1703365 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a woman from Japan. The applicant claimed she feared persecution in Japan due to her marriage to a Muslim refugee, her family's rejection of this marriage, and her history of family violence and mental health issues. The delegate had refused the application, finding that Japan had a functioning legal system and that the applicant would not face a real chance of serious harm.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether she would face persecution as a member of a particular social group, or whether Australia had protection obligations under the complementary protection criterion due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal. The applicant argued she belonged to the particular social group of "women being discriminated against for her gender" and also feared persecution due to her marriage to a Muslim man, which had led to social discrimination and rejection by her family. Furthermore, she claimed her pre-existing mental health conditions would be exacerbated by such circumstances in Japan.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the Refugee Law Guidelines and Complementary Protection Guidelines. It noted the applicant's history of domestic violence from her father, her depression, and her subsequent marriage to a refugee. The Tribunal also took into account evidence from a psychotherapist suggesting that separation from her husband and children would be detrimental to the applicant's mental health, and that her parents in Japan had rejected her, her husband, and her children due to her husband's background. The Tribunal found that the delegate had not adequately considered the risk of significant harm arising from the cumulative effect of the applicant's circumstances, including her mental health, her family's rejection, and the potential for social discrimination against her and her child in Japan.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision and remitted the application to the delegate for reconsideration.