1503593 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 4750

1503593 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4750 (24 November 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1503593

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Jordan

MEMBER:Robert Titterton

DATE:24 November 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 24 November 2016 at 10:33am

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] June 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] March 2015.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 8 August 2016 to give evidence and present arguments.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

1. 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.

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. 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.

4. 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’).

5. 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.

6. The issue in this case is whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of serious harm amounting to persecution for reasons of a Convention ground, or whether there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia she will suffer significant harm.

APPLICANT’S EVIDNCE

1. The information before the Tribunal included the following.

2. First, the applicant’s application dated [in] June 2014. This application states that the applicant was born in [Country 1], on [date]. He is therefore [age] years old. He speaks reads and writes Arabic and English. His religion is Muslim. He was married [in] July 2007. He has [specified children and birth years]. He lived in [Country 2] from [specified year] to [year], and in the [Country 1] from [specified year] to [year]. In [two specified years], he made brief trips respectively to [Country 3] and [Country 4].

3. He provides the following information to the questions asked in his application form:

   Why did you leave [Jordan]?

   Because of the injustice and the imprisonment time I have done, repeated physical abuse by secret service (Mukhabarat). Discrimination in different forms combined with other factors; a victim of potential injustice as I’m not guilty of a common law offence inside Jordan; being persecuted because of my suspected of opposing the government even though I’m not politically active. General atmosphere of insecurity from family and government

   Have you experienced harm in that country?

   I was under house arrest the time I came back from [Country 2]. I was under city limits arrest. I was tortured many times for no reason. Also I was physically abused a few times, treated like an animal. I was a victim because of my Palestinian background, punished for something I never committed. I was slapped, beaten by belts, sticks. I was ordered to take all my clothes off by Jordanian Secret Service, and harmed by some of the family members because of my offence in [Country 2]

   What you fear may happen to you if you go back to that country?

   To be killed by the security forces or detained unfairly for no reason, if a reason appear will be fabricated by the law forces

   Who do you think may harm/mistreat you if you go back?

   General intelligence Department, family and law forces which result to no access while detained to a lawyer or my wife and kids.

   Why do you think this will happen to you if you go back?

   Continuous ill-treatment by law enforcement done many times. Torture and other cruel thing repeatedly done by them every time I arrived to town. Numbers of unlawful detained by them for no reason. Fabricated charges against because of [my] Palestinian [symbol accessory] and the history of my deportation.

   Do you think the authorities of that country can and will protect you if you go back.

   No. Because of the limitation on my rights and citizens to speak freely about a government, as I said . . Many times which caused me few weeks in jail, torture, arbitrary arrest and denial of due process through administrative detention centre… .

4. Secondly, forming part of the application was an article Waiting for the Knock on the Door. This article was published in [a] newspaper and refers to the applicant being “picked up” by [Country 2] immigration agents on [date]. Also included as part of the application were various references from the applicant’s employers in [Country 1].

5. Thirdly, there are two reports in respect of the applicant produced by [Agency 1]. The first report was a report of [Mr A], a [professional]. He states that he conducted an assessment of the applicant [in] August 2014. He states that the applicant reported a large range of severe symptoms associated with [medical condition], including but not limited to [long list of symptoms]. [Mr A] states that the applicant’s reported [history], including imprisonment and torture in Jordan, was consistent with a diagnosis of [condition].

6. The second [Agency 1] report is a report of [Psychologist A] dated [in] March 2015. In summary, [Psychologist A] noticed that in January and February 2015, the applicant had completed a number of tests which assesses symptoms for [the condition]. She says that the applicant met the diagnostic criteria for that condition. She says that the [symptoms] described by the applicant aligns with the results of his psychometric assessments and are congruent with his experiences as described. She says that someone who had a well-established professional and personal life in [Country 2], the applicant experienced a significant dramatic grief and loss as his identity, belongings, career and relationships have all been extinguished. She says that he will require ongoing assessment monitoring and support for an extended period.

7. The applicant appeared at the hearing and gave oral evidence. At the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal indicated that it had listened to the applicant’s interview with the delegate and stated that it understood that the applicant claimed that the main reason why he feared persecution was because he fell into a class of persons (particular social group) that had been deported from [Country 2] to Jordan, and that a small part of his fear was because of his Palestinian background, in particular [his Palestinian symbol accessory]. The applicant told the Tribunal he had been mocked because of [this accessory].

8. The applicant confirmed at the hearing that the main reason he feared persecution in Jordan was because of his deportation from [Country 2]. The Tribunal asked him if he also wished to claim that he would be persecuted on account of his Palestinian background. He said “not really”. When asked, the applicant said he had no other basis on which he feared serious or significant harm if he returned to Jordan. This fear was based on his treatment at the hands of the Jordanian authorities when he was forcibly returned to Jordan from [Country 2] [in year].

9. For the avoidance of doubt, and as a matter of fairness to the applicant, The Tribunal indicated that it would consider this fear of persecution on account of [his] Palestinian [symbol accessory] cumulatively with his other claim.

10. At the hearing the applicant confirmed his date of birth set out in his application, together with the date of his marriage. He confirmed that he has [number] children, [ages specified]. They currently live in Amann, Jordan with their mother, the applicant’s wife. The applicant was educated to [specified] level in Jordan. Almost immediately after finishing [this level] he went to [Country 2] and there completed a degree in [subject] at [an education provider], in [a city in Country 2]. He then worked in [Country 2] in sales.

11. The applicant agreed that in [Country 2] he was charged with [a criminal charge]. He said that several other charges being dropped, in exchange to the applicant pleading guilty to [one charge]. The applicant explained that on [date] there was a “roundup” by [Country 2] authorities of various Arabs (families, mothers and boys) in [his region of Country 2], including the applicant. When he was arrested, the authorities [charged] him with [a charge]. The applicant said he purchased [an item] from a flea market, and that at the time it was legal to possess it. He said that half of the group who were arrested were later freed, but not the applicant. Charged with [one charge], he was also charged with [other] offences, which charges were subsequently dropped. The applicant was given the opportunity voluntarily to return to Jordan. He refused this invitation, as he had a fiancée in [Country 2] at the time. He was held on remand, but eventually pleaded guilty and [in year] he was returned to Jordan accompanied by [Country 2 officials].

12. The applicant said that, on the very day he returned to Jordan, namely [date], he was handed over to the Jordanian intelligence (GID). He was handcuffed, held for two or three hours, and questioned about the reasons for his deportation. He said that one of the Jordanian officers said that he had been in “Heaven, and now the applicant would be “in Hell”. The officers retained his (expired) passport, released him and told him to report to Jordanian border protection the following day. When he reported he was again handcuffed, taken to the GID he was strip-searched and mocked by those officers because of [his] Jordanian [symbol accessory]. He said this was not really a big issue. He said that the officers were “mucking around”.  Again, he was told that he would not be living in the “Heaven” of [Country 2], but rather in the “Hell” of Jordan. He was detained for almost two weeks. He was given no reason for his detention, he was not charged with any offence. He was allowed to leave after these two weeks, when he was placed under “city arrest”. He was required to report to police at 6PM every day and sign a register. He had to do this for 30 days. After that, he started looking for an exit to leave Jordan. Having renewed his passport, [in] 2007, the applicant secured employment in the [Country 1]. He stayed there until [year], at which point he was laid off from his employment, and return to Jordan. The applicant agreed that during this period he returned to Jordan on many occasions including to marry his wife in July 2007, and to visit his parents and other family.

13. Upon his return to Jordan in [year], he commenced employment, but applied for a [temporary] visa to Australia. He arrived in Australia [in] April 2014, and applied for a protection visa [in] June 2014. He said that that had been his plan, that is to apply for protection once he arrived in Australia. He volunteered to the Tribunal that he lied on his [temporary] visa application about his criminal offence (by not disclosing it). He said that he knows that this was wrong, and that he had no other choice but to leave Jordan.

14. The Tribunal asked him to explain why this was the case. He said he could not take it, and could not stay in Jordan. He said that for someone to be detained every time he flew in and out of Jordan and to be abused physically and emotionally, he said he just could not do it anymore. The Tribunal asked him if there was some particular event that caused him to get to this stage. He said it was when his [child] asked why he had a black eye. The Tribunal asked him when this occurred, but he could not remember, but thought it was the January before he came to Australia, that is January 2014. He said that every time he returned to Jordan his passport would be held, and he would be told to return to collect it the following day. He says that on one occasion he told the officers that he did not like Jordan anymore, whereupon he was beaten. He said that this occurred every time he returned to Jordan he had to report to the GID. He said that at one point he told the GID that he wished he had remained in [Country 2]. He said that on one occasion he had to allow his hand to be used as an ashtray.

15. The Tribunal asked the applicant about any problems he had in the 2 ½ month period when he first returned to Jordan, before finding employment in [Country 1]. The applicant said that he had to sign the register in the 30 day period referred to above, he would sometimes be placed in a cell while officers changed shift, while the right officer was found to approve the applicant’s paperwork.  He agreed that this could be described as low-level harassment. He also said that he been “slapped around” on many occasions, and that a dog would be treated better.

16. The Tribunal asked the applicant about any problems he had in the approximately 8 to 9 month period when he returned to Jordan, having lost his job in the [Country 1]. The applicant said that in this period, one of his bosses asked him to travel to [Country 4] for work, to broker a deal. When he returned, as usual he had to collect his passport the day after his return from the GID. When he walked in, he was strip-searched, and jokes were made again about [his symbol accessory]. The officer said that the applicant’s name was “criminal” in Jordan because he had been convicted of [two charges]. The applicant said that following a harsh conversation with him, he was then slapped by other officers. Every time he said he did not deserve the treatment, the officers started “mocking” him by saying that he no longer lived in [Country 2], that he now lived in Jordan. The applicant said that at one point he was so numb, that he didn’t want to go on with his life in that way.

17. The applicant said it took about one month to obtain his [temporary] visa.

18. The applicant explained to the Tribunal that he had been a blood/plasma donor since [year]. One day, after donating plasma, he had to attend the GID. He had a plaster on his arm which, when seen by the officer, caused the officer to ask the applicant whether he was still doing drugs. He was slapped again and told to tell the truth.

19. The Tribunal asked the applicant to explain or describe the worst physical harm he had suffered at the hands of Jordanian authorities. The applicant said that it was the time he was sexually abused. He said this occurred in 2012, when he returned for [a family] funeral. He had had to hand in his passport as usual when he returned, but he could not go back to collect it the following day as that was the day of [the] funeral. So he returned the day after that. He got into trouble for not returning the previous day. He was strip-searched, told to bend over, and [details of assault]. When the applicant protested, the officer said that they “owned” him now. Again, he was told that he was not in [Country 2] anymore.

20. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his concerns if he returned to Jordan. He said that he feared being prosecuted for no reason. He said that was what he was really worried about, and said that he had not done anything to warrant prosecution. The Tribunal asked if there was any other reason, and the applicant replied “that’s it”.

21. The Tribunal asked the applicant where he would live if he had to return to Jordan, noting that his wife, children and parents all lived in Amann. He agreed that he would live there in Amann if he had to return. He said that he would not be safe there, or anywhere else in Jordan.

22. The Tribunal indicated to the applicant what it perceived as some difficulties facing his claim, so as to give the applicant an opportunity to respond to the Tribunal’s concerns.

23. The first matter was whether the harm the applicant claimed he had suffered in the past, or the claim he would suffer in the future, fitted within the definition of persecution. As already discussed, the only Convention ground on which the applicant that was relied was being a member of a particular social group, that is someone who had been convicted of a criminal offence in [Country 2] and deported to Jordan. The Tribunal noted that that reason had to be the essential and significant reason for the persecution, that the persecution had to involve serious harm and systemic discriminatory conduct. The Tribunal further noted that serious harm relevantly included “a threat to a person’s life or liberty”, “significant physical harassment of the person”, and “significant physical ill-treatment of the person”.   

24. The Tribunal asked the applicant how he satisfied that definition. The applicant said that he was “ill treated, 100%”, and referred to the ill-treatment and physical abuse he had received from the Jordanian GID. He agreed that his life had never been threatened, but said that they regularly told him that they owned him. The Tribunal indicated that much of the information provided to it by the applicant was generalised. The applicant the gave evidence of what he described as “sexual abuse” he claimed he suffered the time he returned to Jordan for [the family] funeral. The Tribunal enquired whether there was any reason that the applicant had not included this information in his application. The applicant said that he thought he did, but a thorough reading of the application does not disclose that this is the case. The Tribunal did not find this to be a convincing answer, as the applicant had not told the delegate about this event either.

1. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he had any problem renewing his passport. He said he did not. He also said that on his trips leaving Jordan he had no difficulties with border patrol, normally came to Australia on his [temporary] visa. He told the Tribunal that he was harassed leaving the country.

2. The Tribunal asked the applicant why, even accepting that he genuinely had a fear of harm if he returned to Jordan, why he considered that this conduct would continue. He said that “they” would continue to do the same thing, because “they” have been doing it for years. He asked, why would they stop? He said that every time it just gets worse and worse and worse. He said he is tired of being treated like this and he can’t do it anymore.

3. At the conclusion of the hearing, Tribunal suggested to the applicant that he had given it more significant examples of abuse and harm than were included in his application or what he told the delegate. The applicant said that when he went to lodge his application the immigration office was shut, and when he went again to lodge his application, he was so keen to do so he, his application form was empty. He said that a departmental officer asked him to complete the form before he left. So he then did it then and there.

4. The Tribunal asked him if there was any reason for that is a lack of detail in his application. The Tribunal indicated that it understood he was saying that he was very interested in lodging his application, but asked him why he would not include something so serious as the sexual assault he referred to during the hearing which he claimed occurred. The applicant said that he had not wanted to talk about it, and was not able to do so until he saw his psychologist. He confirmed that he was no longer seeing his psychologist.

5. Finally, the Tribunal asked me about his fear of being prosecuted. The Tribunal asked him what he would be prosecuted for. He said that he was worried about being prosecuted by the Jordanian authorities, who “would just make it up”.

6. The Tribunal to the applicant that it might be thought that he needed to leave Jordan for some reason other than what he was stating, and was making up the basis of his application. The applicant denied that this was the case and said that, after all he had left Jordan and on to the [Country 1], the only issue was that the [Country 1] would not grant protection to noncitizens, and could not return to the [Country 1] to work again. The applicant sent said he had tried but had not been successful. The Tribunal then asked him whether it was the case that he simply did not like living in Jordan, and could not make a living there, and that was why his trying to remain in Australia. He denied that this was the case, and said that, once again, given the treatment that he had suffered he could not do it (that is live in Jordan) anymore. The applicant said he did not want to get to the point where if he spoke his mind in Jordan he would end up going to jail for 10 years.

CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGS  

Is the applicant a citizen of Jordan?

1. Having sighted a photocopy of a passport issued by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in the name of the applicant, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a citizen of Jordan and that the appropriate country of reference for the assessment of his refugee claims, and the receiving country for the purpose of his complementary protection claims, is Jordan.

Does the applicant have the right to enter and reside in any other country?

1. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the applicant has a right to enter or reside in any other country other than Jordan. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not excluded from Australia’s protection by s 36(3) of the Act as it has found that the applicant is a citizen of Jordan.

Does the applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted in Jordan for one or more of the five reasons set out in the Refugees’ Convention?

1. Various decisions of the Federal Court of Australia[1] have held that when determining whether a particular applicant is entitled to protection in Australia the Tribunal must first make findings of fact on the claims made. This may involve an assessment of the credibility of the applicant. When assessing credibility, the Tribunal should recognise the difficulties often faced by asylum seekers in providing supporting evidence and should give the benefit of the doubt to an applicant who is generally credible but unable to substantiate all of his claims. However, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically each and every assertion made by an applicant. Further, the Tribunal need not have rebutting evidence available to it before it can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been made out. Nor is it obliged to accept claims that are inconsistent with the independent evidence regarding the situation in the applicant's country of nationality.

   [1] See for instance Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437; Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347 and Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547.

2. The Tribunal does not find the applicant to be a witness of credit, finding that  the applicant was a witness who gave evidence of the most generalised kind, broad on generalities and light on specifics. And his evidence at times was inconsistent or non-responsive. For instance:

   ·the Tribunal asked the applicant to clarify the occasions on which he had been detained for a long period. The applicant said that he had been detained overnight on two occasions, usually when officers were changing shifts. The first time was when the applicant came to visit his mother, the second was when he came from [Country 3] in [year]. The Tribunal notes that the applicant had told it that he had said that he had been detained for two weeks when he first returned to Jordan in [year].

   ·the Tribunal also asked the applicant about whether he had been convicted of tax charges. The Tribunal drew to his attention the fact that he had recorded conviction of a tax charges on his application. The applicant said that this was incorrect, and that that charge had been dropped. He had included this in error.

   ·the Tribunal asked him if, in all the times that the GID told him that he had been convicted of [specific] charges in [Country 2], had he been shown a piece of paper verifying this. His response was to say he was handed over by [Country 2 officials] directly to Jordanian intelligence. He said that there had been a big file but that he had never seen it.

3. In all of the circumstances, and giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt where it can, the Tribunal makes the following relevant findings.

   ·the applicant was born in [Country 1], on [date]. He is [age] years old.

   ·the applicant speaks reads and writes Arabic and English. His religion is Islam. He was married [in] July 2007. He has [specified children and birth years].

   ·the applicant has [a] Palestinian [symbol accessory].

   ·the applicant lived in [Country 2] from [specified year] to [year].

   ·the applicant was deported from [Country 2] to the [Country 1] on [date].

   ·the applicant lived in the [Country 1] from [specified year] to [year], and returned to Jordan many times in this period.

   ·from [year], he returned from the [Country 1] to live in Jordan. He arrived in Australia [in] June 2014.

   ·on occasion, and the Tribunal does not accept that it was on every occasion, when entering Jordan the applicant was interrogated by Jordanian intelligence and border control officials about his offence in and his deportation from [Country 2]. The applicant endured “slappings” on occasion.

   ·the Tribunal does not find that the applicant suffered “beatings” as claimed; the Tribunal considers that these claims were exaggerated for the purposes of the application.

   ·the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was sexually abused as claimed. This claim was made for the first time at the hearing, and had not been referred to in his application or mentioned to the delegate. Even if it be correct that he was not able to speak of such a claim prior to his psychological counselling, the last occasion that he saw his psychologist was in February 2015. Therefore, he had some 16 months to amend his application or to provide information about that matter to the Tribunal. Again, the Tribunal considers that these claims were exaggerated for the purposes of the application.

4. The applicant claims that he fears serious harm in the form of prosecution by the Jordanian authorities on his return to Jordan, for the Convention reason of being a member of a particular social group (deportee from the Unites States). The Tribunal does not accept that the potential prosecution is serious harm for the purposes of the Convention. In any event, the applicant exited and entered Jordan on many occasions in the period [specified year] to [year] and was never prosecuted.  Nor does the Tribunal except that the past harm inflicted on him by the Jordanian GID amounts to serious harm for Convention purposes or involved systematic and discriminatory conduct.

5. As the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant experienced serious harm in the past, it finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for this reason.

6. Even if one adds to a fear of persecution based on the Palestinian [symbol accessory] (which the applicant himself does not claim is the basis for persecution), the Tribunal remains of the view that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for the cumulative reasons described.

Conclusions

1. The Tribunal considered each of the applicant’s fears of serious harm amounting to persecution both individually and cumulatively. The Tribunal does not consider that the applicant has real chance of serious harm for any of the reasons claimed, or cumulatively, or arising on the evidence. It follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason in Jordan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future and that the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a refugee under s.36(2)(a) of the Act.

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) of the Act.

Are there substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia the applicant will suffer significant harm?

1. In determining whether the applicant meets the complementary protection criterion under the Act, the Tribunal has considered whether, in light of the findings above, there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to children, there is a real chance that the applicant will suffer significant harm. In this respect, the Tribunal notes that all of the applicant’s claims to complementary protection involved the same claims and facts as her claims to refugee status.

2. Significant harm for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s 36(2A) of the Act: see 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 them; or they will be subjected to torture; or they will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or to degrading treatment or punishment. Having regard to the information discussed above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant will not be subjected to deprivation of life or the death penalty or torture from anyone in Jordan.

3. The Tribunal has assessed each of the applicant’s claims, as summarised above.

4. Having considered the applicant’s circumstances individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is at a real risk of significant harm, if removed from Australia to Jordan.

5. The Tribunal finds that there are not substantial grounds to believe that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Jordan, there is a real risk that he would suffer significant harm in terms of s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS

1. 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).

2. 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).

3. 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

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

R. C. Titterton
Member