1605049 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming he was targeted by the family of a woman with whom he had a relationship in Jordan. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of membership of a particular social group, specifically male victims of honour crimes, and whether he would suffer significant harm if returned to Jordan. The matter was before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

The AAT was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which involves a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Alternatively, the Tribunal had to consider if the applicant met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), which requires substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, there is a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal also had to assess the applicant's credibility, particularly regarding the details and timing of the alleged threats and his relationship in Jordan.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's account of events, including an alleged physical assault by the woman's brother and subsequent threats from her family. It also noted the applicant's father's departure from Jordan and the brokered agreement for his safe return. The Tribunal applied the principles outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 56, considering relevant policy guidelines and country information. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, specifically noting that there was no suggestion he met section 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfied the criteria.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.