1418190 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 3860

1418190 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 3860 (12 May 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1418190

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Jordan

MEMBER:Rodger Shanahan

DATE:12 May 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 12 May 2016 at 8:10am

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] July 2013 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] November 2014.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 26 April 2016 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 his registered migration agent.

   CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   Protection Visa Application

5. The applicant claimed that he was of Palestinian background and not treated as a full Jordanian citizen and had been discriminated against his whole life.  He had been beaten and attacked and threatened to be killed when he was at school.  He opened a [business] in April 2012 and the government inspector regularly came and fined him for no reason other than he was Palestinian and could not report the inspector to authorities.  He realised he could not operate the business and sold it.

6. He was born in [Country 1] and because of his [Country 1] and Palestinian background he would be increasingly targeted and discriminated against as the [Country 1] conflict worsened.  He applied to work in the Jordanian military as [occupation] but was refused because of his Palestinian background.  He feared that his passport could be cancelled at any minute.  He cannot work in any government building or department because he was Palestinian, access health services as quickly as a Jordanian and cannot access the government private health system.

   Tribunal Hearing

7. The applicant claimed that if he returned to Jordan he would be persecuted because he was originally Palestinian.  He had arrived in Jordan when he was [age] years old.  He claimed that the Jordanian authorities would detain him indefinitely in Jordan on return because he had employed a [Country 1] national from [City 1] and the intelligence had discovered this person had problems and they wanted to question the applicant regarding the relationship he had with the [Country 1 national] from [City 1].

8. As he was Palestinian born in [Country 1] he was discriminated when he went to any government department.  Asked to be more specific about what serious harm he would suffer because he was a [Country 1]-born Palestinian, he claimed that because his father was a [Group 1 member] any time he had to register a child he had to go to the Intelligence Department (GID) before he could register the child.  He needed to get a permit to open his [business] and the authorities made his life difficult before he could do it and they continued to harass him even after he opened the [business].

9. When he was [age] or [age] a group of Jordanian nationals assaulted him, and when he wanted to lodge a police complaint his parents said he shouldn’t worry.  Asked if any incident of a similar nature had occurred in the last 20 years he claimed whenever he had faced a situation since he had to back down because he was Palestinian.

10. When he reported to the GID after the birth of a child he was questioned about everything.  He had arrived in Jordan around 1987 and was granted Jordanian citizenship when he was over [age], temporary to begin with. Asked when he became a Jordanian citizen he wasn’t sure.  Asked approximately when, he claimed it was when he was around [age] (he had been born around [year]).  He was asked to provide the Tribunal post-hearing with a breakdown of the timeline at which his citizenship was changed to eventually become Jordanian.  Since 1987 he had returned to [Country 1] several times on holidays and had last been there more than 10 years ago, around 12 or 13 years ago.

11. He was told to report to GID before he could register his child’s birth by the civil status registry after they saw his name and that of his father.  At the GID he was asked what he was doing, what he wanted to do, told him to behave himself and not become like his father.  He wasn’t detained.  His children’s birth was then registered after he received the GID clearance.  This had occurred for each of his five children.  The same procedure occurred when he wanted to register his marriage.

12. He claimed this affected him badly psychologically.  Asked what psychological treatment he was undergoing as a result, he claimed he had inherited this stress because of the situation with his father.  He was not currently undergoing any official mental health treatment; he took some tablets but never consulted a psychiatrist.  All of his children were registered and Jordanian citizens.  His wife was also a Jordanian citizen of Palestinian background.

13. Because of his status, he would always back off and would let go of his rights.  Asked to be specific about what rights he had let go of so the Tribunal could determine the likelihood of serious harm, he claimed that he was forced to go to GID before he could register his children, which other people didn’t have to do.  He had also had difficulties to go through to open his [business] which others also didn’t have to go through.

14. He claimed that he was [occupation] and had applied for a job he had seen in the paper to be [occupation] for the army, which was a government job.  He had seven years’ experience and went for the interview and was told later that a Jordanian national from the south who was less experienced than him who was given the job.  He rang up and was told that he couldn’t be given the job.  Asked how he knew all of this, he claimed that this person lived in the same area he did and learnt about the job through the paper also.  This had a bad impact on him.

15. Asked about the GID interest in him, he claimed that they weren’t interested in him, but because he had been born in [Country 1] and his father’s status he would have problems.  Asked about the [Country 1] employee claim, he claimed that he employed the [Country 1 national] and the preventive security were going around checking the ID of foreign workers at every [business].  They found the [Country 1 national] who told them the applicant was his employer.  He was told the [Country 1 national] couldn’t work there, so he dismissed him.

16. Asked why he couldn’t work there, he claimed the security service didn’t tell him to dismiss the person but he decided to dismiss him once the security people had questioned the [Country 1] employee.  The [Country 1 national] was employed because he had come around looking for work.  The applicant was asked if the [Country 1 national] had a work permit and the applicant said he didn’t ask him about a permit but expected he was allowed.

17. It was put to him that the issue of [Country 1 nationals] working in Jordan [was] a big issue in Jordan so employers would be aware of the need to establish the status of their workers so asking whether they had a permit would be the first question employers of [Country 1 national] would ask.  He claimed there were two types of [Country 1 nationals], those in [a certain location] and those in Amman, the latter of whom were allowed to work. 

18. The applicant was advised that all [Country 1 nationals]  were required to have work permits in order to work legally and that checks on the legality of workers was done by the Labour Ministry on occasion.  These work permits could be expensive to obtain.  He was asked again what he had done to establish whether the [Country 1 employee] had a work permit and he claimed that this was correct but they only became serious about this after 2013 – before this (in 2012) there weren’t many [Country 1 nationals] in Amman and there could be [Country 1 nationals] working.

19. He was asked again if he had checked whether the [Country 1 employee] had a work permit.  He claimed the [Country 1 employee] had entered [Country 1] legally and was allowed to work.  He was asked a third time and said he had not seen a permit but was told by him that he could work.  He was asked a fourth time if he had asked to see a permit and said he had not asked to see a permit.  He was asked why, as an employer, he had not asked to see whether the person had a work permit so he could assure himself the person would be employed legally.

20. He claimed that he had an [another] national previously and they had a work permit but in 2012 [Country 1 nationals] could come to Jordan and work without a permit.  He was asked if he could provide country information to support this claim given the Tribunal’s information indicated that all [Country 1 nationals] had always required a work or residency permit to work in Jordan.  He claimed that he would do this.

21. After he had dismissed the [Country 1 employee] he was questioned by the security services about his relationship between the [Country 1 employee] from [City 1] and the applicant.  He was questioned four to five times and told him to report to their office six or seven times.  He had never seen the [Country 1 employee] since.  Asked to confirm how many times he reported, he claimed he went there for five to seven times.  He would spend two to three hours but on one occasion they kept him for three days.  Over this period he was asked about his relationship between himself and the [Country 1 employee] was, and whether he was a supporter of the [Country 1] regime or [organisation].

22. He was asked if people who employed [Country 1 nationals] were routinely taken in by GID and he claimed that not everyone was, as they were selective. He had been told by his [sibling] that someone employing [Country 1 nationals] had been taken away and not heard of since.  He was asked if he had any independent country information that would indicate employees of [Country 1] were taken away by GID for questioning.  He claimed that this wasn’t widespread and only related to people employing [Country 1nationals] with a profile.

23. He was asked if his house had been searched and whether his phone had been taken from him.  He claimed his phone was taken but his house wasn’t searched.  He was asked and said he hadn’t been in any contact with [Country 1] opposition groups.  It was put to him that he hadn’t lived in [Country 1] since he was [age], he had no contact with [Country 1] elements, no history of political activity in Jordan, GID had access to his phone and had not indicated there were any issues with the information it contained and they hadn’t found it necessary to search his house.  His GID reporting regime and three days’ detention seemed completely inconsistent with his profile and lack of any political activity or [Country 1] contacts.  Given there were [number] [Country 1 nationals] in Jordan GID would have had enough to worry about.   

24. He claimed that because he had been born in [Country 1] and his father’s [role] and his employment of the [Country 1 national] from [City 1] they would have suspected him of something. He referred to a terrorist incident in [a town] recently and was asked what its relevance was to his case.  He claimed he left Jordan because he feared for his safety.  Because of this and other incidents he could be exposed to these problems.

25. It was put to him that he hadn’t mentioned his father’s role in [Group 1] previously but claimed that he had.  He was asked if he had mentioned his three days detention and questioning by GID previously and said that he hadn’t because he had a visa for a month and by the time he got a translator he didn’t have time to recall every piece of information.  He was asked why he forgot to mention his reporting regime and detention for three days. He claimed that he didn’t know English and knew no one and didn’t know anyone in [City 2 Australia].

26. Asked why he went to [City 2] he claimed that he knew someone from Jordan living in [City 2]. It was put to him that he knew someone in [City 2] and then claimed he didn’t know him but had a phone number from someone in Jordan who knew him.  He was asked why he didn’t go to [city] or [city] like most people and he claimed that he chose to go to [City 2] because there was someone he could talk to, although he didn’t consider this person in [City 2] a friend.

27. Asked if he owned his home in Jordan he claimed that he did but didn’t own any other property. He was asked how he could own property as a Palestinian, and he claimed he worked hard and bought it.  He was also free to buy other investment properties but they would face difficulties as a Palestinian.  He had no problems in getting his passport, but had to go to GID first.  He didn’t have healthcare because he didn’t work in the government because he was Palestinian.

28. Country information was put to him that Jordanian Palestinians were allowed the same access to healthcare as other Jordanians and he was asked why he was treated differently.  He claimed that if he wanted health service he had to pay whereas Jordanians only had to pay the gap.  He was asked if his health care plan reflected that he was in the private sector, rather than the public sector and he agreed that the health care plan was based on the sector one worked in rather than if they were Palestinian or not.  Palestinians working in the government were covered but he claimed this applied only to the five per cent who were government employees 20 years ago but now Palestinians weren’t allowed to work in the government.

29. He claimed his [sibling] had come to visit him from Jordan and told him that after the applicant left Jordan, some people from GID came and asked about the applicant. [His sibling] had told him that the situation was very difficult and the applicant would face more problems if he returned.

30. It was put to him that the submission that arrived today claimed that he was suffering from ongoing PTSD and he agreed that he did.  He was asked what diagnosis this claim was based on, and he claimed he was away from his family and was fearful of being returned to Jordan and had developed [a medical condition].  It was put to him that a PTSD diagnosis would be required from a doctor and he was asked if he had such a diagnosis.  He claimed he was taking medicine, and was asked if he had been examined by a doctor and diagnosed with PTSD.  He again said he was taking tablets for [a medical condition]. 

31. He was again asked the question and asked if he understood the term; the interpreter was asked if there was an Arabic term for PTSD and he said there was.  He claimed that this was because he was away from his family and had an [injury].  The applicant’s agent then said she had used the term based on her understanding and experience of the illness.  She was asked if she had a medical degree and was advised that the Tribunal was trying to determine the medical basis for this claim.  She was given the opportunity to provide a medical diagnosis to support the claim that she had made on behalf of the applicant.

32. He was advised about s 424AA and it was put to him that during his DIBP interview he was asked why he came to [City 2] and told them that he had a friend in [City 2] which was different to what he had told the Tribunal and could impact on the view of his credibility.  He claimed that he had claimed the person in [City 2] used to work with the applicant in Jordan 12 years ago and had to come to Australia but he hadn’t spoken with him since.  He mentioned to another friend who they used to work with and he gave the applicant this person’s phone details. The person wasn’t a friend in the proper sense – he had given him some assistance in the beginning but not since.

33. It was also put to him that in his [temporary] visa application in Jordan he had claimed he had a good account balance and that he had apartments for rent.  He had claimed when asked today that he only had his own home and didn’t have any property to rent.  This again may raise questions about the applicant’s credibility. He claimed that his wife had the properties under her name.  Asked why he had not mentioned this before, and he claimed that he answered the question as it was asked.

34. He was asked if he had renewed his passport and said he hadn’t.  He asked the question be asked again and it was.  He agreed he had renewed it at the Jordanian embassy in [City 2].  There was no problem in getting the passport renewed but it took about two months to extend it.  This occurred last September or October.  Asked why he got it renewed, he claimed that he was under stress.  He was asked why, if he thought GID was after him but didn’t know exactly where he was, he would let them know by renewing his passport.

35. He claimed GID knew where he was.  No one at the embassy asked him any questions because he left quickly from the embassy.  Someone works for the embassy who is a client of the applicant’s. This person managed to get it renewed because he works in the department where renewals are done. Asked if he actually went to the embassy, he claimed he went and gave it to his customer and he brought it back once it was renewed.    

36. He was not told that there was any interest in him by the person and he didn’t raise any queries in this regard with him.  It was put to him that he had been employed fully in Jordan, owns a house and his wife has investment properties, he is a Jordanian citizen, travels freely and has had his passport renewed without problem.  He was asked given these circumstances what serious harm he faced in Jordan if he were to return.  He repeated his claims and claimed the [Country 1] conflict had further complicated matters and he would be asked where he had been and what he was doing for three years.

37. It was put to him that the Jordanians knew where he was and it could be assumed he was trying to earn money in a stronger economy. There were [number] [Country 1 nationals] in Jordan to worry about and he had no profile that would make him of concern.  He claimed there were more [Country 1 nationals] outside the [location] as these were just the ones inside the [location].  Any Jordanian traveling to any European country would be of interest to the security authorities.  The fact that they had gone to his [sibling] to ask about him showed he was of interest.

38. His [sibling] wasn’t of interest to the Jordanian authorities and [he/she] said [he/she] wasn’t.  Asked why [he/she] wasn’t and he said [he/she] was [age] and minded [his/her] own business.  It was put to him that the applicant claimed GID was interested in him because his father was a [member of Group 1] but this also applied to his [sibling], and yet he claimed his [sibling] wasn’t of interest.  He claimed he was special because he was born in [Country 1], as well as the fact that he employed the [Country 1] man.

39. Asked if he had been questioned by Australian security authorities he claimed he hadn’t been.  He was asked why, if the Jordanian authorities were concerned about his links with [Country 1 nationals], that they hadn’t passed on this information to Australian authorities.  There was an extradition treaty with Jordan and if he was of security interest to the Jordanian authorities he could have been requested to be returned to Jordan.  There appeared to be no interest in him from anyone.

40. He claimed Jordan was different to Australia as there [were terrorist groups] in [Country 1] and [country] so GID was more sensitive there than here.  It was put that if he was of security interests to GID then he could have been requested to be returned given the Jordanian authorities knew exactly where he was and had renewed his passport yet there was no interest in him in Australia despite the relations between the countries.

1. He claimed there were similar cases as his, people had disappeared and no one had heard from them.  He wouldn’t have stayed here for three years if he wasn’t wanted in Jordan.  He wasn’t here for economic reasons and problems would be passed onto his family.  Asked if there had been any pressure placed on his family since he had been in Australia, he said there hadn’t as he only had small children.  

2. He was asked to provide a timeline of his citizenship in Jordan, deeds of his wife’s properties and a medical diagnosis of his PTSD.  It was put to him that he had no record of mental health treatment in the three years he had been here, and had made no claim in this respect until just a few hours before the hearing commenced.  This raised questions as to whether any such condition existed.  There was no diagnosis and the Tribunal had to be satisfied that, even if he had PTSD, there had to be a link between this and his inconsistencies.  The Tribunal would proceed with writing its finding and the applicant could provide supporting medical evidence if they wished, but the finding would not be held up simply for the medical report given he had had a long time to provide any such evidence prior to the hearing.  This claim regarding PTSD appeared secondary to concerns regarding the inconsistencies apparent in his evidence.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

3. The applicant arrived in Australia on a [temporary] visa [in] June 2013 and applied for protection [in] July 2013.  The Tribunal sighted his Jordanian passport as proof of his identity and his claim will be assessed accordingly.

4. The applicant is a [age] year old married male from Amman in Jordan.  He claimed that if he returned to Jordan he would be persecuted because he was originally Palestinian, and would be detained indefinitely in Jordan because he had employed a [Country 1 national] in his [business] who was of interest to the Jordanian authorities.  He also feared having his passport cancelled, couldn’t work in any government agency or equally access the Jordanian health system.  He also claimed he was of interest because he was born in [Country 1] and his father was a former [Group 1 member].

5. 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.

6. I found the applicant’s evidence regarding his claims to lack credibility.  For reasons set out below I did not find the applicant to be an entirely reliable, credible or truthful witness, and find that he fabricated much of his claim in order to be granted a protection visa.

   GID interest in applicant

7. I do not accept that he was made to report to the GID before he could register the birth of each child and his marriage.  There is no independent country information that would indicate this requirement exists for Jordanian citizens of Palestinian descent or born in [Country 1].  There appeared nothing in the questions they asked or advice they gave that could not have been done at any time other than the registration process, and all registrations were duly carried out.

8. I do not accept that he was a special case because his father was a former [Group 1 member].  He never mentioned this in his protection visa application nor is there any mention of this in the applicant’s pre-hearing submission.  I also note that he claimed the authorities had no interest in his [sibling], which supports the Tribunal’s finding that his father was never a member of [Group 1].

9. I do not accept that the applicant employed a [Country 1 national] from [City 1] who was of security concern to GID and that the applicant is wanted by GID as a result.  Whilst it is plausible that the applicant hired a [Country 1] worker, his evasiveness in answering questions regarding whether the [Country 1] worker had a work permit leads me to find that he employed the [Country 1 national] illegally.  Country information indicates that many [Country 1 nationals] take black market jobs for low wages [in] Jordanian towns and cities.[1]

   [1] [Information deleted].

10. I do not accept that the applicant failed to check whether the [Country 1 national] had a work permit because [Country 1 nationals] who entered in 2012 could work without permits.  He was asked to provide evidence post-submission to support this claim but failed to do so.  His claim that the [Country 1 national] was of security concern to GID rests entirely on the applicant’s oral evidence, and I have found that he lacks credibility as a witness.

11. The authorities also showed no interest in him while he was in Jordan, nor was there any reason for them to have had any.  GID allegedly had possession of his mobile phone for several days which it is reasonable to believe they would have checked his incoming and outgoing calls and messages against any numbers that they had interest in.  The fact that his house has never been searched would also indicate that GID did not think it necessary to find any information about his activities.  He claimed that he had not had any contact with any [Country 1] opposition groups and he had left [Country 1] when he was [age] and hadn’t been back for 12 or 13 years. 

12. There are approximately [number] [Country 1 nationals] currently [residing] in Jordan[2] and it is reasonable to believe that in order to provide the necessary security for Jordan, GID would have to prioritise their resources when examining any nefarious links between the two countries.  As stated above, the applicant has quite remote personal links with [Country 1], hadn’t been there for over a decade and there is no indication that he maintained contact with any opposition groups in [Country 1] or that GID would have thought that this was the case.  As a consequence I do not accept that the applicant ever had to report to GID or was ever detained by them.

    [2] [Information deleted].

13. The complete lack of interest in the applicant since he has been in Australia is further evidence that he is of no interest to the Jordanian authorities.  He has been able to renew his passport since he has been in Australia through the Jordanian embassy in [City 2] without difficulty.  It is reasonable to believe that if the applicant is wanted by the Jordanian authorities for his links to a [Country 1 national] from [City 1] of security concern to them, then they would not have allowed him to renew his travel document.

14. Given there is an extradition treaty between Jordan and Australia in place since 2002[3], if the Jordanian authorities were interested in the applicant it is reasonable to believe that they would not have renewed his passport to ensure that he could not travel to a non-extradition treaty country.  It is also reasonable to believe that if they were interested in the applicant GID could have travelled to Australia to ask the applicant questions, or sought Australian security agencies’ help in so doing, given there is good bilateral cooperation between the two countries, particularly in the Counter-Terrorism field.[4]  Given the lack of interest in the applicant since he has been in Australia I also do not accept that the Jordanian authorities have asked the applicant’s [sibling] as to his whereabouts.  

    Palestinian issues

    [3] Stephen Lawrence ‘Recent changes to extradition law threaten fundamental human rights’, Alternative Law Journal, vol 29, iss 2, p 93

    [4] >

    I do not accept that the applicant has been discriminated against his entire life.  While I am satisfied that the applicant is of Palestinian ethnicity and born in [Country 1], I note that up to 70 per cent[5] of Jordan’s population is of Palestinian descent.  There is no country information that supports a claim that simply being of Palestinian descent in Jordan makes one persecuted.

    [5] DFAT Thematic report – Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon, 2 March 2015, p 6.

15. Indeed, the applicant’s individual circumstances would indicate that he is treated as a normal Jordanian citizen, evidence in part by the fact that he has been granted full Jordanian citizenship. I do not accept that the applicant was forced to pay for health services or could not access them as quickly as non-Palestinians.  Country information indicates that there is no official discrimination in relation to health care for Palestinians.[6]  I also note that the applicant when pressed, admitted that the difference in health care payments he was referring to was related to the fact he was employed in the private, as opposed to the public sector.

    [6] Ibid, p 11.

16. I also do not accept that the applicant cannot work in any government department or building because he was Palestinian.  Country information[7] indicates that there are no legislative restrictions against Palestinian Jordanians joining the public service, and many do.  I do not accept the applicant was prevented from getting a job as a military [occupation] because he was Palestinian.  There are a range of reasons why someone may not get a job in a competitive economic environment like Jordan, and the account relies solely on the applicant’s oral testimony which I have found to lack credibility.

    [7] Ibid

17. I also do not accept that the applicant’s passport could be cancelled at any minute.  Country information[8] indicates that several thousand Palestinian Jordanians have had their citizenship stripped, however all those who did had family roots in the West Bank.  The process was reportedly stopped in 2011.  The applicant has not indicated that he has any family roots in the West Bank and he had his passport renewed by the Jordanian embassy in [City 2] which would indicate that he is not at risk of his citizenship being revoked or having his passport cancelled.

    [8] Ibid, p 10.

18. I have taken into account the country information provided pre-hearing but lend it little weight. It contained articles from the Gatestone Institute, which has come under criticism[9] for its subjective, far-right views and one from Human Rights Watch about Palestinians from [Country 1] being turned away from Jordan. The circumstances described in this do not apply to the applicant, who has been a Jordanian citizen for many years.  Nor does it do anything to support the applicant’s claim regarding him being under GID suspicion simply for employing a [Country 1 national], given a recent International Labour Organisation (ILO) study found that 99 per cent of [Country 1 nationals] work outside Jordan’s labour regulations.[10]

    Other Issues

    [9] deleted].

19. Because I have found that the applicant lacks credibility, I also do not accept that the applicant was assaulted by a group of Jordanian nationals when he was [age] or [age] and his parents told him not to report it, or that he backed down in any subsequent confrontation because he was Palestinian.  Such claims rely solely on the applicant’s oral testimony, which I have found not to be truthful.

20. For the same reason I do not accept that he faced more difficulty in opening his [business] than non-Palestinian Jordanians, or that he was inspected more regularly than other non-Palestinians.  All of these claims rely on the applicant’s oral evidence, which I have found to lack credibility.

21. I also do not accept that the applicant could have a political opinion attributed to him (such as being a member of [a] terrorist group) thereby justifying his killing, or that an extended period of time overseas would cause him to be regarded with suspicion. These claims were made in a pre-hearing submission without any supporting independent country information, were not made by the applicant during the hearing, nor is the Tribunal aware of any independent country information that would support such claims.

    PTSD Claim

22. Although the PTSD claim itself does not influence my findings given I have found the applicant to have largely fabricated his claim, for completeness’ sake I will address the claim made by the applicant’s adviser in her pre-hearing submission that the applicant’s stress ‘was compounded by his ongoing PTSD..’.  The applicant was asked if he had seen any mental health specialist in his time in Australia he claimed that he hadn’t.  When the adviser was asked on what basis she made the claim about the applicant’s PTSD, she claimed she made it based on her understanding and experience of the illness.  She agreed that she had no medical qualifications.

23. Subsequent to the hearing the adviser provided copies of letters from a doctor (undated) [that] stated the applicant had ‘..mentioned that he has possibly been related with post-traumatic stress..but would need to be assessed adequately by a specialist in mental health.’  A second letter from another GP dated [in] April 2016 claimed that he ‘had long-standing mental illness’ and that his time in Australia had ‘resulted in recurrence of his depression and PTSD.’  I note that this doctor stated the applicant could go back to full-time employment once his ‘visa problem’ had finished.

24. The second doctor was asked to provide further information as to when this diagnosis was made and what mental health treatment he had prescribed for the applicant.  In a letter dated [in] May 2016 the GP claimed he thought the applicant avoided having formal mental health treatment because of the cost.  The doctor had given the applicant a referral to a psychologist, although this appears to have been done following the hearing and there is no indication that he referred the applicant pre-hearing. 

25. Indeed, the doctor noted in his  [May] 2016 letter that ‘..recently I asked him to see me as I noticed that he needs professional help’.  He has not outlined what he meant by ‘recently’, however the absence of any record of a referral to a mental health specialist prior to the hearing would indicate that the doctor did not believe that the applicant needed mental health treatment from a professional prior to the basis of the PTSD claim being questioned by the Tribunal.

26. The doctor also claimed that the applicant may need to see an Arabic-speaking psychiatrist in the future but the GP would be primarily treating the applicant as there were none in [City 2].  The fact that the applicant has not been referred to an Arabic-speaking psychiatrist in [another city] (which he could readily access cheaply by bus if required) and the absence of any referrals to mental health specialists in the three years prior to the hearing would further indicate that there has been little or no concern about the applicant’s mental health prior to the hearing. 

27. I am satisfied that the adviser’s claim regarding the applicant’s PTSD was made without the support of any medical evidence at the time she made it, and the applicant himself has not seen any mental health specialist since he has been in Australia.  I lend little weight on the doctor’s letters given they appear to have been based on the applicant claiming to have PTSD, there is no indication that this diagnosis was made prior to the hearing, and no evidence has been offered that either of them referred him to any mental health professional until after the hearing was conducted and concerns about the basis of a PTSD diagnosis made by the adviser was raised.

28. 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.

    Complementary Protection

29. Because I do not accept that the applicant has or will suffer discrimination by being given different access to healthcare, denied employment in the public sector, that he will lose his citizenship, that he employed a [Country 1national] of security interest to the GID or that he has or will himself be of any security interest to the GID, I am not satisfied that there are any substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of significant harm on the basis of these claims as outlined in the complementary protection criterion in s.36(2)(aa).

30. Therefore, I 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 he will suffer significant harm.

    CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS

31. 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).

32. 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).

33. 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

34. 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.

    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.