1702548 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the application of a Jordanian national seeking a protection visa. The applicant claimed he feared persecution upon return to Jordan due to past sexual abuse he suffered as a child and adolescent, and the potential for his family and society to exact retribution based on honour crimes. He also claimed his family had learned of the abuse and threatened him for bringing shame upon them.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically whether he was a refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution, or whether he faced a real risk of significant harm under the complementary protection provisions. This required the Tribunal to assess the credibility of the applicant's claims, the nature of honour crimes in Jordan, and the specific risks he might face upon return, particularly in relation to his alleged homosexual acts and the societal implications thereof.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the evidence regarding honour crimes in Jordan. While acknowledging that men could be victims, the Tribunal found the weight of evidence indicated that the vast majority of honour crime victims were women, often in the context of heterosexual relationships. The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not identify as homosexual and had a history of heterosexual relationships in Australia. Crucially, the Tribunal found minimal evidence of honour crimes against men for homosexual acts and that the applicant had not been harmed on this basis for over five years before leaving Jordan, nor upon his return in 2004. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's claim of fear from the perpetrator of the abuse, but found no evidence to support a real chance of harm from that individual.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. It concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for a refugee or for complementary protection, finding no real chance of serious harm upon return to Jordan. The Tribunal noted that while the applicant had resided in Australia for a significant period and had experienced past trauma, it had no discretion to grant the visa on compassionate grounds, but advised the applicant of the possibility of seeking ministerial intervention.