1606188 (Refugee)

1606188 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 5876 (20 June 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1606188
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Jordan
MEMBER:Peter Vlahos
DATE:20 June 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicants satisfy s.36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.
Statement made on 20 June 2019 at 6.00am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection visa – Jordan – religion – Sunni Muslim –race – Gazan-Palestinian in Jordan – real and strong differential prejudice suffered by ex-Gazans in Jordan – fears harm from applicant’s estrange father-in-law– stateless children – relocation not viable – s438 certificate valid – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 438

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

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 19 April 2016 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicants, who claim to be citizens of Jordan, applied for the visas on 19 June 2015. The delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy subsection 36(2) of the Act.
On 3 May 2016 the applicant made an application to the Tribunal to review the Department’s decision to refuse him a Protection visa.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 4 April 2019 to give evidence and present arguments.
The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an Arab interpreter.
The applicant was represented by his legal counsel and registered migration agent.

CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

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, he or she 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.
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 because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).
Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
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 the 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 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’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

Mandatory considerations

In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken 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 relevant country information assessments 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.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

The issue in this case is whether Australia has protection obligations in respect of the applicant. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

Country of Nationality and identity

It was claimed by the applicant, [that] he was born in Amman, Jordan, to a Palestinian father and Egyptian mother. The Department noted in its decision record that the applicant provided conflicting information about his citizenship status, and claimed to be a Palestinian citizen at birth and a current Jordanian citizen[1], and a stateless person[2]. The delegate concluded that the applicant was stateless. The delegate noted that the applicant completed a Bachelor [degree] at [a] University in October 2005, and worked [for] a [company] from November 2005 to December 2012. The applicant also claimed that he had previous travelled to [one country] (From June to July 2009), [a second country] (in September 2010), [Country 1] (February 2011) and [a third country] (May 2012) travel he did so on a Jordanian passport. Accordingly, his testimony at the interview with the Department supported that he is an ex-Gazan Palestinian whose country of former habitual residence is Jordan. Therefore, for the purpose of s.36(2)(a) and 36 (2)(aa) of the Act, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s country of nationality is Jordan (even, though temporary) and is not stateless. Also the applicant’s spouse, [Ms A] declared that she is a married female born in Zarqa, Jordan. She told the Department that she is a Jordanian citizen, and this claim was supported by a Jordanian nationality number recorded in her passport. She also declared that she had completed a Bachelor [degree] at [a] University in June 2009, and worked in public and private sector roles in Jordan. The applicant’s spouse claimed that she had previously travelled to [Country 2] (April 2010) and [Country 1] (February 2011). While not interviewed by the Department with regards to her husband’s (the applicant) protection claims, her evidence and the applicant’s supported in the conclusion and findings of the Tribunal that she was a citizen of Jordan.
[1] See Department of Immigration a Border Protection File, Folio [93 Application]
[2] At his interview with the Department
Consideration of a certificate issued by the Department pursuant to s.438 of the Act
The Tribunal notes that at the hearing, it was made known to [Mr B], the applicant’s legal counsel that:

§The Tribunal had received information about the applicant from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.
§The Department provided a certificate under s.438 of the Act.
§That certificate indicates that the Department had received certain information about the applicant.
§In the certificate, the Delegate certified that the disclosure of this material would be contrary to the public interest because it may disclose, or enable a person to ascertain the existence or identity of, a confidential source of information.
§The certificate is signed by [a] Delegate of the Minister of Immigration and Border Protection.

The Tribunal sought comment from [Mr B] about the Tribunal’s proposed decision that the certificate is valid but that the information to which the certificate applied was not relevant to the applicant’s claims for protection.
[Mr B] was asked to respond and he did by a written submission on 2 May 2019. [Mr B] claimed that though the Department had determined the applicant’s ‘nationality as ‘Jordanian’ his passport maintained that the applicant’s status is “Gaza”.
Accordingly, the Tribunal finds the certificate is valid but the information to which the certificate applies is not relevant to the applicant’s review and the issues arising from the claim that the applicant is a Gazan-Palestinian originally from Jordan are dealt with by the Tribunal in its decision which follows.

The applicant’s claims for Protection

The applicant’s written claims are found on the Department of Immigration and Border Protection file.[3] The claims can be summarised as follows:
[3] Department of Immigration and Border Protection File [no] see folios [95-100] and folio [120] ([Ms A]’s claims)
§[The applicant] is an ethnic Palestinian born in Aman, Jordan. His parents were originally from Gaza. He holds a two-year temporary Jordanian passport.
§His usual place of residence is Amman, Jordan
§He is married with one dependent child [now two]
§His usual occupation is a [Occupation 1]
§He was born a Sunni Muslim and remains a committed member of the faith
§His parents and [a number of] his siblings reside in Jordan. He has a brother in Australia, and another brother in [another country].
§He is opposed to the disproportionate discrimination that is applied to Palestinians in Jordan, particularly those who have a Gazan background. He is equally opposed to the rampant corruption and limitations placed on media freedom, political association and expression.
§He has in the past and continues now to express his dissenting views.
§The administrative, legal and security apparatus in Jordan is overwhelmingly corrupt. If you do not have a ‘wasta’ or any political connections and you are of Palestinian ethnicity, you will be subjected to disproportionate mistreatment/discrimination in wide-ranging areas, including education, health care, employment, legal and administrative systems.
§Palestinians, particularly Gazans, who express any dissenting views, are usually subjected to a greater level of scrutiny by the security and intelligence apparatus. They are also imputed with maintaining an agenda which is adverse to the security interests of Jordan.
§The security apparatus continues to crack down on Palestinians who mere protest against living conditions and discrimination in the application of laws/regulations relating to education, health care and employment. Any form of protest is viewed as politically motivated, aimed at disrupting political stability.
§Palestinians from Gaza are usually subjected to higher degree of suspicion by the Jordanian intelligence as they are often imputed with maintaining connections or supporting Hamas and other radical Palestinian groups.
§When a Palestinian from Gaza is accused of maintaining adverse political views/activities, they are usually tried before military courts and denied basic procedural fairness or access to legal representation.
§The campaign of stripping Palestinians of their Jordanian citizenship has also been stepped up over the past few years and generally viewed as posing a security threat.
§His political views stem from the disproportionate mistreatment of Palestinians and entrenched discrimination in areas of education, health care and employment. His views would be considered politically motivated, and as having an adverse agenda to the security of the country.
§Generally, no such attribution is made towards other Jordanian nationals, including Palestinians from the West Bank.
§Those who have a Gazan background, such as [the applicant], are immediately attributed with supporting Hamas. No form of political dissent from such a group of persons is tolerated by the Jordanian authorities.
§Entrenched discrimination particularly against Gazan Palestinians is applied universally in Jordan.
§Such levels of discrimination would jeopardise the applicant’s capacity to subsist. Whilst private sector employment is permitted, community suspicion and resentment towards Gazan Palestinians further restricts their capacity to find employment. This situation is further exacerbated by the fact that private employers usually demand an intelligence certificate prior to awarding positions. Such certificates are not easily obtainable by Gazan Palestinians. The Jordanian security/intelligence is reluctant to provide such certificates to Gazan Palestinians, especially those who have a record of any political activity or who have in the past expressed any political views.
§Jordanian employers are also hesitant to employ Gazan Palestinians; fearing attracting unwanted scrutiny by the security apparatus.
§Again, without a ‘wasta’, employment or security certificates are almost impossible to obtain.
§Even with [the applicant]’s high level of education and qualifications, without access to effective ‘wasta’ he has little prospect of obtaining employment in Jordan.
§[Ms A]’s father, who resides in Jordan, has threatened [the applicant] and the family. Her father is a violent man and has in the past tried to harm them. He was opposed to [the applicant] and [Ms A] getting married and has vowed to take revenge against them.
§They fear that when they return to Jordan, [Ms A]’s father will carry out his threats to seriously harm them.
§Again, without a ‘wasta’ they would be devoid of the effective protection of the Jordanian authorities when they are physically threatened by [Ms A]’s father, her brothers or other close relatives.
§Under the Jordanian legal system, perpetrators of honour killings are afforded lenient sentences and, in some cases, can successfully plead honour as a complete defence.
§Also, under Jordanian law there are no equivalent protection orders that they may be able to take out against those who may threaten them.
§Given the level of corruption, the legal leniency towards perpetrators of honour crimes and having no ‘wasta’ they remain vulnerable to serious harm inflicted upon them, primarily by [Ms A]’s father.
§Relocation is not a viable option because [Ms A]’s father and other relatives are capable of tracking them down. The laws in Jordan are applied universally and there is little or no protection being offered by the police anywhere in Jordan.
§[Ms A] is a Jordanian national. She was previously married to a man named [Mr C]. They were married in May 2009, without her father’s consent. When her father subsequently found out, he became extremely angry and threatened her and her then husband ([Mr C]). [Mr C] feared for their personal safety and decided it was in their interest to obtain an immediate divorce. They were divorced [in] June 2009.
§[Ms A]’s father has made arrangements for her to marry her first cousin. He objected to her marrying anyone other than her cousin and threatened her, [Mr C], and now [the applicant] with physical violence for disobeying him.
§[Ms A]’s father is an extremely violent man and is politically well-connected. He has a propensity to use violence without fear of legal consequence due to his extensive network of political acquaintances.
The applicant attended an interview in Brisbane on 17 March 2016. A recording of the interview is found on the Department’s file and is numbered as Folio [161]. The applicant reiterated his and his wife’s written claims and provided the following additional information:
§He is stateless.
§He is not eligible for Egyptian citizenship, even though his mother is an Egyptian citizen. People from Gaza are not permitted to enter Egypt. He has looked into applying for Egyptian citizenship, and his brothers have tried (unsuccessfully) to apply. The Egyptian government treats people from Gaza differently because they think they have a chance to go back to Gaza.
§He has never been to Gaza. He could not just go there; he would need an invitation from someone to go. He would have to get a visa. He may not be able to renew his Jordanian passport if he was to travel to Gaza.
§As a Gazan, he has suffered in Jordan from the day he was born. He went to public schools. He cannot own a second car. It is difficult for him to find work because he does not have connections. He does not have health cover.
§He finished high school with an ‘OPI’ of 85 per cent. If a Jordanian gets 60 per cent, they can attend a public university for free. However, because of his situation, he was not eligible. He had to attend a private university and pay 15,000 dinars (AU$30,000). He studied [a degree] at university.
§After graduating from University, he had no chance to work in the public sector. Private companies do not like to hire Gazans because of the logistics involved. They have to get approval and explain why they hiring a Gazan. They have to run a check with the intelligence services. Gazans can only get hired through having connections, or if the employer really wants to help them, or if they bribe their employer.
§Because it was hard for him to find work, he did voluntary work to demonstrate his capabilities. He got an internship with an [company] called ‘[Company 1]’. He interned there for two months, then the company was sold to [another] company, ‘[Company 2]’. The manager told him he would try to keep him in the new company. He worked there for five years.
§While working at [Company 2], he was constantly in fear of being sacked because they are not allowed to hire anyone from Gaza. His status was not noticed during the transfer of employees from [Company 1] to [Company 2]. If they checked his status, he would have lost his job.
§Jordanian nationals can renew their passports every five years. Gazans have to renew their passports every two years. There is a lot involved in renewing the passport. They have to go to the intelligence services, who keep the passport for 14 days to check their records. Then they have to go to multiple departments to prove their good character.
§Gazans are not allowed to buy property; they have to rent.
§They cannot get a loan from the bank, even if they have a good salary.
§They cannot vote at elections.
§They cannot open a business.
§While it is not much an issue for them to travel to Western countries, they cannot go to Lebanon, [Country 2] or Egypt.
§They cannot drive private cars or taxis.
§They cannot sponsor anyone. For instance, if his brother is in jail, he could not bail him out. He would need to get a Jordanian to sponsor him.
§He has nothing to do with politics. He just wants equality. He cannot say anything as it would be seen as anti-government. He is even scared to talk about this on the phone.
§He has not engaged in any political activity in Jordan or in Australia. He is scared of voicing his opinion so he does not want to get involved in politics.
§[Ms A]’s parents were married for around four months. When they divorced, her mother returned to live with her parents and discovered she was pregnant. After [Ms A] was born, her father harassed her mother about seeing [Ms A] and created a lot of problems. Whenever he wanted to see her, he would bring police to embarrass [Ms A]’s mother in front of her neighbours.
§[The applicant] met [Ms A] in May 2009 when she was [working] at [Company 2]. At that time, she was engaged to marry someone else. She and her fiancé had been to see her father to ask for his approval of their marriage. In Jordan, anything official requires paternal approval. For instance, [Ms A] had to get a book from her father for her education. She knew that she would need his approval again at some point and that would make her miserable. Her father did not approve of her first marriage and told her she was to marry her cousin. [Ms A] and her former fiancé decided to marry without her father’s approval and knowledge. One cannot do this without good connections. [Ms A]’s former fiancé was Jordanian so this was easy for him. Later, when [Ms A]’s father found out about the marriage, he called and visited and threatened to kill her ex0husband. After one month, her ex-husband decided to leave her as he was in fear of his life.
§The Jordanian authorities do not get involved in honour killings. They let the tribes deal with it.
§[The applicant] kept in contact with [Ms A] during this time. They had common ground; in that they were both disadvantaged. They fell in love and decided to marry. They moved to Irbid and tried to get a good connection to facilitate the marriage. [Ms A]’s mother was recorded as her legal guardian on their marriage certificate, even though it is normally supposed to be someone on the father’s side. Two of her maternal uncles witnessed the marriage. This was illegal but they could not do it because they had good connections. Their connections did not know much about [Ms A]’s situation but warned them that if her father finds out about the marriage before, they live together in the same house, he would appeal to the court to have the marriage invalidated.
§They were married [in] January 2011. They did not have a wedding or tell anyone they were getting married. He did not tell his family about the difficulties and risk involved in their marriage. When they asked why he did not have a wedding, he told them he was saving money for their honeymoon in [Country 1].
§After they married, they lived [in] Amman. They tried to move to avoid Zarqa (Where [Ms A]’s father comes from). They kept a low profile. There was no danger but they were cautious. They moved house every six months. [Ms A] also worked for [Company 2].
§The situation with [Ms A]’s father was a worry but it was not a major thing for them. They had a middle-class lifestyle. Their salaries were not high but they thought they could advance themselves by getting [Ms A] an Australian degree. [The applicant]’s brother in Australia told them this was a good option, and that he could find him a job here.
§When they arrived in Australia [in] January 2013, they did not realise that [Ms A] was pregnant. This made it harder for them to study and work. [The applicant] worked [on] a casual basis. They asked [Ms A]’s mother to come to [Australia] to be closer to [Ms A]’s university.
§[Ms A]’s father found out that her mother had travelled to Australia. He now knows that [Ms A] is married with children. Her mother has warned them that her father is planning something bad
§They thought they could apply for skilled visas to remain in Australia. They did IELTS but did not achieve the requisite scores. They then considered getting a sponsor but you have to earn a minimum of $65,000 per annum to be eligible, and he earns only [amount]. They went to see lawyers to get other ideas. Their visas were expiring, so they chose to apply for Protection visas as a last resort so they would not have to return to Jordan.
§He fears being harmed or killed if he returns to Jordan. If a Jordanian kills for honour, they might get a light sentence. Because he is a Gazan, the Jordanian would get away with it.
§He would have a miserable life in Jordan because of the threats from [Ms A]’s father and the new work rules.
§His family does not know about the threats. If they knew, they would tell him to get a divorce.
§The Jordanian government could issue a protection order, to ask [Ms A]’s father not to go near them, but this would not mean anything. [Ms A]’s father has a big family. He could easily make up an alibi. They could not get security at their house. According to Jordanian law, [the applicant] is at fault because it looks like he ran away with or kidnapped [Ms A]’s daughter.
§He is not sure whether [Ms A]’s father has ever harmed anyone else or has a criminal record.
§He has heard [Ms A]’s father is a violent man. [Ms A]’s father used to hit her mother; that is why they were only married for a short time.
§[Ms A]’s father has not targeted her mother since he found out about [Ms A]’s marriage.
§[Ms A]’s mother lives with her brother.
§The Jordanian police are corrupt. An officer could tell [Ms A]’s father that [the applicant] is in Jordan and where he lives. With one phone call he could find out. He might have connections. He might bribe a phone company to provide his phone number, which he could use to track his location. [The applicant] [knows] this is a possibility.
§The police do not do anything in these situations. They would come after what happened. If he does not protect himself, the police cannot protect him.
§No one in his family has been harmed by [Ms A]’s father.
§He is not sure whether [Ms A]’s father has come looking for him in Jordan. No one has told him about this. [Ms A]’s father knows they are in Australia.
§He does not think that there could a peaceful resolution to this dispute. [Ms A]’s father was reluctant to resolve this dispute. He did the same with [Ms A]’s previous husband and his family.

EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING

The applicant told the Tribunal that he was born in Amman, Jordan on [date]. He has family in Jordan (currently living) which consists of [siblings]. The applicant’s mother passed away in July 2018 but his elderly father is still alive.
While he lived in Jordan, he worked for [a] [Company].

When did the applicant arrive in Australia?

The applicant arrived in Australia [in] January 2013. His arrival in Australia was brought about by his wife having obtained a student visa allowing her to study in Australia for certain period of time.

Has the applicant any children?

The applicant has two children of varying ages who have both been born while the applicant and his wife have been here in Australia.

What is the applicant’s current employment?

The applicant stated that currently, he is working as an ‘[Occupation 2]’ on a full-time basis.

Why did the applicant choose to leave Jordan?

One of the main reasons the applicant chose to leave Jordan was caused by his father-in-law’s threats towards him, his wife and family. His father-in-law disapproved of the applicant’s marriage to his daughter which was carried out without the father-in-law’s approval and blessings.
The applicant also told the Tribunal that there were other reasons also that forced him and his wife to leave and that was because the conditions for Gazans (which he was) did allow for a long-term secure and tranquil life in any part of Jordan.

Issues with the applicant’s father-in-law

The applicant stated that he first met his wife in the period March/May 2009 while the two were employees for a [company]. At first, the two were work colleagues and friends. At that time, the applicant’s wife was engaged to another person. According to the applicant both became close friends as time progressed and each would confide in the other any problems or issues they were encountering.
At that time, the applicant was told by his now wife, that her father, who had divorced his mother, had begun to interfere with her life and relationships with people and in particularly, with her current fiancé. He recalled that his wife’s father disapproved of his daughter’s relationship and was determined not to allow her to continue it.
He also became aware that his wife’s father was prone to threaten others in order to get his will done and even to use force. Indeed, his wife had told him at that time, that her father had warned her that he would kill her fiancé if he did not abandon his plans to marry her.
The applicant explained to the Tribunal, that his father-in-law did not desire any marriage involving his daughter without first receiving his approval and consent. Furthermore, the applicant’s father-in-law would not approve of any marriage which had been the given the consent of his former wife.
Finally, the father-in-law had promised the daughter (the applicant’s wife) to marry her first cousin on the father-in-law’s side of the family which did not find any approval on the part of his former wife and daughter.
In this difficult period, for his wife (then his work colleague and friend) the applicant provided close counsel, support and friendship.
Regardless, of the applicant’s wife’s attitudes and threats, the applicant married in October 2010 and started living together with his wife as a couple from January 2011. There was no wedding or official celebration – only a private ceremony as to not arouse the suspicions of the father-in-law.
After the applicant married, he told the Tribunal that he and his wife lived for a period of six months without any real issues with the father-in-law.
Nevertheless, regardless of the ‘secrecy’ of the couple’s marriage, the Tribunal was told that the father found out and tried to locate the couple.
In the meantime, the applicant and his wife decided to work and to make savings in order to enable them to leave Jordan and to go to Australia for a better life.

Did the applicant encounter any problems when he and his wife decided to leave Jordan?

The applicant stated that because he is a ‘Palestinian’ from ‘Gaza’ he was immediately ‘bombarded’ with demands from the Jordanian authorities for extra documents concerning his person which does not occur when Jordanians wish to leave Jordan for an overseas trip to the West or other middle eastern countries. That being the case, the applicant and his wife made known their intentions known to the Jordanian authorities that they were leaving Jordan so as to allow the applicant’s wife to study in Australia.

What happened when the applicant and his wife arrived in Australia?

The Tribunal was told that when the couple arrived in Australia, it was difficult for the applicant’s wife to study as she had planned because she was pregnant with the couple’s first child. As a result of this event the education plans were placed on hold and the applicant worked as an ‘[Occupation 2]’ to provide his family with a means to live while in Australia and while he and his wife determined what they will do – in future.

Did the applicant and his wife receive any threats while both were in Australia from the applicant’s father-in-law?

The applicant stated that when his mother-in-law returned to Jordan [(in 2014)], he confronted her with the knowledge that his daughter (the applicant’s wife) was in Australia and married to another man which he strongly disapproved. The applicant also recalled having been told by his mother-in-law that his father-in-law would if the applicant returned to Jordan in the future makes a determined effort to locate him and his wife and cause harm to both.

How, could the applicant explain his father-in-law’s knowledge of his daughter’s marriage?

The applicant’s explanation for this knowledge on the part of the father-in-law regardless of the fact that the marriage was held in strict secrecy was that it became known to him through family members. Moreover, the father-in-law made threats to his former wife for allowing the marriage to proceed and regardless of those threats being reported to the local Jordanian police, they have done nothing.

Threats made by the father-in-law against the applicant’s family members

On 3 July 2017, the Tribunal was told that the father-in-law located the whereabouts of the applicant’s family in Amman, Jordan. On that occasion after announcing his presence in front of the house with others, he ‘grabbed the applicant’s brother by the throat’ and demanded the reasons why this marriage which he refused to accept had been allowed to happen. The applicant’s father-in-law also sounded the warning that if they (the applicant and his wife) returned to Jordan, he would ‘know’ and he had no hesitation to ‘kill them both’ as retribution for what they had done. This incident was cut short, the Tribunal was told because the neighbours heard the shout and the came out of their homes to see what was going on and seeing them the father-in-law and his followers left.

Was this incident reported to the local police and if so, what action was taken?

A report was made by the applicant’s brother to the local police. However, the police treat such matters (according to the applicant) as a ‘family matter’ and would be reluctant to take any official action against the applicant’s father-in-law.
Indeed, in a conversation between the applicant and his brother [in] July 2018, the brother warned the applicant not to return to Jordan not even for his mother’s funeral.

Were there any other incidents caused by the father-in-law?

The Tribunal was told that in August 2018 there were some calls on the phone from a ‘private number’ warning that the applicant and his wife will be killed because they married if and when they return to Jordan. This incident was also reported to the police but as was to be expected the police took no action.

Further comments made by the applicant in regards to his father-in-law’s threats because he married his daughter without his consent:

The applicant confirmed for the Tribunal as he did earlier, that while the applicant and his wife were in Jordan, his father-in-law did not know about their marriage. The father-in-law came to ‘know’ in 2013 and was confirmed later by family friends. Even so, the applicant explained to the Tribunal that a person could in Jordan find out information about another person’s whereabouts or personal details by making enquiries in the Ministry of Migration or in the Department responsible for the registration of marriages. If a person provides bribes a certain amount of information can be provided to them and this was the case with the applicant’s father-in-law.
The applicant also described his father-in-law as a man with ‘money’ and ‘connections’ within the wider society in Jordan because he is a ‘businessman’.
As far as the applicant could tell the Tribunal, his father-in-law had little to do with his wife (his daughter) while she was growing up. His father-in-law had met his wife on a few occasions but there was never a close relationship with her and she lived most of her life until she first married, with her mother. The applicant also noted for the Tribunal that his father-in-law never provided any child support for his daughter even though he had been taken to court by his former wife for such payments to be made. After the applicant’s wife had turned 18 years of age, the father-in-law claimed ‘custody’ of his daughter even though she was legally an adult. However, this ‘custody claim’ was refused by the courts.
The applicant also told the Tribunal that the father (wife’s) was opposed to their marriage because he had his own ideas who his daughter was to marry and this was a person from within the family as tradition required.

The applicant’s political issues and concerns while in Jordan

The applicant recalled that while he lived in Jordan, he could not ‘freely express himself’ as he wanted to do because Palestinians from ‘Gaza’ were not allowed. He had witnessed many injustices but could not express them or make criticism of the Jordanian authorities.
Palestinians from Gaza were (according to the applicant’s opinion) considered a ‘terrorist group’ by the Jordanian authorities. Also, the security forces and the police treat Palestinians from Gaza with suspicion and contempt.
The applicant told the Tribunal that while he lived in Jordan, he faced ‘difficulties’ with the local police and security authorities. He described those difficulties as constantly being subjected to his personal identity card being checked. If on any occasion he did not have the correct identity documents on his person, the authorities would detain him briefly in order to conduct the necessary searches on their identities register of person and then release him when they were satisfied he was the person he claimed.
However, the applicant emphasised the point to the Tribunal in his evidence, that he was not a person with any criminal record but had to endure such random checking of identity papers many times and this concerned him. Indeed, on one occasion, while the authorities had arbitrarily detained him in order to check his identity, he was forced by the police to clean (at midnight) the toilets of the police station. The Tribunal was told that such actions were never forced upon a Jordanian citizen but such treatment was to be expected if one was a Palestinian and from Gaza.

The applicant was asked did he express (at any time) while in Jordan any political views which would have caused him to be brought under the attention of the Jordanian police?

Generally, the applicant told the Tribunal, any Gazan Palestinian was not permitted by the Jordanian authorities to ‘express any political opinion’. The applicant went on to say that a Gazan Palestinian would face severe punishment from the state authorities if he expressed in public any ‘dissenting opinions’ on any topic. Therefore, though the applicant saw many wrongs around him he wished to make a public statement about, he could never do so because the ‘law’ did not allow him and would, if he did choose to ignore the law, punish him with arbitrary imprisonment. All in all, the applicant told the Tribunal that a Palestinian from Gazan like him enjoyed at best only ’10 per cent of human rights’ when compared to the majority of Jordanian citizens.

Was the applicant employed while he was living in Jordan?

The applicant stated that while living in Jordan he was employed at a [a] company where he had originally was a volunteer and had become (with great difficulties) a paid employee.
The applicant recalled for the Tribunal that he had gained this employment with great problems and even though he was employed for a wage, his employer could have faced issues with the Jordanian authorities because he was an employed Gazan Palestinian who had not been registered. Nevertheless, this problem did surface while he was still in Jordan but it was a constant fear he had to live with.
The applicant also told the Tribunal that a person – even a Palestinian from Gaza could find it difficult to gain employment in Jordan without securing for himself and for his family – if he was with a family - a ‘wasta’. He described the ‘wasta’ as the support from powerful benefactors within Jordanian society who with their influence and recommendation a person would be able to resolve a problem he was facing with the authorities or even secure paid and long-term employment.
The applicant said that he did not have a ‘wasta’ and this was because of his ethnicity and because his family had not gained any influential Jordanian benefactor to support them and this made the future for him and his family very difficult.

Why did the applicant claim that he was ‘stateless’?

The applicant told the Tribunal that he was ‘stateless’. He was a Palestinian from Gaza. He had been given a Jordanian passport classed with a label affixed to it on the back which stated – (according to the applicant) – “two years”. This meant that the applicant had a valid Jordanian-issued passport which was valid until ‘[2018]’. After that, the applicant was obliged (as it was explained to the Tribunal) to make an application to the Jordanian Embassy to receive a ‘renewed passport’.

EVIDENCE BY THE APPLICANT’S BROTHER VIA TELEPHONE IN AMMAN, [JORDAN]

The Tribunal was told that on or about the [date] July after the witness arrived at his home, he noticed a knocking at his home’s door and went to investigate. As he opened the door, he was grabbed by a group of men around his throat and was threatened with ‘death’.
The witness stated that the person that was also present with these persons was the applicant’s father-in-law. He also recalled, that the father-in-law before leaving warned him that ‘he had made enquiries about his brother (the applicant) and ‘knew’ that his daughter was ‘married’ and had done so ‘without his permission’.
The witness went on to tell the Tribunal that the applicant’s father-in-law warned that if the applicant returned to Jordan, he would find (because he had the means to do this) and kill him without hesitation.
This sudden meeting between the applicant’s brother and the applicant’s father-in-law ended abruptly when upon hearing the noise, arguments and commotion, neighbours came out to inspect what was happening.
The Tribunal was told that this intrusion was reported to the local police. Details of the incident were provided but the police did nothing. The witness explained that the police consider such disputes as ‘private’ in nature and concern – as it involved family issues and issues between two families which was best sought out between them without any police intervention.
A further incident occurred, the witness recalled, in August (2017). A vehicle drove up to the witness’ home and a person shouted out that his brother when he returned to Jordan would be killed. Again, a report was made to the local police but no action was taken.
The Tribunal enquired of the witness, whether it would be appropriate at some future date for his brother to return to Jordan. The witness told the Tribunal that the situation in Jordan for his brother was not safe. The witness explained that in Jordan if a person or family did not have ‘influence’ with influential personalities within the Jordanian state apparatus and wider community he is doomed to deal with his major problems on his own and this never guarantees a satisfactory outcome. The witness’ bother and family were such individuals – without influence and therefore, in the opinion of the witness – vulnerable.
The witness concluded his remarks to the Tribunal by emphasising the concern that the applicant and his family would be vulnerable to any attack from his father in law, if he was to return to Jordan. The father-in-law was a person that had influence at various levels of society and would closely monitor when the applicant and his family returned to Jordan. In other words, there is no real secure place where the applicant could live in peace with his family in Jordan without some guarantee of protection being provided by the local authorities and this is difficult to secure.

EVIDENCE FROM THE APPLICANT’S WIFE, [Ms A]

Why was the wife’s father a problem as far as it concerned her marriage to the applicant?

The applicant’s wife said that the father has always remained a real problem in her life. In the past, though he played a very little role in her up-bringing he always would find a way or means to interfere with her relationships and ‘personal life.’ The Tribunal was told that the wife’s father did not wish his daughter to marry anyone she wanted and chose but the person he had chosen and determined for her.
The applicant’s wife recalled that before her relationship and marriage to the applicant, she had developed a relationship and married another person her father found out about and did not approve. What transpired (according to wife) was a concerted campaign of threats and intimidation of her former husband which resulted in divorce.
The Tribunal was told that the applicant knew this was the wife’s situation as the two were work colleagues and she shared with him her problems with her father. At the time, the applicant comforted the wife and provided her with advice – saying that she should end her marriage but resist her father’s interventions.
The wife said that her father’s opposition to her marriage centred around the issue of – who she was going to marry. The father desired that – according to tradition, she should marry a ‘cousin’ and close relative. The applicant’s wife refused and thus the father’s opposition.
The wife stated that she had no real relationship with her father since he had divorced with her mother. The father had been prosecuted in the courts but had paid no support for the wife as she was growing up – only once, her father purchasing her school books. She explained to the Tribunal that her father was able to ignore court orders to pay money to her mother because he was a person with a ‘criminal background’ and a person ‘with influence’ with many people in Jordan at various levels of Jordanian society.
The wife also recalled an attempt being made by her father when she was [age] years of age to kidnap her from her mother which she narrowly escaped. According to her recollection, this ‘attempted abduction’ happened sometime in April 2002, [when] a unknown car stopped in front of her and her father appeared. Her father was swearing and making threatening gestures but was stopped from approaching her by the wife’s uncle who was accompanying her [on] that day. After a brief altercation between the uncle and the wife’s father and the ‘gathering of people wanting to see what was going on’ the father got into the car and left the scene. However, her uncle had been injured as a result of his altercation with the father and had to go to hospital to receive treatment.
This attempt to kidnap the wife was subsequently reported to the police but no action was taken (according to the wife) because her father ‘paid a considerable amount of money’ to the police to have the matter ignored.

A further attempt was made to kidnap the wife on October 2002 [again]. In this instance, the wife’s father came out of the car and upon seeing him, the wife rang to escape her father. After running a distance, she entered a building and was assisted by unknown people to again escape her father’s captivity. A report was later made to the local police but (according to the wife) the report was dismissed as a ‘family matter’. The wife also told the Tribunal that the Jordanian police do not ‘come about and get involved with issues that concern women’.

How did the wife’s father find out that she had married the applicant?

The wife said ‘she did not know how her father found out about her marriage’ to the applicant but it was in [2013] after the wife’s mother had come to Australia to visit the family. It was possible, (according to the wife) that some family member may have told her father in a conversation with him.

Why does the wife’s father dislike the applicant?

The wife said that her father ‘did not have any personal issues’ with the applicant. That being the case, what has made him angry is that her father desires that her to marry the person he has chosen for her to marry and that is her cousin on her father’s family side. The wife stated that she refused this request and fears that her father would do everything in his power to fulfil his desires – even move to hurt her husband. Her father, the Tribunal was told, successfully ended her first marriage by intimidating her former husband towards accepting divorce. However, her current husband is more difficult to intimidate and she fears that his life may be jeopardised as a result of his intentions to resist and even stand up against her father.
The issue is further made difficult because she has married a person who originates from Gaza which her father finds totally unacceptable.
Therefore, according to wife, the couple had no alternatives left for them to pursue while in Jordan and seeking a better life elsewhere – as far as Australia, pursuing further studies allowed a considerable distance to be placed between her, her family and father and some time away might quieten matters. But that has not be the case and her marriage and news of her marriage only angered to a considerable degree her unrepentant traditionalist father.
The applicant’s wife also described her father as being a person ‘with a criminal record’ and that she could not tell with certainty what he would do if she, her husband and family returned to Jordan.

How would her (wife’s) life be in Jordan if married to Palestinian from Gaza?

The wife said that it would be difficult for her husband in Jordan to seek employment or to do anything without influence within the community. He would be ill-treated by the state authorities and treated unfairly in whatever he wished to do for the benefit of himself and family.
The wife concluded her evidence to the Tribunal by stating that the claims stated are ‘genuine’ and that she was ‘worried about her husband’ because of her father’s attitudes and threats.

FURTHER WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

The applicant’s legal counsel and registered migration agent provided further written submissions on matters raised at the hearing , on 2 May 2019 and in summary they stated the following:[4]
[4] AAT File no. 1606188 folios [187-191]
Identity

§On the issue of whether the applicant was a ‘Jordanian’, ‘Gazan Palestinian’ or ‘stateless’ it was not necessary to receive any written confirmation from the Jordanian Embassy or Consulate in Australia as far as it concerned the applicant, such confirmations from consular and embassy official takes time and the Tribunal should determine the applicant’s status from the documents that had been submitted concerning the applicant’s identity.
Differential Discrimination
§Reference was made to the DFAT Thematic Report dated March 2015 on the position of Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon. It was stated that there exists some level of discrimination inflicted by the Jordanian authorities against ex-Gazan Palestinians in particular – Study and paragraph [3.31] of the report stated that ex-Gazan Palestinians:
“….may mot access tertiary education at the heavily subsidised rate nationals enjoy…. [They] may enter private universities or pay the same as foreigners at state universities, but these fees are prohibitive for most ex-Gazan Palestinians who are almost uniformly poor….”

§Evidence was provided by the applicant that he had gained his education while in Jordan by paying for it. Accordingly, the applicant paid approximately 15,000JD (AUD$30,000). Fees paid by Jordanians for the same University degree the applicant had gained cost 5,000JD (AUD$10,000).
Access to Job market
§Reference was made to paragraph [3.32] of the country report which reported that “There are significant areas of the job market in which ex-Gazan Palestinians do not have access….” Also, at paragraph [3.33] the report stated that:
“As foreigners, ex-Gazan Palestinians may not work in 15 ‘closed professions’ which are open to only Jordanian (including Palestinian-Jordanian) citizens. These closed professions are broadly defined, including lawyers, medical professionals, administrative roles (such as accountants), drivers (for instance of taxis or buses), or in higher education. As a result many ex-Gazan Palestinians work informally; which makes then vulnerable to abuse and arbitrary dismissal….”

§It was also submitted that the applicant’s prospects for obtaining professional work was limited due to his Gazan background.
§While still resident in Jordan, the applicant worked as intern for two months from November 2005 for an [company] called [Company 1]. Then, that company was sold to a [company] known as [Company 2] which had a ‘No Gazans” hiring policy. The applicant remained as an employee at [Company 2] for a further 5 years. However, the risk remained for the applicant that, if the new owner had checked his nationality, he would have been dismissed, for breach of the policy.
Property Ownership
§It was submitted that at paragraph [3.34] of the country report it stated “Ex-Gazan Palestinians require approval from the Interior Ministry to own property….”
§The applicant submitted that this DFAT finding is incorrect, and that ex-Gazan Palestinians may not own property in any circumstances in Jordan.
Freedom of Movement
§It was submitted that paragraph [3.35] of the country report stated that:
“Ex-Gazan Palestinians may obtain a Jordanian passport this is identical to the regular Jordanian passport, except that it doesn’t have a national number (which only citizens have) and is valid for two years (normal passports are valid for 5 years) … DFAT has been told that holders of these two passports find it difficult to obtain visas for other countries….”

§It was submitted that the applicant has suffered significant discrimination at the hands of police, due to his background, treated him with contempt: detaining him indefinitely, and abusing him.
Dealings with essential services
§It was submitted that paragraph [3.37] of the country report DFAT understood that some administrative procedures, such as opening bank accounts, are also difficult for ex-Gazan Palestinians.
§The applicant, like all ex-Gazan Palestinians has experienced prejudice by banks in Jordan, who have simply refused to allow him to open a bank account, thus limiting his capacity to engage in regular civil life.
§The applicant submitted that there is a very real and strong differential prejudice suffered by ex-Gazans in Jordan and that this amounts to significant harm as required by s. 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Statelessness
§Significantly, according to the applicant counsel, the DFAT report at paragraph [3.38] states:
“In Jordan, as in most Arab countries, citizenship of children derives from the father, meaning the children of an ex-Gazan father and a Jordanian mother will be considered as ex-Gazan Palestinians by Jordan. Likewise, wives may not usually pass their citizenship to their husbands. Notwithstanding this law, DFAT understands that there an unofficial practice whereby children of stateless West Bank Palestinian men and Jordanian women are granted Jordanian citizenship by the Interior Ministry. However, this unofficial practice does not extend to ex-Gazan Palestinians. This affects marriage prospects for ex-Gazan Palestinian men in particular, as few Jordanian families will agree to their daughter marrying an effectively stateless man, and having stateless children….”
§The applicant’s concern is that, his two children are (as a consequence of their father’s national status) – stateless children. This is in fact, regardless of the Jordanian citizenship status of their mother – and the applicant’s wife.

Citizenship Applications for the Children
§One of the key concerns of the applicant is the prospect that his two children are (as consequence of their father’s national status) stateless children. This is a concern despite his wife having Jordanian citizenship.

Conclusions
§It is clear that the that the following conclusions can be drawn in respect to ex-Gazans living in Jordan:
§(a) They suffer a higher level of discrimination in Jordan than West Bank Palestinians and
§(b) An ex-Gazan Palestinian must pass his stateless status on to his children, regardless of their mother’s nationality.
§This matter it was applicant’s counsel’s submission attracts the workings of s.36(2)(aa) of the Act namely – all the issues experienced by the applicant amount to “significant harm” and the granting of complimentary protection an obligation that Australia must provide.

COUNTRY INFORMATION – PALESTINIANS IN JORDAN AND LEBANON

Palestinians in Jordan – generally

According to the DFAT Thematic Report on ‘Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon’[5] the overwhelming majority of Palestinians in Jordan are Jordanian citizens, with the same access to public services as other Jordanian citizens. While ‘wasta’ (which will be discussed later) and some official discrimination exist, the socio-economic levels of the Palestinian population in Jordan is comparable to those of other Jordanians, though camp dwellers are more likely to be poorer that the national average in Jordan. Palestinian-Jordanians range from the very poor to the very rich.[6]
[5] Dated 2 March 2015
[6] Ibid DFAT report at p.6-7
DFAT reports that [see paragraph 3.8] that 41% of Palestinians in Jordan participate in the workforce, a rate to other regional Palestinian populations and the same as the wider Jordanian workforce participation rate. Despite their numerical superiority, there are relatively few Palestinian-Jordanians in the public sector.
The health status [see paragraph 3.9] of the Palestinian population is, likewise, essentially identical to other Jordanians (noting that the overall population’s health status is wide-ranging, in line with the wide-ranging socio-economic levels that exist in the country). For instance, a 2008 study in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization reveals there is “essentially no difference” between the infant mortality rates of Palestinians and other Jordanians in Jordan.
A distinct group of Palestinians in Jordan [see paragraph 3.10] are the ‘Gazan Palestinians’. These are descended from the approximately 60,000 Palestinians who left Gaza for Jordan after the 1967 Arab–Israel war. These Palestinians do not have Jordanian citizenship. Access to government services and the employment market is harder for them than for other Palestinians. These Palestinians are discussed in ‘Ex-Gazan Palestinians’, later.

‘Wasta’

In Jordan as elsewhere, certain individuals and groups have disproportionate access to power and influence. In Jordan and the broader Arab world, this phenomenon is referred to as ‘wasta’, though it varies in importance from country to country. Wasta can affect business, bureaucratic, political and social dealings.
The nature of wasta tends to cement advantage and disadvantage over time. Generally speaking, most Palestinians in Jordan have little wasta when dealing with government bureaucracy, which is dominated by East Bankers. DFAT reports that Palestinian businesses will frequently employ East Bankers with wasta in positions that liaise with the bureaucracy. The apparent need for East Banker ‘front men’ has been described by some to DFAT as evidence of discrimination against Palestinians. However, DFAT assesses it more as an acceptance of the situation as it is. In numerous academic studies, Jordanians have reported that they do not like wasta, but tend to use it on an everyday basis. Wasta works in both directions. A lack of wasta prevents the descendants of desert tribes—East Bankers—from penetrating urban professions dominated by Palestinians. Moreover, as some industries are dominated by Palestinians, some Palestinians have more wasta—and thus a greater ability to obtain quicker, cheaper or better service (or prevent those with which they are in dispute from easily obtaining these services)—than many East Bankers in relation to these industries.
Thus, wasta, in DFAT’s assessment, is not evidence in and of itself of official or societal discrimination against Palestinians, but a central component to understanding how Jordanian society operates.
The system maintains itself by having those in positions of influence (who achieved those positions through wasta) ensure, through wasta, that their families and allies replace them. Thus, wasta plays an important role in the recruitment and promotion of public sector employees. This has made the public sector inefficient, as employees are frequently under-qualified and the sector has become bloated by too many appointments made in the name of wasta. Wasta also plays a part in private sector employment, but to a lesser extent; people tend to be more judicious about hiring competent staff over family members when their own money is at stake. The public sector is dominated by East Bankers and the private sector by Palestinian-Jordanians.
Beyond employment, wasta is also used, by those possessing it, to facilitate earning better marks at school, gaining university admissions, scholarships or bank loans, having fines (such as speeding tickets) waived or obtaining government services quickly.

Treatment by the State

Most Palestinians in Jordan according to DFAT [see paragraph 3.18] are subject to a low level of official discrimination.

Ex-Gazan Palestinians

DFAT reports that 60,000 Palestinians from Gaza entered Jordan in the months and years after the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. These and their descendants now number approximately 100,000 to 150,000. Because these Palestinians were not citizens in 1967 (until the war Gaza had been administered by Egypt) they are treated by Jordan as Arab foreign nationals.
Ex-Gazan Palestinian children under the age of six may access Jordanian public health care. After that, Ex-Gazan Palestinians pay the same rates for health care as uninsured Jordanians, which is less than foreigners pay. Most Jordanians have a form of health insurance that is paid by their employer. Approximately three-quarters of Jordanian nationals have this insurance, which must be provided by all businesses with over five employees. This insurance subsidises most common medical expenses. Generally, Ex-Gazan Palestinians do not have access to this health insurance. The state subsidises some of the medical expenses for Jordanian nationals without insurance (including of basic hospital treatment), though these people will typically pay more than insured Jordanians. The healthcare of foreigners in Jordan is not subsidised. They pay higher rates for healthcare than anyone else in Jordan unless covered by a reciprocal arrangement between Jordan and their home country. As technical foreigners, ex-Gazan Palestinians may not access the services of state social workers.
Ex-Gazan Palestinians may access public primary and secondary education, but may not access public tertiary education at the heavily subsidised rate nationals enjoy. Ex-Gazans may enter private universities or pay the same fees as foreigners at state universities, but these fees are prohibitive for most ex-Gazan Palestinians, who are almost uniformly poor. There are limited, competitive scholarships for public universities for which ex-Gazan Palestinians are eligible. These are offered by UNRWA and the Palestinian Authority. However, the UNRWA scholarships are open to all Palestinians that live in refugee camps in Jordan and the Palestinian Authority scholarships are open to all Palestinians in Jordan.
There are significant areas of the job market to which ex-Gazan Palestinians do not have access. Jordan restricts positions in the public sector to Jordanian citizens or to citizens of those countries with whom Jordan has a reciprocal employment agreement (subject to residency permit requirements and Ministry of Labour approval). Thus, ex-Gazan Palestinians may only work as contract workers in the public sector. These rules were established in approximately 2000; non-citizens (including Palestinians) who were in these roles before then were allowed to keep their jobs.
As foreigners, ex-Gazan Palestinians may not work in 15 ‘closed professions’, which are open to only Jordanian (including Palestinian-Jordanian) citizens. These closed professions are broadly defined, including lawyers, medical professionals, administrative roles (such as accountants), drivers (for instance, of taxis or buses), or in higher education. As a result, many ex-Gazan Palestinians work informally, which makes them vulnerable to abuse and arbitrary dismissal.
Ex-Gazan Palestinians require approval from the Interior Ministry to own property. However, workarounds are commonly found, such as registering property in the name of a Jordanian national (including a Palestinian-Jordanian).
Ex-Gazan Palestinians may obtain a Jordanian passport that is identical to a regular Jordanian passport except that it doesn’t have a national number (which only citizens have) and is valid for two years (normal passports are valid for five years). The two-year passport may be renewed through a Jordanian embassy overseas. DFAT has been told that holders of these two-year passports find it difficult to obtain visas for other countries.
The passports are supposed to only be used as travel documents, though DFAT understands they are sometimes used as identity documents. Jordan issues Gazan Palestinians a blue identity card. Gazan Palestinians must present their blue card in order to receive their residency permit, which needs to be updated every two years (and is usually done without problems, though numerous NGOs have told DFAT that renewal is “not assured”). Normal Jordanian identity cards, with or without the identity number, are not issued to Gazan Palestinians
DFAT reports that some other administrative procedures, such as opening bank accounts, are also difficult for Gazan Palestinians.
In Jordan, as in most Arab countries, citizenship of children derives from the father, meaning the children of an ex-Gazan father and a Jordanian mother will be considered as ex-Gazan Palestinians by Jordan. Likewise, wives may not usually pass their citizenship to their husbands. Notwithstanding this law, DFAT understands that there is an unofficial practice whereby children of stateless West Bank Palestinian men and Jordanian women are granted Jordanian citizenship by the Interior Ministry. However, this unofficial practice does not extend to ex-Gazan Palestinians. This affects marriage prospects for ex-Gazan Palestinian men, in particular, as few Jordanian families will agree to their daughter marrying an effectively stateless man, and having effectively stateless children.

In summary, DFAT assesses that ex-Gazan Palestinians face a moderate level of official discrimination in Jordan. While this discrimination is mostly passive, the relevant policies have the effect of ensuring a low level of access to public services or employment opportunities for Gazan Palestinians. Numerous researchers and NGO representatives with whom DFAT spoke in Jordan spoke of ‘generational poverty’ for ex-Gazan Palestinians, to which the wider Palestinian community is not subject.

FINDINGS AND REASONS

Is the applicant (s) a refugee as is provided for s.36(2)(a) of the Act?

At the hearing, the applicant provided the Tribunal with written and oral evidence that while he was living in Jordan, he had endured societal discrimination and had encountered difficult instances throughout his life which was not experienced by other Jordanian citizens but particularly endured by the applicant because of his ethnicity – being a Palestinian from Gaza. This difference of treatment in a variety of ways and means caused him to feel a part of his community and was of the opinion that Jordan was not the country to live, if one was (like him) a Palestinian from Gaza. Hence, the applicant was of the opinion that Australia owed him and his family (the co-applicants) protection as refugees. In presenting his case to the Tribunal, the applicant’s claims talked about a number of issues he considered fundamental to making his claim for refugee status.
First, he claimed to be ‘stateless’ because he was a Palestinian from Gaza and thus not entitled to full Jordanian citizenship even though he was married to a Jordanian citizen and had lived in Jordan for most of his life. He also claimed his ‘statelessness’ had consequences for his children who would not (according to Jordanian law) be provided with Jordanian citizenship even if their mother was a Jordanian by birth.
Second, he claimed that because of his ‘Gaza-Palestinian’ ethnicity he suffered ‘discrimination as far as it concerned him accessing the Jordanian education system and receiving an education at the expense of the Jordanian state. The applicant claimed that Palestinians had access to education but that was limited to private education institutions which they had to pay enormous amounts of money to gain an education.
Third, the applicant claimed that as a Palestinian from Gaza, he and his family faced discrimination when accessing the Jordanian health system. Jordanians could rely on heavy subsidies for the health whereas, Palestinians especially those from ‘Gaza’ must rely on their own ‘private means’ to secure their health needs.
Fourth, the applicant claimed that his employment prospects were a lot less, because as a Palestinian from Gaza, he had limited opportunities to find employment within the wider economy of Jordan. The applicant claimed that Gaza-Palestinians without some Jordanian benefactor supporting them and with an effective ‘wasta’ (influence within) Jordanian society, Gazans had little prospects of finding worthwhile, well-paid and long-term employment.
Finally, the applicant claimed that because he was a Gaza Palestinian, the Jordanian security authorities and local police would constantly harass them (Gazan Palestinians) when they encountered them and would demand their identity papers and if their papers were not in proper order, they would be arbitrarily detained at the local police station for a period of time until their identity had been confirmed. Indeed, the applicant recalled for the Tribunal a particular incident when he was stopped by the authorities and asked to produce his identity documentation and when it was not in order as the authorities expected, he was detained at the local police station and while waiting for his identity to be confirmed, he was humiliated by the authorities by them demanding that he clean the police station’s lavatories.
Indeed, the country information on Ex-Gazan Palestinians living in Jordan does describe some discrimination is experienced as the applicant claimed. We are told by DFAT that ex-Gazan Palestinians may access public and secondary education, but may not access public tertiary education at the heavily subsidised rate that Jordanians enjoy. Ex-Gazan Palestinians may gain entry to Universities or pay the same fees as foreigners at state universities, but these fees DFAT reports are prohibitive for most ex-Gazan Palestinians, who are almost uniformly poor. The applicant in his evidence told the Tribunal that he gained his education because he attended a private education institution for that purpose and had paid for his education and had completed this education. There is nothing prohibitive in the Jordan education system for a Palestinian with the financial means to gain access to the private tuition sector (as the applicant did successfully). Therefore, the claim that he was prohibited from gaining his education does not stand as credible in the Tribunal’s opinion. Indeed, the applicant had no access to the Jordanian tertiary sector as Jordanians did at a subsidised rate but nothing had prevented him from achieving his education by having the monetary means to pay for it as he did (with his family’s assistance) in the private education sector.
Also, the applicant claimed that there were significant impediments in the job-market for ex-Gazan Palestinians. DFAT acknowledges that ex-Gazan Palestinians do not have access. The report goes on to state that Jordan restricts positions in the public sector to Jordanian citizens or to citizens of those countries with whom Jordan has reciprocal employment agreement. Hence, ex-Gazan Palestinians may only work as contract workers in the public sector. Again, in the applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal, he had gained employment for a number of years – first as an unpaid trainee and later as paid employee for a private [company]. He had not experienced any limitations in his gaining employment as he claimed. Moreover, his education and considerable employment experience would, in the Tribunal’s opinion ensure him future employment in the private sector regardless of the general restrictions placed on ex-Gazan Palestinians seeking employment within the public sector or in any of the ‘restricted employment fields’ as identified by DFAT in its report which are reserved for Jordanian nationals.[7]
[7] DFAT Country Information – Thematic Report – Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon, 2 March 2015 see paragraph [3.33] at p.9
The applicant also claimed that as an ex-Gazan Palestinian, he was prohibited by Jordanian law to own property in Jordan and this was a form of direct discrimination instigated by the Jordanian state on him because of his ethnic background. Regardless, of the official prohibition DFAT reports that even though property ownership by ex-Gazan Palestinians may necessitate the approval of the Interior Ministry, there are in play ‘workarounds’ such as ‘registering property in the name of a Jordanian national (including a Palestinian-Jordanian)’. The applicant provided no evidence to suggest that he had made attempts to own real estate and had been prevented from doing so due to the current laws in operation in Jordan.
The applicant also claimed that in the past his freedom to express his opinion about issues (while in Jordan) had been oppressed by the Jordanian state apparatus. He claimed he has not been provided with the opportunity as other Jordanians to make his dissident views known. First, the applicant did not provide the Tribunal with a specific instance in which his right to freedom of expression had been supressed. When pressed on this issue, the applicant made continuous reference as to why Palestinians from Gaza living in Jordan faced discrimination and differential treatment while living their whole lives (as he had done) peacefully, in Jordan. Reference to DFAT’s report states that Palestinian- Jordanians, ‘have freedom of expression within known, if unspoken, red lines.’ However, where these ‘red lines’ lie is, to a large extent, dependant on the wasta an individual possesses. In general terms, most Palestinians do not have fears regarding their freedom of expression.[8] The applicant had lived for the most of his life without any incident in Jordan even if he was a Gazan-Palestinian and only left Jordan when his relationship with his wife’s father had caused him concern. The applicant provided very little evidence of specific instances during his life in Jordan where he had come under the scrutiny of the Jordanian state for having expressed in an open and forceful manner any dissident view. It should be also be noted, that the applicant had been issued with a proper Jordanian passport to travel overseas and this had been done without any incident occurring. The Tribunal concludes that if the applicant and his family were to return to Jordan in the reasonably foreseeable future, they including the applicant would not face the real risk of being persecuted for any dissident views held by the applicant.
[8] Ibid, report see paragraph [3.63] at p.12
Overall, according to DFAT’s own assessment of the plight of ex-Gazan Palestinians in Jordan is that they face moderate levels of official discrimination in Jordan. While this discrimination is ‘mostly passive’, the relevant policies have the effect of ensuring a low level of access to public services or employment for Gazan Palestinians. The applicant had lived worked in Jordan for most of his life and did not present to the Tribunal any particular immediate issues that would have caused him to exist Jordan for reasons that usually occupy the plight of refugees from the Middle East region. He had achieved his station in life with success and without any major state imposed hindrances because of his ethnicity and origins as a Palestinian originally from Gaza as he claimed. Moreover, he had no identified issues with the Jordanian authorities which might have prevented him leaving or entering the country as he wished. That being the case, the applicant in his evidence before the Tribunal and in his submissions did not specifically identify a well-founded fear of persecution as is set out and defined by s.5J(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the Act and therefore the Tribunal does not find that the applicant is a refugee.
For the reasons given above the Tribunal is satisfied that each of the applicants is not 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) of the Act.

COMPLEMENTARY PROTECTION

The issue before the Tribunal is whether the applicant and his family are entitled to complementary protection.
The Tribunal considers whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant and his family (as non-citizens) being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the person will suffer significant harm.
Significant harm will occur if:

§The person will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or
§The death penalty will be carried out on the person; or
§The person will be subjected to torture; or
§The person will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
§The person will be subject to degrading treatment or punishment.

However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a person will suffer significant harm in a country if:

§It would be reasonable for the person to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that they will suffer significant harm; or
§The person could obtain, from the authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the person will suffer significant harm; or
§The real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally ad is not faced by the person personally.

The Tribunal finds that the applicant and as a consequence his family if they were returned to Jordan in the reasonably foreseeable future will fall victims to either being arbitrarily deprived of their life, subjected to torture, cruel and inhuman punishment committed upon them by the applicant’s estrange father-in-law and father of his Jordanian wife.
The Tribunal also finds that the applicant’s children will suffer significant harm through degrading treatment or punishment even suffering death through the neglect of the state authorities to protect them from any threat originating from their estranged grandfather because of his opposition to their father being an ex-Gazan Palestinian and their mother a Jordanian and who had married their father without his approval.
The Tribunal further finds that the status of the children under Jordanian law as non-Jordanians may render them stateless and as such if returned with their parents to Jordan in the reasonably foreseeable future place them in significant harm as persons who could be subjected to cruelty, torture and even death perpetrated by the estrange grandfather and they not being able because of their statelessness not being able to rely on the protection of the Jordanian state. Indeed, the Tribunal notes from the country information, in Jordan, as in most Arab countries, citizenship of children derives from the father, meaning the children of an ex-Gazan father and a Jordanian mother will be considered as ex-Gazan Palestinians by Jordan. Likewise, wives may not pass their citizenship to their husbands (as is in this instance before the Tribunal). Nevertheless this law, is also shadowed by an unofficial practice whereby children of stateless West Bank Palestinian men and Jordanian women are granted Jordanian citizenship by the Interior Ministry. However, this unofficial practice does not extend to ex-Gazan Palestinians. This affects marriage prospects for ex-Gazan Palestinian men, in particular, as few Jordanian families will agree to their daughter marrying an effectively stateless man, and having effectively stateless children.[9]
[9] Ibid Country Report – Thematic Report, Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon, 2 March 2015 at paragraph [3.38] at p. 10.
The Tribunal at the hearing was told that the applicant’s estranged father-in-law refused to recognise the marriage of his daughter with the applicant. Moreover, on two occasions the father had located the whereabouts of the applicant’s family and intruded upon their privacy informing them with a display of violence and the potential for consistent violent acts informed the applicant’s family (his brother) that he would do everything in his means to extract his daughter from him, if and when, the applicant returned to Jordan. At the hearing, the Tribunal was told that the father-in-law had the means through his official and criminal connections within Jordanian society to do whatever it was required to locate the applicant and his family’s whereabouts if and when they returned. This caused panic and fear in the applicant and in particular, in his wife who faced the prospect of losing her husband through a unforeseen, sudden act of violence committed against. Indeed, that violence the applicant and his wife feared would take in their young children. Reports of these threats had been made to the local police but very little had been done and this was explained to the Tribunal – that the father-in-law was well connected and that the Jordanian police seldom involve their resources in family disputes.
Having received the warnings indirectly through the applicant’s family – from the father-in-law, against the applicant and his wife (his daughter) returning children to an uncertain environment in which their uncertain status under Jordanian law may not provide them with protection from kidnappings or even death is significant harm in the opinion of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal gives consideration to whether there is cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment and degrading treatment by the applicant’s father-in-law, society at large and/by criminal elements that might be associated with the father-in-law (the daughter stated her father had criminal links and avoided all court order to pay her mother child support) which as revenge harm the applicant’s children.
Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long, as in the circumstance, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature.
The Tribunal is concerned that the applicant and his family face a life upon return to anywhere in Jordan where they have a prospects of being victims of crime and neglect by the Jordanian state.
It is clear to the Tribunal that Gazan-Palestinians are treated differently from other Palestinians especially East-Bank Palestinians and this only increases the concerns of the Tribunal with regards to whether the applicant and his young family would be provided with significant and effective protection from the Jordanian authorities if they required it in order to keep at bay any real threats arising from the applicants father-in-law. The Tribunal was told that the applicant did not have any real societal influences (could not exercise a wasta) in order to guarantee some kind of assistance or protection of his family and himself. The Tribunal was told that the applicant’s father-in-law had his influences within Jordanian societal circles and would use them and even if necessary bribe officials to achieve the predominance of his will over his daughter.
The country information available on Jordan and Gazan-Palestinians makes it clear that ‘Gazan-Palestinians’ face societal discrimination and are viewed differently though overall, tolerated but their influences are minimal within Jordanian society and in the Tribunal’s mind, this ‘ethnic stigma’ would amount to inhuman treatment or punishment, where acts or omissions by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally on either or all applicants.
In this, the Tribunal gives mind to the fact that the applicant’s wife displayed (when providing her evidence before the Tribunal) serious fears and concerns about whether both she and her husband would be able to resist her estranged father’s attacks on them and their children if and when they returned to Jordan. The Tribunal also notes that any support the applicant would expect from his immediate family would be minimal as he could return to Amman and live with or close to his family because his father-in-law would regularly stalk the area. Indeed, it would be next to impossible for the applicant and his young family to relocate elsewhere in Jordan having in mind the restrictions on their movements put in place by the Jordanian state on ‘Gazans’.
It is possible that the applicant and his family could potentially be living in substandard housing with no real security because of the need to be constantly on the move in order to avoid giving away their whereabouts to a father and father-in-law who had the means personally and within Jordanian society to procure their whereabouts. The family might not even have a permanent home, thus exposing them to a variety of hazards. They would not be able to afford protection. They might face difficulties in accessing the assistance of the police force, which is stretched and limited in who accesses its abilities and open to corruption and indifference when it was called upon to intervene in a situation it might consider ‘traditionally’ ‘domestic’ or a ‘family issue’ as it was described to the Tribunal.
The cumulative effects of these potential problems leads the Tribunal to conclude that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant and his family being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is the real risk that they will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (under ‘the complementary criterion’).

‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s.36(2A): s.5(1) of the Act. It includes a situation where a person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be subjected to inhuman treatment. I find that provision applies here. The type of criminality and harm, described above would be intentional and aimed at the applicant and his family should it occur. It is sufficiently prevalent in Jordan to pose a real risk and the risk is exacerbated by the applicants’ lack of societal influence position and funds. The applicant’s situation is further exacerbated and made difficult by the fact that his father-in-law has the means, societal influences, criminal connections and monetary resources to locate and inflict his will upon the applicant, his wife and children. Kidnapping of children and of other family members are one form of serious crime. These are all crimes or harms intended to cause severe pain and suffering to the victim. Serious assaults including grievous bodily harm are another possibility. The applicants might well – in a personal sense – be vulnerable to some or all of these crimes, and there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm. This risk would exist in all the various areas of the country and because of the issues with the police and authorities the Tribunal outlined that the applicants could not obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the person will suffer significant harm. The real risk is one faced by the applicants personally. The Tribunal also does not find that there is a possibility of avoiding the harm described by depending on family assistance.
For the reasons given above the Tribunal is satisfied that each of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore the applicants satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(aa).

DECISION

The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicants satisfy s.36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.

Peter Vlahos
Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958

5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:

(a)severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;

but does not include an act or omission:

(c)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:

(a)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:

(a)for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;

but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:

(a)a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.

…

5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution

For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note: For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in them practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

5K Membership of a particular social group consisting of family

For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

5L Membership of a particular social group other than family

For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

(d) the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

5LA Effective protection measures

For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b) the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.

36Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)    the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)    the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)    the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)    it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)    the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2019] AATA 5876

20 June 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Remedies

Standing