1505109 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 157

1505109 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 157 (12 January 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1505109

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Jordan

MEMBER:Shahyar Roushan

DATE:12 January 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.

Statement made on 12 January 2017 at 3:55pm

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection visa – Jordan – Members of social group – Family of homosexual man –Tribal law – Harm to all family members – Credibility – Inconsistent evidence – Lack of supporting evidence for claims – No risk of harm

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), (c), 48, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

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 applicants Protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

   Background

2. The second named applicant (the applicant daughter) and the third named applicant (the applicant son) are the children of the first named applicant (the applicant mother). They are nationals of Jordan. They arrived in Australia [in] June 2012 and applied for the protection visa under review [in] May 2014. All three applicants have made specific claims for protection.

3. The applicants had previously applied for protection visas [in] August 2012 as members of the family unit of [Mr A]. [Mr A] had claimed fear of persecution in Jordan due to his homosexuality. They did not make specific claims for protection in that application, relying on their membership of [Mr A]’s family. That application was refused by the Department [in] December 2012.  The then Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) affirmed the delegate’s decision on 13 September 2013. [Mr A] applied for a review of that decision to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and the Court remitted the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

4. The applicant mother, the applicant daughter and the applicant son lodged a further protection visa application [in] May 2014 on the basis of being persons with their own claims for protection before s.48A was amended on 28 May 2014. The applicants, therefore, were not barred from making this application and their application was deemed valid by the Department.

   Protection Visa Application

   The Applicant Mother

5. In a statement attached to her application for a protection visa, the applicant mother made the following claims:

6. She was born in Jordan in [year] and moved to [Country 1] in 1995 after her marriage to [Mr A]. She came to Australia in June 2012 on a [temporary] visa with [Mr A] and their [children]. The purpose of her travel to Australia was to visit relatives and friends. However, shortly after arriving in Australia, [Mr A] was informed by his [Country 1] sponsor, with whom he had ‘issues and clashes’, that he is ‘banned’ from returning to [Country 1]. The applicant mother, in turn, was unable to return to her work in [Country 1].

7. After living in Australia for a few months, she separated from [Mr A] and he started ‘living his homosexual lifestyle’. He ‘confronted’ her with his ‘sexual behaviour’, which was not ‘acceptable’ to her. After ‘many conflicts’, [Mr A] decided to leave her and their children to move into a separate house. Both her children have suffered psychologically due to ‘the problems and separation’.

8. If she were to return to Jordan, she fears being harassed, discriminated against and ‘physically and emotionally abused’ by her own family, members of [Mr A]’s family and the society. It is ‘a big disgrace’ to be separated or divorced in Jordan and she fears her children being taken away from her. She has received ‘threats and warnings’ through her mother, who has told her that her [relatives] regularly ‘discuss [her] situation’. She also fears being forced to get married again and not being able to see her children. She fears her children being kidnapped by [Mr A]’s family as a means of putting pressure on him to return to Jordan. She also fears her daughter being forced to marry an older man.

9. She fears her son, who has ‘medical issues’ and is considered ‘emotionally weak’, will be bullied, treated badly and verbally abused. This treatment could push him to commit suicide, as he has threatened to do so many times.

10. The authorities in Jordan would not protect her or her children.

    The Applicant Daughter

11. In a statement attached to her application for a protection visa, the applicant daughter made the following claims:

12. Before she came to Australia, she always had a ‘slight suspicion’ that her father was ‘gay’. In [Country 1], people remarked about her father’s sexual orientation. A few months after she arrived in Australia, she found out that that her father is gay. Not long after, her parents separated and her father moved out. Currently he lives in his own home. Her brother and mother live together, while she travels between [City 1] and [City 2], where her boyfriend is located.

13. If she were to return to Jordan, she would be subjected to ridicule from the community. She and her brother will be bullied and ostracised due to having a gay father, ‘which is basically illegal in Jordan’. Even her own family will turn against her due to her father making a ‘mockery of their name’. Her [family member] blames her, her brother and her mother, claiming that they created a situation at home that drove [Mr A] ‘in the arms of men’ (sic). Her mother’s family will also ridicule her mother, ‘because the man that she married ended up being gay’, causing the family ‘huge embarrassment’.

14. She and her brother would not be able to find a job because no one would want to employ members of the family of a ‘gay man’. The tribe and the community would be against them and no one would offer them help. Her father originates from ‘a leading tribe’ in Jordan and his sexuality would bring great shame upon the tribe itself. This would result in the tribe ‘hating and threatening’ anything connected with him. She fears physical harm by the tribe and the community. It is accepted in tribal law to harm and/or kill any family member of a homosexual man to send a message to him.

15. Finally, if she were to return to Jordan, she would have to separate from her ‘long term boyfriend’, [Mr B]. She has been with [Mr B] for the past 5 years. They have been together since they both lived in [Country 1], and when she came to [City 1], he also travelled to Australia, staying at his home in [town]. When her family decided to stay in [City 1], [Mr B] also decided to stay in Australia and attend university in [City 2]. She does not want [Mr B] to come to Jordan with her, because it would be ‘a terrible place’ for them to live. He is Christian and she is Muslim and they would be unable to be together. If they were to ‘break up’, no one else in Jordan would want to marry her and she might be ‘forced into marriage with the first person who will offer to many me’.

16. The Applicant Son

17. In his application for a protection visa, the applicant son simply stated that he would be seriously harmed by his family and the society.

18. The applicants submitted the following documents in support of their application:

    ·     A letter from [Ms C], Clinical Psychologist, [agency], dated [in] February 2014, stating that the applicant daughter has been a client of [agency] since [date] December 2013 ‘when she was referred to help her with the stress of her family’s claim for asylum’. [Ms C] stated that she has met with the applicant daughter on two occasions and, while she does not display any symptoms of any psychological disorder, she experiences episodes of panic and feels distressed about her future. [Ms C] stated that returning to Jordan would not be in the best interests of the applicant daughter and that she fears being ostracised by family and the local community due to her father being ‘exposed’ as being gay.

    ·     A letter from [Dr D], Consultant Paediatrician, dated [in] August 2013, in relation to the applicant son, stating that he first saw him [in] April 2013 and again [in] May 2013. [Dr C] stated that the relationship between the applicant son’s parents was not good and that since he first saw the applicant son the first time the father had left home. The letter stated that the applicant son has been prescribed [medication].

    ·     A further letter from [Dr D], dated [in] November 2013, stating that the applicant son’s parents have been separated for about [number] months and have a better relationship now than when they were together. The applicant son has had a hard time accepting this. [Dr D] recommended that the applicant son sees a psychologist to talk through his ‘stresses and anxieties and insecurities’.

    ·     Statutory declaration, signed by [Mr A] [in] October 2014, stating that he lives at an address in the [City 1] suburb of [name], ‘away’ from his children, who live with their mother in a different suburb of [City 1]. He and the applicant mother have been separated since February 2013 and he sees his children every [weekend]. He sees the applicant mother when there are issues to be discussed. He is currently ‘seeing someone romantically’. The decision to separate from his wife was designed to benefit the whole family and reduce ‘problems and stress’.

    ·     Statutory declaration, signed by [Mr B] [in] October 2014, stating that he is currently in a relationship with the applicant daughter and that they have been in a relationship since March 2009. They met at a school in [Country 1] in 2008. He is currently attending university in [City 2] and in March 2014 the applicant daughter came to live with him in [City 2]. However, she spends a lot of time in [City 1] because of her mother.

    ·     News reports and articles relating to honour killings in Jordan and an information sheet issued by the US Embassy in Amman in relation to marriage in Jordan.

    ·     Photographs of the applicant daughter and [Mr B] together at various locations

19. The applicant mother and the applicant daughter attended an interview (the interview) with the Department [in] October 2014 in connection with their application. Where relevant, their evidence to the delegate is referred to below.

20. In a further detailed statement submitted after the interview, the applicant daughter provided additional information.

21. The applicant daughter stated that, after the family arrived in Australia in 2012, her father ‘got into an argument with his [Country 1] sponsor and his sponsor cancelled my father’s visa’. Faced with the possibility of returning to Jordan, she feared for her life because of her relationship with [Mr B].

22. She stated that she would be harmed in Jordan because she has a partner, who is Christian. It is forbidden for Jordanian girls to enter into a relationship before marriage. Adultery in Jordan is a crime. If her family, including her [relatives], were to find out about her relationship with [Mr B], they would form the view that she has dishonoured the family. She also fears for her mother’s safety because she has known about her relationship but she has chosen to hide it from the family. They would harm her mother for hiding ‘such an important detail from them’. Her brother will also be harmed for his failure to stop her. He will be shamed for not following cultural norms.

23. Restrictions on women’s rights in Jordan are against her beliefs. She is a strong believer that men and women should have equal rights. Her parents believe that she should be independent and they did not put many restrictions on her either in [Country 1] or Australia. She would not enjoy the same freedom in Jordan. She would be forced into an arranged marriage and would be unable to complete her tertiary studies. Living in Jordan would contribute to the deterioration of her emotional and psychological well-being.

24. The delegate refused to grant the visas [in] April 2015.

    Application for Review

25. The applicants applied for a review of the delegate’s decision. In support of their review application, the applicants provided a copy of the delegate’s decision record and the applicants are taken to be on notice of the delegate’s findings and reasons.

26. The applicant mother appeared before the Tribunal on 19 May 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages. Where relevant, her evidence to the Tribunal is referred to below.

27. The applicant daughter and the applicant son did not attend the hearing. The applicant mother stated that she had been informed by her daughter ‘last night’ that the latter did not wish to attend the hearing.

28. Throughout the hearing, the applicant mother commented that she knew what the outcome of the review would be and that her application would be refused. The applicant also stated that she knew her case was hopeless. The Tribunal repeatedly assured her that, whilst it had an obligation to put its concerns to her and seek her comments, it had not made up its mind and that it was going to assess the evidence with an open mind.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

29. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, the applicant is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

30. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).

31. Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:

    owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

32. 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’).

33. 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.

    Analysis, Findings and Reasons

34. The Tribunal did not find the applicant mother to be a credible and truthful witness and has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has had regard to the reasons detailed below. 

35. First, the applicant mother provided inconsistent and unpersuasive evidence in relation to her claimed separation from [Mr A] and the knowledge of other family members about [Mr A]’s alleged homosexuality.

36. At the interview, the applicant mother stated that [Mr A] revealed his sexual orientation to her in February 2013. She stated that he took her to a bar or a café on [name] Street and disclosed this information to her. She decided there and then that she did not want to be with him and that night her husband left the family house to live in rented accommodation, which he had previously arranged. She stated that she disclosed the information about [Mr A]’s sexuality to her daughter on the following morning. The applicant mother stated that the applicant son had no knowledge of his father’s sexuality.

37. The applicant daughter, however, gave evidence at the interview that her mother disclosed to her the information about her father’s sexual orientation in about early or mid-2013. She stated that her father rented his own place in early or mid-2013. She stated that her father was still living with them [in] January 2013 when she started school and that it took her father a few months to move out of the family house permanently. The applicant daughter also stated that her younger brother was aware of their father’s sexuality because he had been told about this by their mother. She stated that her mother had told her brother soon after she had told her. When the delegate discussed the inconsistencies in the evidence with the applicant mother and the applicant daughter, the applicant mother essentially insisted that the applicant son had no knowledge of his father’s sexuality, while the applicant daughter stressed that her brother knew and that she had assumed that her mother had disclosed this information to him.

38. At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant mother stated that she had been separated from [Mr A] since they were in [Country 1], but they continued to live as a family for the kids. She stated that [Mr A] had left the family home in Australia in January or February 2013 after he had disclosed to her his sexual orientation. He took her to a place to show her how gay people live and that is when he told her. She was upset and when they got home she went to her room and he went out. She stated that [Mr A] moved out of the family house at the end of February or March. When asked when she had told her children about [Mr A]’s sexual orientation, she said she had disclosed this information to her daughter sometime before [Mr A] had left the family house. She also claimed that her son still does not know that his father is gay. When asked why she had told the delegate that [Mr A] had moved out on the same night he had disclosed his sexual orientation to her, she initially stated that this was not the case because [Mr A] would not have been able to find a house. When she was reminded that she had told the delegate that [Mr A] had been able to move out because he had already made arrangements, she said he did not stay on that night but he returned to see the children. When it was put to her that her daughter had told the delegate that it had taken [Mr A] a while before he left the family house, she stated ‘yes’,  he stayed for some time - a few weeks. With regard to the inconsistencies between her evidence and that of her daughter’s evidence, the applicant mother explained that, at the time of the interview, her daughter was young, depressed and distressed. Her life was taken from her and she did not want to go to Jordan. The delegate took what suited his decision without any consideration. For example, her son still does not know about his father’s sexual orientation.

1. The information provided by the applicant mother and the applicant daughter at the interview was put to them in a s.424A letter. In her response, the applicant mother stated that her daughter was confused and scared at the time of the interview. She had left everything behind in [Country 1] and it was difficult for her to accept that she was not going back. She went through a hard time and it was difficult for her start a new life in Australia. As a result of her ‘depression’, she gained weight and refused to go to school. Although her daughter was [age] at the time, she had lived a sheltered life and had not been through ‘an experience as stressful as this’. She was not concentrating on ‘the timeline to coincide with the facts’. The only thing she was focusing on was not to have a ‘panic attack’ at the interview. The applicant rented his own place in February 2013 and there was a lot of pressure on someone of the applicant daughter’s age and circumstances. The applicant mother reiterated that ‘until today’ her son is unaware of his father’s sexual orientation.

2. These explanations do not satisfactorily address the Tribunal's concerns. The applicant mother has provided no explanation for the inconsistencies in her own evidence. The Tribunal is unable to reconcile the inconsistencies within the applicant mother’s own evidence. Whilst the Tribunal has taken into account the applicant daughter’s age and circumstances as described by the applicant mother, these factors do not adequately address the inconsistencies between the applicant mother’s evidence and the applicant daughter’s evidence to the delegate. The Tribunal has serious doubts in relation to the evidence given both by the applicant mother and the applicant daughter.

3. The applicant mother stated that, at present, she, [Mr A], their children and her [family member] all live together in the same house. She also gave evidence that she and [Mr A] are divorced under Islamic law. When asked why they have not formalised the divorce, she stated that they are not considered married under Australia law because they don’t have their certificate of marriage. When asked if she is able to provide any evidence to suggest that they are separated, she stated that he is not prepared to go before a Sheikh. No further information or evidence has been provided in support of the claim that the applicant mother and [Mr A] are in fact separated.

4. The Tribunal has considered the contents of the letters from [Dr D] stating that since he saw the applicant son the first time the father had left home. In his letter of November 2013, [Dr D] stated that the applicant son’s parents have been separated for about 9 months and have a better relationship now than when they were together. It is unclear who exactly had communicated this information to [Dr D]. The information contained in [Dr D]’s letters does not address the Tribunal's concerns set out above. On the basis of the evidence before it, whilst the Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant mother and [Mr A] may have intermittently lived apart for periods of time, the Tribunal is not satisfied that they are separated as claimed.

5. Secondly, the Tribunal found the evidence before it relating to [Mr A]’s claimed expressions of homosexuality in Australia inconsistent and unpersuasive.

6. At a Departmental interview conducted [in] December 2012, in connection with [Mr A]’s 2012 application for a protection visa, [Mr A] was asked how he would explore his homosexuality if he remained in Australia. He stated he did not know. Maybe one day he would and that the problem is that he had a [medical event] due to the amount of tension. When asked if he intended to explore his sexuality, he stated that he did not want to go through it with his family and that here in Australia his wife is always with him. When asked if he has taken any interest in any aspects of the gay community in Australia, he said he had not.  [Mr A] also stated that he intended to live with his wife and children.

7. [Mr A] applied for a review of the delegate’s decision. At a hearing before the RRT, conducted on 2 September 2013, [Mr A] was asked if he has been living a homosexual life in Australia. He responded that, from October 2012, when he opened a [Store 1], he got to know people. He had a relationship with [number] of his customers. He further stated that he has had a relationship since December 2012 and that he goes to gay clubs. At that hearing, it was put to [Mr A] that he had told the delegate that he had been unable to explore his sexuality in Australia because his wife never left him. He responded that he was very embarrassed to disclose many details to the delegate who was female and about the same age as his daughter. When the RRT put to him that, according to his evidence at the hearing, he had started dating in October 2012 and before his interview with the Department, he responded that in October and November 2012 he did not have any relationship or a ‘full’ relationship with anyone. He only invited his partners to go out or have coffee somewhere. He was trying to build relationships and that it all started in December 2012 after the interview. When it was put to him that at the interview he had been specifically asked whether he was exploring homosexual relationships in Australia, he said perhaps he had misunderstood the meaning of exploring, he could not express himself correctly and he was a bit shy or embarrassed.

8. Following the RRT hearing, [Mr A] submitted a statutory declaration, signed by [Mr E] [in] September 2013, stating:

   I have been dating [Mr A] since December 2012. We have a very serious and full of passion relationship where we share the best of our moments together. [Mr A] is a loving and caring boyfriend whom I feel that he is the right man to be with…

9. As noted above, the RRT affirmed the delegate’s decision. However, the RRT’s decision was remitted to this Tribunal (the AAT) for reconsideration. At his AAT hearing, conducted on 20 May 2016, [Mr A] gave evidence that, in Australia, he had a relationship with a [Mr E] in 2012/2013 and the relationship ended [number] months later when [Mr E] moved to reside in a different place in [City 1].  

10. At the AAT hearing, [Mr A] stated that he had felt uncomfortable with giving evidence to the delegate. When asked if he became involved in any other relationships after [Mr E], he stated that he was only involved in casual relationships. He was asked if any of these relationships were particularly strong or more memorable than others. He said no. When asked if he has pursued his sexuality in any other way, he said he used to go to clubs but not anymore.

11. In support of their May 2014 protection visa applications, the applicant mother and the applicant daughter submitted a statutory declaration, signed by [Mr A] [in] October 2014, stating that he lives at an address in the [City 1] suburb of [name], ‘away’ from his children, who live with their mother in a different suburb of [City 1]. He and the applicant wife have been separated since February 2013 and he sees his children every [weekend]. He is currently ‘seeing someone romantically’.  At his AAT hearing, when this information was put to [Mr A], he stated he was involved with someone for a ‘couple of weeks’, he felt good about them and then ‘things turned around’. He did not offer any other information in relation to this claimed relationship.

12. In her evidence at the Tribunal hearing, the applicant mother was asked if she was aware of any relationship [Mr A] had been involved in. She stated he had someone he used to see at [Store 1]. When asked if she was aware of any other relationships, she said no. In her response to the Tribunal's s.424A letter, the applicant mother stated that she believes what her husband tells her about his relationships. She is not with him when he sees other people. She is aware that he had a serious relationship with [Mr E]. Otherwise, she is not concerned with who [Mr A] sees and when. She is not aware of the timeline of his relationships. She stated that [Mr A] is a private person and does not like to discuss personal matters, particularly his homosexual relationships. This matter has to be discussed with [Mr A]. These explanations do not address [Mr A]’s evidence in relation to expressions of his sexuality and sexual orientation in Australia, which the Tribunal finds to be inconsistent, unreliable and lacking in credibility. This evidence undermines the claims put forward in the application under review relating to [Mr A]’s sexuality or sexual orientation. 

13. Thirdly, as it was put to the applicant mother at the hearing, the actions her family took when they first arrived in Australia indicated that they intended to stay in Australia permanently.

14. According to the delegate’s decision record, at the interview, the applicant mother gave evidence that she had completed a Standard Form Residential Tenancy Agreement for a rental property in Sydney before arriving in Australia. She stated that her [sibling] used the form to secure accommodation for them before they came here. When asked why she wished to obtain a six month lease on a property if her intention was to visit Australia for 45 days, she stated that her [sibling] intended to live in the property because [sibling] could not secure a rental property. She stated that her [sibling] intended to stay in the property after her intended departure from Australia. At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant mother was again questioned in relation to the Residential Tenancy Agreement. She stated that the agreement was secured through an agent. She repeated that the intention was for her [sibling] to move into the property once she and her family had departed Australia. When asked why her [sibling] could not rent a property for [self], she said finding rental property in [City 1] is difficult. When asked why she had found it easy to rent a property, she said she had paid rent for three months in advance.

15. In addition, as noted by the delegate in his decision, the applicant mother and her family had purchased two cars and they transferred large amounts of money into an Australian bank account in July 2012. With regard to the purchase of the two cars, the applicant mother stated at the interview that they believed it was more cost effective to purchase two cars and sell the cars later than to hire two cars. She further stated that they needed two cars because [Mr A]’s [child] from a different marriage was visiting from [country] at the same time and the second car was for [that child]. The applicant mother essentially repeated the same explanation at the hearing. In relation to the money transfer, at both the interview and the hearing, the applicant mother stated that although [Mr A]’s employment in [Country 1] was formally terminated in August 2012, there was already conflict between him and his [Country 1] sponsor.

16. The Tribunal does not find applicant’s mother’s explanations persuasive. The Tribunal is of the view that, accumulatively, these actions suggest that the applicants’ intended stay in Australia was premeditated and unrelated to the protection claims subsequently made. The Tribunal considers this conclusion to be further supported by the fact that the applicant mother had obtained a work reference from her employer in [Country 1] and school references had been obtained for the applicant daughter.

17. Fourthly, the applicant mother provided inconsistent and unpersuasive evidence in relation to her employment in Australia. She stated at the interview that, shortly after arriving in Australia, [Mr A] bought [Store 1]. After working in the store for a while, he employed others to run the shop. She stated that she had never worked at [Store 1]. The applicant daughter, however, stated that both her parents had worked at [Store 1] and that her mother worked shifts at the store, but she did not consider her mother to be ‘working’. She also stated that she and her brother also helped in the shop. When the information was put to them, they stated that they might have helped with the shop, but they did not get paid.

18. At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant mother gave evidence that she was helping at [Mr A]’s [Store 1], but she did not get paid. She also gave evidence that she had worked for two years in [Store 2]. When asked about the dates of her employment, she stated that she started in November 2014 and finished in September 2015. When the Tribunal asked her why she had stated earlier that she worked in the store for [number] years, she said it was [a different length of time]. She explained that her daughter had found her the job. She started working as a trainee in February 2014 and then she started her work ‘formally’ in November 2014. When asked why she had told the delegate that she was not working, she stated that she was a trainee and she only started working as a tax paying employee in November 2014. She added that she was getting her daughter’s shifts and her daughter’s pay. Her daughter started in [Store 2] and then she worked in a [another venue]. Both the store and the [other venue] belonged to the same owner. In response to the Tribunal's s.424A letter, the applicant mother explained that, at the time of the interview, her daughter was [age]. She saw her going to the [Store 1], stacking the shelves and helping with ‘things’. She assumed that the applicant mother was working in the shop, but she was only helping. The store was purchased using money in an account she held jointly with [Mr A] and she had a say in the operation of the business. When she helped around, [Mr A] left the store so her daughter thought that they were doing shift work. In relation to [Store 2], she stated that she started working there in February 2014 as a ‘trainee’. She formally commenced the job as a ‘tax paying employee’ in November 2014 and worked until September 2015. She stated that she had no further comments to add to the evidence she had provided at the hearing. She added ‘please excuse my inaccuracy in rounding 19 months to 2 years’.

19. The Tribunal does not find the applicant mother’s explanations satisfactory. The Tribunal is unable to reconcile the applicant mother’s explanations with her past evidence. It is unclear why the applicant mother had failed to clearly disclose that she had a financial stake in [Store 1] or that she stacked shelves, helped round and oversaw the operation of the business when [Mr A] was not around. The Tribunal also finds the applicant mother’s evidence in relation to her employment at [Store 2] not to be consistent and forthright. She has provided no further information or evidence in relation to her work at [Store 2] as a ‘trainee’. The Tribunal considers the applicant mother’s evidence in this regard to cast doubt on her credibility.

20. For all the above reasons, the Tribunal does not find the evidence provided by the applicant mother and the applicant daughter relating to [Mr A]’s sexuality and sexual orientation to be credible. Their evidence in this regard shows a propensity to manufacture and tailor evidence in a manner which achieves their own purpose. Having regard to the fundamental lack of credibility in the evidence, the Tribunal does not attach any weight to the contents of [Mr A]’s statutory declaration [in] October 2014.

21. The Tribunal does not accept that [Mr A] is homosexual or that he has been involved in homosexual relationships and/or activity in [Country 1], Australia or anywhere else. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant mother and [Mr A] have been separated as claimed. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept any claims put forward by the applicant mother, the applicant daughter and the applicant son arising from or relating to [Mr A]’s claimed sexuality or sexual orientation. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant mother will be harassed, discriminated against and ‘physically and emotionally abused’ by her own family, members of [Mr A]’s family and the society if she were to return to Jordan. The Tribunal does not accept that she will be forced to remarry or that her children will be taken away from her. The Tribunal does not accept that she has received ‘threats and warnings’ through her mother or that she is at risk of harm by her [relatives]. The Tribunal does not accept that her children will be kidnapped by [Mr A]’s family as a means of putting pressure on him to return to Jordan. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant daughter will be forced to marry an older man or the first person who offered to marry her. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant daughter and the applicant son will be bullied, treated badly, verbally abused or subjected to ridicule and/or physical harm by family and community members on account of their father’s claimed sexuality or sexual orientation. The Tribunal does not accept they will be denied access to employment.

22. The Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance or a real risk that the applicant mother, the applicant daughter and the applicant son will be subjected to serious or significant harm in Jordan arising from or relating to [Mr A]’s claimed sexuality or sexual orientation.

23. The applicant mother has also claimed that the applicant daughter and the applicant son will be harmed in Jordan because they are westernised in their thoughts and lifestyle preferences and that they don’t speak ‘Jordanian’. The Tribunal has found no persuasive information to suggest that Jordanian expatriates who return to Jordan after living for long periods of times in other countries, including western countries, are subjected to harm on account of their perceived attitude, lifestyle or language deficiency, if any.  The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk or real chance that the applicant daughter and the applicant son will be subjected to serious or significant harm on account having lived in [Country 1] and Australia or having become accustomed to a western way of life.

24. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s daughter’s claims relating to her relationship with [Mr B]. The applicant daughter did not attend the hearing. The applicant mother gave evidence that the applicant daughter’s relationship with [Mr B] came to an end in October or November 2014.  She stated that her daughter is now married to a Muslim Arab-Australian man. She went on to claim that her daughter was at risk because she had a Christian boyfriend. However, no further evidence or information was submitted by the applicant daughter in relation to her current circumstances or in relation to her claim that she would be subjected to harm on account of her past relationship with [Mr B]. There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal in relation to the applicant daughter’s current circumstances, including her present relationship to enable it to determine by whom, how and why exactly the applicant daughter would be subjected to harm if she were to return to Jordan. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance or a real risk that the applicant daughter will be subjected to serious or significant harm, including lashing or honour killing, for reasons relating to or arising from her past relationship with [Mr B] if she were to return to Jordan. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant mother would be harmed by anyone on account of the applicant daughter’s past relationship with [Mr B] for hiding ‘such an important detail from them’. The Tribunal Is not satisfied that the applicant son will be harmed or shamed by anyone for his failure to ‘stop’ the applicant daughter.

25. In her written claims, the applicant daughter referred to restrictions on women’s rights in Jordan. She stated that she believes that men and women should have equal rights and that she should be independent. She went on to claim that in Jordan she would be forced into an arranged marriage and would be unable to complete her tertiary studies, she will be forced to wear particular clothing and she will be prevented from speaking to particular people. As already noted, the applicant daughter did not attend the hearing and has provided no further information or details in relation to her actual circumstances. There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal in relation to the applicant daughter’s current circumstances, including her relationships to enable it to determine whether or not she would be at risk of harm. The Tribunal, therefore, is not satisfied that she would be forced into an arranged marriage. There is no information or evidence before the Tribunal to indicate whether the applicant daughter is currently undertaking any tertiary studies in Australia. There is insufficient information to enable the Tribunal to determine by whom, how and why exactly the applicant daughter would be forced to wear particular clothing or not to speak to particular people. It is also unclear on what basis it is claimed that she would be unable to complete her tertiary studies. The applicant daughter has provided no further information or details in relation to her beliefs relating to women’s rights or how she would seek to express these views in Jordan. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance or a real risk that the applicant daughter would be subjected to serious or significant harm in Jordan for the reasons of for reasons arising from her political opinion or membership of a particular social group, including women in Jordan or any other subset of that group arising on the face of the evidence.

1. The Tribunal has considered the letter from [Ms C] of [agency]. [Ms C] stated in her letter that the applicant daughter does not display any symptoms of any psychological disorder. Whilst the Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant daughter may have experienced episodes of panic and may have felt distressed about her future, the Tribunal has already dealt with the applicant’s daughter’s fears as referred to by [Ms C] in so far as they relate to her father’s claimed sexuality and sexual orientation. On the basis of this evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that living in Jordan would contribute to the deterioration of applicant’s daughter’s emotional and psychological well-being.

2. The applicant son did not attend the Departmental interview or the Tribunal hearing. In his written claims, he stated that he would be seriously harmed by his family and the society. He did not provide any reasons for his claimed fear. In so far as these claims may relate to what has been claimed on his behalf with regard to [Mr A]’s claimed sexuality or sexual orientation, the Tribunal has rejected these claims.

3. [Dr D]’s letters were authored in 2013. The letters indicated that at that time the applicant son had been prescribed [medication], medication used to treat [medical condition], and that he suffered from ‘stresses and anxieties and insecurities’. No other evidence or information was submitted to support the applicant’s mother’s general claims that the applicant son is vulnerable to bullying. No further recent medical information was submitted in relation to the applicant’s son’s current state of mental well-being. The applicant son is now [age] and an adult. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant son will be bullied because he is emotionally weak and sensitive. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk or a real chance that the applicant son will be subjected to serious or significant harm on account of his personal attributes or his current state of mental well-being.

4. The Tribunal is not satisfied that if any of the applicants, upon being removed to Jordan, were to continue to suffer from any form of psychological illness, there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their removal, there is a real risk that they will be subjected to any form of harm, including disability related discrimination, that would be the result of an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on them for the reasons specified in paragraphs (a)-(e) of the definition of torture in s.5(1) of the Act. The Tribunal is not satisfied that that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that they will suffer harm from the authorities that would involve the infliction of severe pain or suffering, either physical or mental, such as to meet the definition of cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment in s.5(1). Nor is it satisfied that it has substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that they will suffer such harm as to meet the definition of degrading treatment or punishment in s.5(1) which refers to an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable. The Tribunal is not satisfied that it has substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that they will suffer arbitrary deprivation of life or the death penalty. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicants being removed from Australia to Jordan, there is a real risk that they will be subjected to significant harm arising from any psychological issues.

5. At the departmental interview, the applicant mother and the applicant daughter claimed to fear harm from Islamic State (ISIS) in Jordan. The applicant daughter did not attend the hearing and the applicant mother did not pursue this claim at the hearing.

6. The Tribunal appreciates that the applicants may be concerned about general lack of security in Jordan, some of which attributable to ISIS. However, there is no persuasive evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the lack of general security the applicants may be concerned about or any security related dangers posed by ISIS is faced by each of them personally. Indeed, compared to all of Jordan’s neighbours, attacks by ISIS inside Jordan have been rare.[1] The Tribunal is not satisfied that the presence of ISIS in Jordan or lack of general security situation in the country would expose the applicants to a real chance of persecution for a Convention reason.

   [1] See, for example, Magid, A, ISIS Meets Its Match? How Jordan Has Prevented Large-Scale Attacks, Foreign Affairs, 17 February 2016, Sweis, R, ISIS Is Said to Claim Responsibility for Deadly Attack in Jordan, New York Times, 20 December 2016,

7. Under s.36(2B)(c) of the Act there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm if the Tribunal is satisfied that the real risk is one faced by the population generally and is not faced by the applicant personally. The Tribunal is satisfied that the lack of general security and the instability the applicants fears are faced by the population generally and not by them personally. The Tribunal finds that there is no real risk that the applicants will suffer significant harm in Jordan as a result of lack of general security and instability.

8. For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore the applicants do not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa. It follows that they are also unable to satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(b) or (c). As they do not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, they cannot be granted the visa.

   DECISION

9. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.

   Shahyar Roushan
   Senior Member