Their church was the [name deleted]; the priest’s name was Father [name deleted] but the priests were changing around often.  She had also studied at the school near the church until Year [grade]. 

14. She then went to the Baptist church on the same street as the [church] in [City 1].  Asked if she had any evidence, such as photos of her baptism that would indicate she had been a Baptist since 2008.  She wasn’t baptised in Jordan but she had a Facebook photo showing she was in the choir although she hadn’t been able to find it.  She was asked whether there was anything that would indicate it was the Baptist choir and not the Catholic choir and she said there wasn’t.

15. She was asked whether she had filled out the protection visa application and said she hadn’t written it but had read it and agreed that it was true and correct.  It was put to her that she had described herself as Catholic on the form, which was written in 2011 yet she had claimed she was Baptist from 2008.  She claimed she meant the Christian religion and reiterated that she was Baptist from 2008.

16. In Jordan she found it hard to walk down the street without a hijab.  People tried to pull her hair if it wasn’t covered and her mother’s crucifix had been pulled from her neck. Muslims tried to convert them to Islam.  She couldn’t get to university because she wouldn’t wear the hijab.  Asked to clarify this, she claimed she enrolled but tried to enrol and students and teachers gave her dirty looks and lower marks and she felt uncomfortable.  She went to [a] University to study [a course] for a few months but couldn’t attend because of the situation.

17. It was very rare for there to be girls not wearing the hijab but they had the same problems.  It was put to her that photos from [the] University appeared to show women including faculty members (including the Dean of Students) not wearing the hijab.  She claimed the photos didn’t show the real truth and things could have been different from when she was there.  It was put to her that protection looked forward and on the photos it appeared to be more liberal.  She claimed there had been a killing at the university – she was asked to provide country information to support this claim.

18. She claimed that their family had a Muslim name and some people believed they had converted from Islam and needed to return to Islam.  In 2005 they began assaulting her father and he was put in hospital.  Her parents tried to protect her from the worst persecution.  Her father’s business would also be targeted.  They moved from [City 1] in 2007.

19. Once they moved she had a problem with a person called [Mr A].  He tried to kidnap, kill and convert her.  She met him in 2011 when she worked in a [firm].  She noticed that this person had begun following her to and from work.  He came to her, told her that he loved her and wanted to marry her.  He also told her that Islam was better and they would go to heaven.

20. She told [Mr A] she was Christian and didn’t want to marry him.  She then had the opportunity to visit her sister in Australia and thought the problem would end.  [Mr A] was still there when she returned to Jordan and following her.  When she returned the [firm] had hired someone else.  She worked in another company but [Mr A] follower her from her house and found where she worked.  She saw a car driving behind her and she saw someone driving it with [Mr A] in the back.  He opened the door and tried to force her in.  She fought back and a person in a taxi stopped and asked her if she needed help.  [Mr A] screamed at her and left.

21. She ran home and was traumatised.  Her father would then not allow her out or to go to work.  This occurred in April 2013 but she wasn’t sure.  They then moved to her [relative]’s house because of their troubles and began applying for a visa to leave.  Her father went to [another country] but she stayed with her mother because her visa was delayed and they hid during that time.

22. Asked how long after being granted the visa she left Jordan, she claimed it was less than two months as they were trying to organise tickets at the same time.  Asked why they had to leave on the same day given they were safe in her [relative]’s house, she claimed her [relative] didn’t want to take responsibility for the applicant and had [his/her] own family.  Asked why [he/she] allowed them to stay in the first place, she claimed [he/she] wanted to help them to an extent.  Her [relative] was [relationship with relative deleted] and [had] another friend there at the time.

23. After an adjournment she claimed she had been happy since she was in Australia and with her church.  She was asked why she was baptised in Australia if she had been baptised in Jordan in 2008 and she claimed that she had the opportunity to preach about Jesus but hadn’t had the opportunity before. Her sister was baptised with her; the applicant also met her husband in the church and he preaches there.  She claimed if she returned to Jordan she had nowhere to live as a Christian woman.

24. Asked if any of the attacks in Jordan had been reported to the police, she claimed she and her father reported it to police but they told them if the attacker married her according to shariah they would not go to hell.  Her mother had also complained to the police about an attack in her shop and they told her to trust in God.  She had no copies of any police reports because the police didn’t give any out.  She had no copy of any medical reports relating to her father because they had tried to hide things from her.

25. Her father had been active in the Catholic church in Jordan until they went to the Baptist church.  Asked to clarify what her father did in the Catholic church, she claimed they welcomed parishioners into the church at all occasions.  Asked why he converted to the Baptists, she claimed they knew more about Jesus in that church.  Her father wasn’t as active in the Baptist church.

26. She was asked if she had a copy of the complaint she had lodged at the university admission centre but she said it was verbal.  It was put to her that she had been baptised Catholic and gone to Catholic school and had converted to the Baptist faith in 2008 and yet on a copy of her parents’ asylum claim from [the other country] that she had provided it said her family had been the target of persecution and violence for more than 10 years because of her father’s prominence in the Orthodox church.  This was inconsistent with her claim to have been Catholic and converted to the Baptist faith.

27. In addition, despite being a Baptist since 2008 she had submitted a baptismal certificate in the Baptist faith from 2014 which was six years after she had claimed to be Baptist.  She was advised about s 91R(3) and it was put to her that this inconsistency may lead the Tribunal to believe that she was trying to establish a refugee profile as an evangelising Christian, rather than an Orthodox Christian or Catholic.  Her Baptist baptism occurred about two weeks before she lodged a protection visa even though she had claimed to be a Baptist for five years by that stage.

28. She claimed they had been Catholic but she hadn’t done this to improve her refugee claim and believed she was closer to Jesus through the Baptist faith.  Asked why her father had said he was prominent in the Orthodox church in Jordan, she repeated that he had been a prominent Catholic.  She didn’t know what he had said.

29. It was also put to her that despite her father’s beatings and the attempted kidnapping of her and the extreme danger that she claimed, she did not leave Jordan until two months after she had been granted a visa and didn’t apply for protection for five months after she arrived in Australia.  There was concern that the move had been deliberate and with a social or economic motive in mind.  She had also never mentioned the attacks on her parents until the hearing.

30. She claimed that she didn’t know about the protection visa process and took all this time to study what to do.  It was put to her that her sister had been resident in Australia for years and it was difficult to believe that she would not have known potential pathways to seek protection, particularly given the circumstances that the applicant had claimed had occurred to herself and her family in Jordan.  She claimed her sister was a simple person but they needed to ask people what to do.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

31. The applicant arrived in Australia on a visitor’s visa [in] September 2013 after having been here previously in 2010 and 2012.  She applied for a protection visa [in] February 2014. The Tribunal sighted her Jordanian passport as proof of her identity and her claim will be assessed accordingly.

32. The applicant is a [age] year old female from [City 1] in Jordan who married in Australia [in] February.  She claimed that if she returned to Jordan she would be targeted and killed because she was a Christian evangelist.       

33. In considering an applicant’s account, undue weight should not be placed on some degree of confusion or omission to conclude that a person is not telling the truth.  Nor can significant inconsistencies or embellishments be lightly dismissed.  The Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any and all claims made by an applicant.

34. I have taken into account the psychological report provided by the applicant dated 22 July 2014 however lend it little weight in accounting for any credibility issues that may have arisen during the hearing.  The report is based on an acceptance of anti-Christian activities the applicant has claimed to have experienced, which the Tribunal has found to have been fabricated.

35. I found the applicant’s evidence regarding her claims to lack credibility.  For reasons set out below I did not find the applicant to be a reliable or credible witness, and that she fabricated her entire claim in order to be granted a protection visa.

    Religious Identity

36. I am satisfied that the applicant is a Christian (folio 47) who was baptised a Catholic (folio 45) in Jordan.  I do not accept that she and her parents were attracted to the Baptist faith in Jordan and were baptised into that denomination in 2008.  She made no mention of this in her protection visa application, in which she described her ethnicity as Catholic (while her religion was Christian), and can provide no documentary nor visual evidence that she was baptised in Jordan.

37. In a letter provided to the Tribunal by the applicant relating to her parents’ grant of asylum in the [the other country], it also makes no mention of the Baptist conversion but rather claims that the applicant’s father had a prominent role in the Orthodox church.

38. I accept that the applicant has become baptised in the Baptist church since arriving in Australia (folio 113). I am however, unable to lend any weight to the baptismal certificate nor the [February] 2015 marriage certificate from [a] church regarding the genuineness of the applicant’s conversion.  She has already indicated a willingness to fabricate a prior interest in the Baptist faith in Jordan, and I note that her Baptist baptismal certificate was issued approximately one month prior to her submitting a protection visa application.

39. Because she lacked any prior interest in the Baptist faith in Jordan despite claiming otherwise, and has been baptised into an evangelical Christian faith so close to submitting her protection visa application in Australia I find that the applicant’s baptism has been deliberate and targeted.  As I advised the applicant during the hearing, s.91R(3) requires me to disregard this conduct in determining whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution if I found that it was engaged in for the sole purpose of strengthening his refugee claim.

40. Because I do not accept that the applicant has ever had an interest in the Baptist faith in Jordan or has been genuine in her Australian baptism, I do not accept that she does or would feel the need to evangelise on return to Jordan. 

    Other Issues

41. I do not accept that the applicant was ever harassed on the street for not veiling or that she was  given lower marks because she didn’t wear a hijab at university, or that she was targeted for kidnapping by a Muslim named [Mr A] who wanted to marry her.  To begin with, her description of the university environment is inconsistent with available information.  A website[1] that shows two female assistant professors from [the] University shows them without hijab which would indicate that faculty members have no problem when not covering their hair.

    [1] [Source deleted].

42. I appreciate many women on campus would cover their hair however the available country information indicates that Jordan is a country of religious tolerance and has promoted itself as such.[2]  Though she claimed that there had been a killing at the university I do not accept that this occurred as she was unable to provide country information to support such a claim even though she was asked to do so.  I have already noted the credibility issues with respect to the applicant’s religious identity claim, and her description of what she claimed occurred to her at the university is inconsistent with existing country information.   

    [2] Report of the Special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner Bielefeldt, Mission to Jordan, 27 January 2014.

43. I also do not accept that she had been harassed or the victim of an attempted kidnapping by a Muslim called [Mr A].  To begin with it appears to lack credibility that a random person would begin to follow her and want to marry him even though she had never met him previously and told him that she didn’t wish to marry him because she was Christian. 

44. Her actions following her alleged attempted kidnapping and move out of their own house and into her [relative]’s, is also inconsistent with the fear she claimed.  Despite claiming to have been traumatised by the attempted kidnapping she remained in Jordan for another two months after having been granted her visa to Australia and didn’t apply for protection in Australia until five months after she arrived.

45. It is reasonable to believe that if the events occurred as she described that she would have been eager both to leave Jordan as quickly as possible and to apply for protection once she was in Australia.  I don’t accept that the delay in leaving Jordan was because of the need to organise tickets given this appears to have been an extraordinarily long time to organise a single ticket to Australia.  I also do not accept that her delay in applying for protection in Australia was because she didn’t know the process and needed to study what to do.  She has a sister living in Australia who could have assisted by conducting inquiries in advance of her sister arriving or after she arrived.  I do not accept that her sister’s alleged simplicity precluded this as she only needed to ask a migration agent or the Department and she would have been able to find out what was needed.

46. As the applicant hasn’t raised any other claims to fear persecution and, having had regard to all the evidence, and the applicant’s claims both singularly and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for any Convention reason either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

    Complementary Protection

47. Although I have disregarded the applicant’s baptism and marriage certificates for the purposes of the applicant’s refugee claims, I have had regard to them in assessing her claims relating to s.36(2)(aa).  Because I do not accept that the applicant has any genuine interest in the Baptist faith or has genuinely converted to the Baptist faith, has or would seek to evangelise in Jordan, or that anyone in Jordan has been told or was aware, or is likely to become aware that she has become a Baptist, or that she was ever harassed or penalised for not wearing a veilo or that she was followed, harassed and was the victim of an attempted kidnapping, I am not satisfied that there are any substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm.

1. As a consequence I also do not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Jordan, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm on the basis of these claims as outlined in the complementary protection criterion in s.36(2)(aa).        

   CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS

2. 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 the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).

3. 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).

4. 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

5. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

   Rodger Shanahan
   Member

   
   

   ATTACHMENT A – RELEVANT LAW

   1. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Part 866 of 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.

   2.        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).

   3.        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’).

   4.        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 – to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.