1512692 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual who claimed to fear persecution in Jordan. The applicant asserted that he had become involved with a Sunni religious group, attended meetings of Hizb ut-Tahrir, and had developed strong anti-government sentiments, believing the Jordanian political system to be corrupt. He claimed his medical condition caused him to be unable to control his verbal expressions of opinion, leading him to openly criticise King Abdullah and the Jordanian government, which he feared would result in arrest, mistreatment, and potentially death by the intelligence services. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the applicant's claims and the evidence presented.

The primary legal issue before the AAT was whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of a protection visa under section 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This required the Tribunal to determine if the applicant satisfied either the "refugee criterion" under section 36(2)(a) or the "complementary protection criterion" under section 36(2)(aa), or if he was a family member of someone who met these criteria. The Tribunal was also obliged to consider relevant policy guidelines and country information assessments as directed by Ministerial Direction No. 56.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's credibility and the substance of his claims. Despite asserting he was influenced by Hizb ut-Tahrir's political ideals and agreed with their call for the toppling of heads of state, he also stated he was not a member of the organisation and did not agree with the establishment of an Islamic State. He claimed to have stopped associating with them and that they did not form part of his protection claim. Crucially, the applicant provided no objective evidence, such as social media posts or witness statements, to substantiate his claims of publicly criticising King Abdullah, swearing at him, or engaging in fights due to his political views. His assertions about his medical condition, which allegedly impaired his ability to control his speech, were also not supported by independent medical evidence presented to the Tribunal.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the Act, as there was no suggestion he met the refugee or complementary protection grounds, nor was he a family member of someone who did.