1707484 (Refugee)

1707484 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 926 (12 March 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1707484
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Iraq
MEMBER:Roslyn Smidt
DATE:12 March 2021
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 12 March 2021 at 10:46 am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Iraq – occupation as barber – western style haircuts – brother’s involvement with anti-terrorist group – applicant not associated with the government or any militias or political groups – no claim of joining protestors if returned to Iraq – low risk indiscriminate violence in Dhi Qar – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 499
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 dependants.
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 and Border Protection on 5 April 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant who is a citizen of Iraq, applied for the visa on 25 February 2016.
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 themselves 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.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is a [age]-year-old single man of Shia Muslim religion from Nasiriyah in Iraq. His father is deceased. His mother, sister and three brothers remain in Iraq.
The applicant obtained a degree [in] Iraq but was unable to find work in his field. He worked as a barber with his brother [Mr A] from about 2005.
The applicant arrived in Australia [in] October 2015 on a prospective marriage visa. His relationship later broke down and he applied for a protection visa on 25 February 2016.
SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
The applicant claims that he faces serious harm from members of militia groups, in particular members of the Mahdi Army and Asaib Ahl al-Haq because he gave inappropriate haircuts to young men in about 2014, because his brother [Mr B] was in charge to the local anti-terrorist squad and had arrested members of militias and more generally because of the current situation in Nasiriyah.
During his interview with the delegate the applicant also claimed that he feared that he would be harmed by members of his former fiancée’s family. During the hearing he said that this issue had been resolved and he no longer feared harm for that reason.
COUNTRY INFORMATION
The following overview is intended to provide a context for the applicant’s claims. Unless otherwise stated it is based on information in DFAT Country Reports on Iraq dated 29 November 2013, 13 February 2015 and 17 August 2020.
The situation prior to the applicant’s departure
Nasiriyah is the capital of the Dhi Qar Governorate. The population is predominantly Shia. Following the 2003 invasion the governorate became contested between various Shia factions and militias, causing clashes. However, the governorate was largely peaceful after 2008 when a settlement was reached between militias and the Iraqi government.[1] DFAT reports in 2013 and 2015 reported that there was a low incidence of violence in the Dhi Qar Governorate. The reports also noted that Shia militias in Iraq had largely been dormant since the departure of the US military in late 2011.
[1] EASO Iraq Security situation Country of Origin Information Report October 2020
According to DFAT and others[2] there was a resurgence in activity by Shia militias in 2013 largely in response to the rise of Islamic State (ISIS). DFAT noted credible reports of instances of collusion between the Iraqi armed forces and Shia armed opposition groups that year. This process accelerated in 2014 as ISIS took over large parts of northern and western Iraq. In June 2014 Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani called for all able-bodied Shias to fight ISIS and many responded. Shortly afterwards the government established an umbrella organisation called the Population Mobilisation Units (PMU). Many militias joined the PMU and fought alongside Iraqi Security Forces. They were paid by the government, but most continued to operate independently.[3]
[2] See for example Lewis, J, Ali, A & Kagan, K 2013, Iraq’s Sectarian Crisis Reignites as Shi’a Militias Execute Civilians and Remobilize, Institute for the Study of War, 31 May; Katzman, K 2015, Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights, 22 June, Al-Kadhimi, M 2015, ‘Why Iraq needs to depoliticize their Popular Mobilization Units’, Al Monitor, 10 July < Habib, M 2015, ‘Are Shiite Militias Growing More Powerful Than Iraqi Army?’
[3] Also referred to as Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF)
The Mahdi Army was a dominant force in many Shia areas between 2003 and 2008 and often sought to impose strict Islamic rules in areas which it controlled. After 2008 the group’s leader Muqtada al-Sadr and his followers concentrated mostly on political activities. In June 2014 al-Sadr announced the formation of a militia called the Peace Brigades which joined the PMU and fought against ISIS in northern and western Iraq.
Asaib Ahl al-Haq[4] is an Islamist Shia group backed by Iran. Members engaged in violent activities mostly targeting Sunnis, the government and coalition forces until 2011 after which it was mainly engaged with the political process, a move reportedly welcomed and supported by the government of the day. However, it did not give up involvement in violence and military activities. According to one report, the group was known for its commitment to use violence on behalf of the al-Maliki government between 2011 and 2014 and for stoking sectarian violence. The group joined the PMU. It became one of the most powerful militias in Iraq, due in part to support from the government of the day.
[4] Asaib Ahl al-Haq, Counter Extremism Project Asaib Ahl al-Haq, cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/asaib-ahl-al-haq
In 2013 DFAT noted that ‘moral policing’ involving threats and targeted violence had occurred in recent years but observed that these abuses were often used to justify criminal acts and that accurate data was difficult to obtain. DFAT also noted reports that young people involved in ‘emo’ culture were sometimes suspected of homosexuality and subjected to threats, physical harm and even murder in 2012–2013. In her decision the delegate noted an article published in July 2016[5] which reports that some barbers in Nasiriyah were giving emo haircuts at that time and that a café frequented mainly by young men with emo hairstyles had been operating for about three years.
The current situation
[5] ‘Emo Revival: In Iraq, Teenagers Who Dress Differently Have Much To Fear’, Niqash, 13 July 2016, CX6A26A6E17151
According to reports the redeployment of large numbers of security forces to combat ISIS in late 2014 saw an increase in activity by criminal gangs, militias and tribes and a rise in crimes such as armed robberies, kidnappings for ransom or intimidation, drug trafficking, extortion and payment of protection fees in the south.[6]
[6] ‘International Protection Considerations with Regard to People Fleeing the Republic of Iraq’, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), 3 May 2019, pp.20–22, 20190506112913. See also EASO Iraq Security situation Country of Origin Information Report October 2020
These problems continued after the defeat of ISIS. In addition, empowered Shia militias returned to the south. Some controlled local areas, providing a range of welfare and security services and security. Some targeted members of the LGBTI community and punished people involved in the alcohol or drug trade. Others reportedly ran private nightclubs in which both alcohol and drugs were available. Many have reportedly established local crime rings and protection rackets. There has also been conflict and violence between different militias. The government attempted to control the militias by incorporating them into the security forces, but with limited success.
Large anti-government protests fuelled by high levels of unemployment, poverty, poor public services, power cuts and anger at the influence of Iran presence of Iran backed militias broke out across the south in 2018 and have continued off and on since that time.[7] The demonstrations increased significantly in October 2019. The security forces supported in some cases by members of PMU militias responded violently resulting in nearly 500 deaths. Some protestors also committed acts of violence. Protestors were also arrested and abducted in some areas and doctors and lawyers who supported them were also targeted. A government investigation found that excessive force had been used and some military commanders were removed. Some militias supported the protestors, others actively worked with government forces to repress the demonstrations. Al-Sadr and his supporters initially backed the protestors but he withdrew his support in January 2020 after which his supporters were actively involved in violently breaking up demonstrations. In August 2020 DFAT assessed that protesters and demonstrators faced a high risk of arrest or abduction or violence from state authorities and militia groups.
[7] See for example A Powerful Iran-Backed Militia Is Losing Influence in Iraq, Foreign Policy, 11 May 2020; Sadrists’ deadly violence prompts fears for upcoming elections, Middle East Eye 1 December 2020; Iraq’s Nasiriyah calmed by Kadhimi for pope’s visit, Middle East Eye 4 March 2021; Nasiriya: City at the heart of Iraq’s uprisings and rebellion, Aljazeera, 1 December 2020 nasiriyah-the-city-at-heart-of-iraqs-uprisings-and-rebellions
Nasiriyah is one of the cities most affected by these developments. Demonstrators in the city forced Iran-backed parties and militias to close their offices and occupied a central square for a prolonged period. The city suffered the highest death toll of any city outside Baghdad, with over 100 protestors reportedly killed in 2020.
Recent reports suggest a complex situation in Nasiriyah involving an ongoing struggle and shifting allegiances between demonstrators, militia groups, political parties, security forces and local and national governments resulting in sporadic outbreaks of sometimes deadly violence. In addition to police and security forces, groups involved in violence against protestors have included Sadrists, Badr Organization and Asaib Ahl al-Haq. The national government responded favourably to some demands by protestors, for example removing the governor of Dhi Qar and establishing a federal probe to identify those responsible for deadly attacks on protestors. Recently counter-riot forces and police in the city were replaced by the army and the impact of these measures remains unclear.
In August 2020 DFAT observed that sectarian violence had reduced significantly in Iraq in recent years. However, the security situation, while varying according to location, is highly unstable and fluid. Their report notes that security incidents are common and that targets include security forces, government offices, military and police facilities, places of worship, religious gatherings, markets, non-government organisations, schools and universities, but apart from reporting on demonstrations in 2019–2020 provides little information on the situation in Nasiriyah or elsewhere in Dhi Qar. In October 2020 the European Asylum Support office concluded that while violence was taking place in the governorate of Dhi Qar, it was at such a low level that in general there is no real risk for a civilian to be personally affected by reason of indiscriminate violence.[8]
CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
[8] EASO Iraq Security situation Country of Origin Information Report October 2020
Submissions to the Department
In a Statement dated 23 February 2016 the applicant said that militias had considerable power in Nasiriyah in the years prior to his departure and dictated which modes of dress and haircuts were acceptable. He gave “emo” haircuts to some clients behind closed doors. This became known and he was threatened by the Mahdi Army and later by Asaib Ahl al-Haq. Despite these threats he continued to work as a barber because he had been unable to find other work.
The applicant also claimed that his brother [Mr B] was in charge of [an] anti-terrorism squad. He had been heavily involved in fighting against militias and made many arrests. In July 2015 a group of armed men forced their way into the applicant’s barber shop and told him to tell [Mr B] to stop chasing them and to release the people he had arrested. They threatened to kill the applicant if [Mr B] did not comply with this demand. They reminded the applicant that he had been warned many times about the unacceptable haircuts he had given to some clients. They said that they believed that the applicant and his brother were against religion and this would justify killing them. When the applicant told [Mr B] what had happened, [Mr B] told him to stop work, which he did.
In October 2015 applicant was granted a prospective marriage visa and he was able to escape Iraq.
In January 2016 the applicant learned that [Mr A] had been shot by members of Asaib Ahl al-Haq and had gone into hiding in an area where some of their uncles resided. He decided to lodge a protection visa application because he feared that he would be targeted by Asaib Ahl al-Haq if he returned to Iraq.
During an interview with the delegate on 15 March 2017 the applicant said that the problems with extremist groups commenced in Nasiriyah in about 2008 and worsened in about 2011 or 2012. These groups banned some types of haircuts and beard trims. Initially the problems were with the Mahdi Army but later Asaib Ahl al-Haq was the main threat. Members of Asaib Ahl al-Haq came to his business many times. They were armed, entered by force and ordered that he abide by their rules. They told him not to provide haircuts to “lady boys”, dye hair or give cuts which involved patterns on the head. He did not stop, but when a “lady boy” came into the shop he would work behind a screen.
The delegate advised the applicant of information which suggested that young people who wanted emo-style haircuts were able to obtain them with relative ease in Nasiriyah and that a café where men wearing these styles congregated had opened in about 2013. She observed that this cast doubt on his claims. The applicant maintained that his claims were true.
The applicant said that sometime in 2014 or 2015 militia men began to demand that his brother [Mr B] cease his activities and release people he had detained. They threatened his family because they wanted revenge. The delegate observed that the applicant had failed to provide evidence that his brother belonged to an anti-terrorist unit. He said that he would provide evidence of this, but this appears not to have been received prior to the delegate finalising a decision.
The delegate asked the applicant if he had been physically harmed by the militias. He said that he had been scared and faced psychological pressure.
The delegate noted that [Mr B] was in an anti-terrorist squad and observed that he could have helped the applicant. The applicant said the militias were very powerful and even the police could not protect themselves. Militias such as Asaib Ahl al-Haq would sometimes occupy police stations to secure the release of members who had been detained. He said that [Mr B] had been threatened because of his involvement in arresting militia members.
The applicant said that his barber shop ceased operating about two months before he left Iraq. Following that [Mr A] stayed with an uncle [near] the city. He later moved to Baghdad to be near his in-laws.
The delegate noted that the applicant had stated that he feared that he would be killed by Asaib Ahl al-Haq and asked why he feared this would happen. He said that it was because his brother had been shot.
The delegate noted that the applicant had arrived in Australia in October 2015 but had not applied for protection until February 2016. The applicant said that he came to marry his fiancée, but there was a disagreement shortly after he arrived in Australia and she ended the relationship. He tried to resolve the situation with her family, but it was not possible.

The applicant was asked about his faith. He said that he came from a secular family and indicated that he did not attend the mosque or pray.
The delegate’s decision
The delegate noted evidence from DFAT regarding moral vigilantism in Iraq and accepted that the applicant may have faced demands to adhere to traditional beliefs. However, given that he did not claim to have faced problems beyond receiving verbal warnings and continued to operate his shop until about two months before leaving Iraq, she did not accept that he had been targeted by militias in the manner claimed as a result of his work as a barber.
The delegate found the applicant’s evidence regarding his fears relating to his relationship with [Mr B] vague and unpersuasive. She noted that despite claiming that he was at risk of harm from members of a militia who had come to his shop he continued to reside at an address which was only [a short distance] away from July 2015 until his departure in October 2015 without facing further problems. She also noted advice from DFAT indicated that there was a relatively low level of violence in southern provinces such as Dhi Qar during the time the applicant claims to have been threatened by militias.
A copy of the delegate’s decision has been provided to the Tribunal.
Submissions to the Tribunal
On 17 February 2021 the applicant provided a written statement of claims in which he said that his initial statement had inadequately explained his claims because his first representative had advised and warned him not to provide a full account of his circumstances. He believed that this was because he lacked funds to pay the amount which would have been required for proper representation.
The applicant said that he was a secular Shia Muslim, which meant that he did not practise his religion in practical terms. He said that because of this he was regarded as a non-pious Muslim and this was linked to the problems he faced because of his work as a barber as barbers who provide western-style haircuts are viewed as secular, modern and non-religious and as a result they are at risk of harm from extremists.
The applicant said that the threats he received because of his work as a barber were also linked to the warning he received about his brother. He said that he believed that while Asaib Ahl al-Haq did not mention [Mr B]’s employment when they warned him about the haircuts, he believed that they were using his work to try and get to him because of [Mr B]’s profession.
The applicant said that he was first warned by the Mahdi Army about his work as a barber sometime in 2014 when members of the group entered his shop and spoke to him about guidelines for giving appropriate Islamic haircuts. Following that, he placed a sign in the window apologising for providing certain types of haircuts and was careful about the services he provided.
The applicant’s next encounter with extremists was in July 2015 when members of the group confiscated his mobile phones and examined them. At the time the television was on playing music which was against the group’s rules. They said that despite the previous warning he had continued to provide unacceptable haircuts. They detained him and took him to their office where he was held for two hours. He was warned that he would be physically harmed if he continued to give unacceptable haircuts. They also said that his brother had arrested innocent people and told him that unless this stopped and the people who had been arrested were released, he would be targeted. After that he stopped giving unacceptable haircuts which greatly affected his business. He attempted to look for another job, but he was not successful.
The applicant said that at 8 pm [in] July 2015 a group of unknown men attacked his shop by shooting from a passing vehicle. He was inside and did not see the vehicle, but he was told that the assailants were masked. Nobody was injured, but there was some property damage. The police were called and took statements.
The applicant provided copies of reports which he, [Mr A] and others made to the [Court] [in] July 2015. They state that at about 8 pm [in] July 2015 shots were fired at his shop causing some property damage. Witnesses outside reported that the shots were fired by masked men in a car. The applicant said that he believed that the reason for the attack was that he had provided western-style haircuts. The police came to the location. He also provided copies of police reports dated [July] 2015 which state that the police attended the site of the attack, collected some empty cartridges from a Kalashnikov rifle, took witness statements and were investigating.
The applicant said that [Mr A] was shot in January 2016. While the shooting was not directly related to his claims it provided evidence of the security situation in Iraq. He also said that the close proximity of the threats against him and the shooting suggested it could have been a targeted attack.
The applicant provided statements from two friends, both of who are originally from Iraq but now reside in Australia.
Mr AH said that he had known the applicant since they were in primary school together. He travelled to Iraq to visit his family in Nasiriyah in August 2018, while he was there his mother and other community members had confirmed to him that the applicant’s family had moved to an unknown location due to threats from militias. They also told him that the applicant’s barber shop had been subjected to gunfire by militias and his brother [Mr A] had been shot and wounded.
Mr AA stated that he had known the applicant since 2017. He said that the applicant had told him about the problems he had faced in Iraq. He visited [Mr B] at his family home during a visit to Iraq in 2018 and observed that it was guarded. He said that [Mr B] was cautious about people knowing his whereabouts. He also said that the applicant had told him that his brothers in Iraq had been threatened because of their stance on militias.
The applicant provided a photograph of his brother in uniform with the insignia CTS, which suggests that he belonged to the Counter Terrorism Service, an elite squad originally formed by the US.
The applicant attended a hearing of the Tribunal on 22 February 2021.
The applicant said this brother [Mr B] was a senior officer in an anti-terrorism unit and his work involved gathering information and arresting terrorists. [Mr B] had been shot during armed confrontations with terrorist groups but had not been personally targeted.
The applicant said that his family began to face problems because of [Mr B]’s work in about 2012 or 2013 when he was promoted to a more senior position. When asked for information about those problems the applicant said that his family had been directly targeted. When pressed for details he said that in 2015 members of Asaib al-Haq came to his shop and demanded that [Mr B] release people he had arrested. He said while [Mr B]’s work had created enemies for his family from about 2013 nothing happened to them before 2015. I observed that he appeared to be speculating that his family had enemies if nothing happened to them prior to 2015. He confirmed that this was correct.
The applicant said that in about April 2014 a group from the Mahdi Army threatened him because of the haircuts he gave to some young people and demanded that he put up a sign. I advised him that it was not my understanding that the Mahdi Army was engaged in these activities in 2014. He said that during the time of Prime Minister al-Maliki they had re-emerged and they were very active (al-Maliki was in power from 2010 until August 2014). He said that they had formed a committee which gave warnings to barber shops and liquor shops about the manner in which they operated. Members of this committee came to his shop in 2014 and warned him about the haircuts he was giving. They did not say anything about [Mr B].
The applicant said that the next problem he experienced was in June or July 2015 when Asaib Ahl al-Haq warned him about his brother. Prior to that he continued to work at the barber shop, but he had to follow the instructions from the Mahdi Army. He confirmed that he had obeyed the instructions he had been given and nothing happened before mid-2015.
The next incident occurred when armed men came to his shop, forced him to go with them and held him for two hours during which they spoke to him about the haircuts he had given and about his brother’s work. I observed that his earlier evidence indicated that he had ceased giving unacceptable haircuts in April 2014. He said he had given fewer unacceptable haircuts but continued to provide this service. I observed that he appeared to have changed his evidence which caused me to wonder if he was telling me the truth. He said that he was simply stating the facts. He said that in addition to the warning about the haircuts he gave, the men had told him that he would be killed if [Mr B] did not release their members.
The applicant said that he had told [Mr B] about this incident. [Mr B] said that he could not release the men he had arrested and warned him and other family members to be careful. [Mr B] said that something needed to be done but nothing happened until the men came and fired shots at his shop in July 2015.
I observed that it appeared [Mr B] had the power to arrest people who threatened him and his family and it appeared that the applicant could have taken him to the place where he was detained and identified the people involved. The applicant said that [Mr B] did nothing because he was concerned about the safety of his family. He said that he remained in his house in Nasiriyah for a short time and then he came to Australia.
The applicant said that his brother [Mr A] was shot by unidentified outlaws in a passing car about [a short distance] from his home in 2016. I observed that he had previously claimed that [Mr A] had been shot by men from Asaib Ahl al-Haq. He said that he and his family believed that they were responsible because of the threats. [Mr A] moved to Baghdad in mid-2016. He has not experienced any problems while living there.
The applicant said that his brother Mohammed had joined [Mr B] as a member of the anti-terrorist squad after he left Iraq. He said that [Mr B] had arranged for Mohammad to join the force so he would have someone trustworthy close to him. Mohammad lives with [Mr B] and their mother. They currently live in an area outside the city where the risk of harm is low and their home is protected by security people. They have not experienced any problems since he left Iraq.
I advised the applicant that there were some issues with his evidence which caused me to question his claims. I noted that he did not appear to have mentioned the fact that shots were fired at his shop prior to his most recent submissions. He said that when he first arrived in Australia, he was not aware of the requirements and his first representative did not provide proper assistance. He said that he had told this representative that shots had been fired at his shop, but he had been advised not to mention this and only to provide a general account of his problems to avoid making mistakes.
I observed that the statement he had provided had been reasonably detailed and advised him that I had difficulty accepting that any agent would have omitted such a detail. The applicant said that he had not mentioned all of the details of his situation in his first statement. For example, he and [Mr A] lived in Baghdad for about 8 months in 2009 and worked cutting hair for [people]. At the time nobody knew he was engaged in this work. I observed that even if this was true there appeared to be no suggestion that this had caused him problems in the past or that he feared that it would cause him problems in the future and in these circumstances his failure to mention this work previously did not greatly concern me. However, I was concerned about his failure to mention that people had fired shots at his shop shortly before leaving Iraq. He maintained that he was telling the truth.
I noted that the applicant had previously claimed that men had come to his shop to make demands in relation to [Mr B]’s work, but he had said nothing about being taken at gunpoint and held for two hours. I advised him that I had difficulty understanding why he had not mentioned this incident until his most recent submission. The applicant said that he had consulted many solicitors but none of them had asked him the right questions until his current representative. I noted that he had the opportunity to provide evidence during his interview with the delegate but had still failed to mention this incident. He said that he was mentioning it now.
I noted that as noted in the delegate’s decision, there was evidence which suggested that young men in Nasiriyah appeared in public with western or emo haircuts during the time he claimed to have been threatened, which suggested that these haircuts did not cause serious problems at that time. The applicant said that he had provided evidence that certain haircuts caused problems in Iraq. I advised that I was aware that this had sometimes been a problem, but not at the time he claimed. He maintained that his claims were true.
I noted that the applicant had provided documents which he said were police reports regarding the attack on his shop. I advised him that while I had not reached any conclusion in relation to these documents it was my understanding that it was not difficult to obtain fraudulent documents in Iraq and that anyone with a computer and a printer could have produced them. The applicant maintained that they were genuine.
I noted that it was more than five years since the applicant had left Iraq and asked about his fears on return. He said that he feared that he would be punished for refusing to obey the people who had threatened him in the past and that he would be harmed because he would continue to work as a barber and give western haircuts. He also feared harm because of his association with his brother. When asked who he feared, he said that he feared many groups. He said that he would try to avoid them, but he did not know exactly which group or family had targeted him in the past. I observed that he had previously stated that he feared Asaib Ahl al-Haq. He said that Asaib Ahl al-Haq was a big organisation with many groups and the people who threatened him did not tell him their names, so he did not know who they were.
I advised the applicant that it was my understanding that the relationship between the government and militias in Iraq had changed since they had begunto to rid the country of ISIS and it appeared unlikely that members of militias would be interested in him because of [Mr B]’s involvement in counter-terrorism. He maintained that he and his entire family were at risk of harm.
I advised the applicant that while I was aware that there were outbreaks of violence from time to time it was my understanding that Dhi Qar was one of the more secure areas in Iraq. The applicant said that nothing had really changed since his departure and added that the militias had been legalised, that they had seats in Parliament, and they were stronger than before. He said that many people had been killed or wounded in 2019 and the Iraqi government did not who was responsible and that widespread protests by armed people continued throughout the country.
The applicant’s representative submitted that if the people arrested by [Mr B] had been released they could well pose a risk to the applicant. He also submitted that the extreme measures taken by [Mr B] to protect his family home indicated that there was still a risk for his family and suggested that the applicant would be at risk of harm if he returned to Iraq.
I noted that the applicant had said that he was secular and did not practise his religion and advised him that it was my understanding that significant numbers of Iraqi citizens did not actively practise their religion. He said that people who wanted to live a life free from religion were at risk of being killed. I noted that it appeared that he had not experienced any problems in the past because of his failure to practise his religion and asked why he feared that he would face problems for that reason if he returned to Iraq now. He said that he did not fear harm in Iraq because of his failure to practise his religion. His representative submitted that his fears related to the problems he had faced for transgressing Islamic norms and providing unacceptable haircuts.
Mr AA and Mr AH gave evidence at the hearing.
Mr AH repeated the evidence in his written statement and added that he had driven past the applicant’s barber shop and it was still closed. I advised Mr AH that I had some doubts about the applicant’s claims in part because he had not mentioned anything about militias shooting at his shop until very recently, which also caused me to wonder if his evidence regarding the information from his mother was true. He maintained his evidence was true.
Mr AA also repeated the claims in his written statement. I advised him that I had doubts about the claims which the applicant had made, in particular in relation to the attack on his shop which had not been mentioned in his earlier submissions and asked if he was sure that [Mr B] had told him about these events when he was in Iraq. He maintained that his evidence was true. He also said that he knew the agent who first assisted the applicant and was aware that he was not competent.
FINDINGS OF FACT
For the following reasons I did not find the applicant to be an entirely credible witness.
In the first place, while he has consistently claimed that he fears harm from militia groups because of his work as a barber and because of his association with [Mr B], the claims that he was forced at gunpoint to attend a meeting with militia members in July 2015 and that armed men fired shots at his business in July 2015 forcing him to close it were not mentioned until after his application was refused by the delegate. While I acknowledge that it is not uncommon for honest applicants to omit some details of their case in early submissions, I do not accept that the applicant would have failed to mention such significant events if they had occurred.
In reaching this conclusion I have considered the police reports regarding the claimed attack on the applicant’s barber shop in July 2015. However, these documents were provided in support of a claim not mentioned in the applicant’s submissions to the Department which I find lacking in credibility. Furthermore, as pointed out at the hearing, DFAT advice states that fraudulent documents and genuine documents obtained by fraudulent means are reportedly commonly and cheaply available in Iraq. In these circumstances I have given them little weight.
I have noted the applicant’s submission that he was poorly advised by his first representative. I do not accept that even a representative of limited competence would advise an applicant against providing a reasonably complete and truthful account of his claims. In any event, the applicant had the opportunity to mention these matters during his interview with the delegate but failed to do so.
I do not accept that the applicant was taken to a meeting with members of a militia at gunpoint in 2015 or that shots were fired at his shop shortly afterwards. I find that these claims were concocted to enhance his claim for protection. His willingness to concoct these claims casts doubt on the credibility of other claims he has made.
Secondly, the applicant’s evidence regarding the threats he claims to have received in relation to the haircuts he provided was unpersuasive.
In my view the applicant’s claim that he was targeted by militias for providing emo or western style haircuts in 2014 and 2015 does not sit well with the independent evidence. It is true that some militias and Islamist groups have sometimes enforced or sought to enforce rules regarding behaviour and what they view as Islamic norms. It is also clear that young men wearing emo style haircuts were threatened, attacked and sometimes killed in Iraq in 2012 and 2013. However, as noted in the country information section above, militias were largely dormant after about 2011 and when they re-emerged in late 2014 their focus was on combatting ISIS in the north and west of the country. In addition, it appears that from about 2013 onwards there was a small community of young men who openly wore emo haircuts and congregated in a café in Nasiriyah without facing serious consequences. While this does not necessarily mean that there were no attempts to enforce rules of behaviour or that those transgressing what were seen as Islamic norms never faced consequences, it does suggest that the haircuts which the applicant claims caused him to face threats from militias in 2014 and 2015 where not a significant problem at that time.

More significantly, the applicant’s evidence regarding the threats he received because of his work as a barber was confused and unconvincing. For example, he initially claimed that he was first threated by the Mahdi Army and later by Asaib Ahl al-Haq, but during the hearing he said that he did not know which militia had threatened him. In addition, at the hearing he said that he had obeyed the instructions issued in April 2014 forbidding barbers from giving certain kinds of haircuts, but later in the hearing said that he had continued to give these haircuts until the shop closed in July 2015.
It may be the applicant was required to place a sign regarding acceptable haircuts in his barber shop at some time. However, in light of the problems set out above and my finding regarding his willingness to provide false evidence, I am not satisfied that he provided emo or other unacceptable haircuts to clients at any time or that he was threatened by members of a militia or anyone else for providing these haircuts.
Thirdly, I found the applicant’s evidence regarding being threatened in 2015 by members of a militia demanding that [Mr B] release detained members of the militia confused and unpersuasive. In addition to failing to mention being detained or the attack on his barber shop, he gave differing accounts of who was targeting him and his family. In his evidence to the Department and at the beginning of the hearing he said that he had been threatened by Asaib Ahl al-Haq, but later in the hearing he said he did not know who had threatened him. While I acknowledge that applicants may assert as fact matters which they later explain were speculation, the applicant repeated the claim that he had been threatened by Asaib Ahl al-Haq several times and I believe he gave differing accounts because his claims were not true. Finally, the applicant’s claim to have been threatened by members of Asaib Ahl al-Haq seeking the release of detained members who had been arrested is at odds with the independent country information which states that the group Asaib Ahl al-Haq was close to the government from about 2011and therefore unlikely to be a target of counter-terrorism forces.
After considering all of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the applicant or any other member of his family was threatened or harmed by Asaib Ahl al-Haq or any other militia in Iraq because [Mr B] was involved in the arrest of militia members or because he worked for an anti-terrorism squad.
Fourth, I found the applicant’s evidence regarding the shooting of his brother [Mr A] in January 2016 confused and unconvincing. In his initial statement he said that [Mr A] had been shot by members of the Asaib Ahl al-Haq and he feared that he too would be targeted by Asaib Ahl al-Haq if he returned to Iraq. In the statement provided in February 2021 he said that the attack on [Mr A] was the result of general violence, but also speculated that it might have been linked to threats against his family. At the hearing he said that [Mr A] was shot by unidentified men in a car about [distance] from his home. There are also some small, but in my view telling differences, in the applicant’s evidence regarding [Mr A]’s movements after July 2015. In his initial statement he said that [Mr A] went into hiding after being shot. He told the delegate that [Mr A] had gone to live with an uncle outside the city before he left Iraq and later moved to Baghdad to be near his in-laws.
In any event, there is no credible evidence before me which suggests that [Mr A] would have been of interest to Asaib Ahl al-Haq because the applicant provided unacceptable haircuts or because [Mr B] had arrested some of their members or for any reason linked to the applicant. Unfortunately, violent acts of this kind sometimes occur in Iraq and I accept that [Mr A] was a victim of a random act of violence in 2016 and that he relocated to Baghdad sometime later.
After considering all of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the applicant was threatened by members of a militia or anyone else prior to leaving Iraq because of his work as a barber or because of his association with his brother [Mr B]. I believe that he concocted these claims in order to obtain a protection visa and remain in Australia.
I have also considered the evidence from Mr AA and Mr AH. However, they are close personal friends of the applicant, not disinterested parties. Neither of them was in Iraq at the time the applicant claims to have been threatened and they are seeking to corroborate claims which I have found lacking credibility based largely on information provided by the applicant himself or a member of his family. I have given little weight to this evidence.
I accept that the applicant is a non-practicing Shia Muslim from Nasiriyah. I accept that he worked as a barber for a number of years before coming to Australia. I accept that his brother [Mr B] works for an anti-terrorism squad. I accept that his brother [Mr A] was shot in 2016. However, I do not accept that the applicant was of adverse interest to a militia group or anyone else for any reason at the time he left Iraq in 2015.
CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICANT’S CLAIMS
I accept that people who transgress what some groups see as acceptable Islamic behaviour, for example by selling or drinking alcohol or being openly gay, or who publicly oppose the views of these groups, have been targeted by some militia groups in Iraq in the past and may be at risk of harm in future. However, there is no credible evidence before me which suggests that the applicant provided unacceptable haircuts to young men prior to leaving Iraq or that he was of adverse interest to Shia militias or extremist groups or anyone else for engaging in un-Islamic behaviour or opposing Islam prior to his departure in 2015. Furthermore, while I accept that he may continue to work as a barber if he returns to Iraq, there is nothing in the evidence which suggests that he would provide emo or other “unacceptable” hairstyles to clients if he returned to Iraq. Nor is there anything in the evidence which suggests he would engage in behaviour unacceptable to local militias or other groups. After considering all of the evidence, I am not satisfied that he faces a real chance of experiencing serious or significant harm for any reason associated with his work as a barber or for engaging in behaviour viewed as un-Islamic by militias or other extremist groups if he returns to Iraq.
In reaching this conclusion I have noted that the applicant is a secular Muslim who does not attend mosque or practise his religion in the manner followed by most Muslims. I am unaware of any evidence which suggests that someone would be at risk of serious or significant harm in Iraq merely because he did not attend mosque or actively practise his religion. At the hearing the applicant confirmed that he had not experienced problems because of this in the past and said that he did not fear that he would be harmed because he did not actively practise his religion if he returned to Iraq.
I am not satisfied the applicant fears serious or significant harm because he is a secular or non-practising Muslim or that there is a real chance that he would suffer serious or significant harm on return to Iraq for that reason.
While it is possible that [Mr B] was injured during a confrontation with a terrorist while carrying out his duties as a serving officer in anti-terrorist squad and that [Mr A] was shot in the leg as a result of crime or general violence, there is no credible evidence before me which suggests that the applicant or other members of his family have been threatened or harmed because of [Mr B]’s work. Furthermore, there is nothing in the evidence before me which suggests that the applicant would be of adverse interest to Asaib Ahl al-Haq, the Mahdi Army or any other militia or group because of [Mr B]’s work in anti-terrorism if he returned to Iraq now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. After considering all of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of suffering serous or significant harm on return to Iraq because of his relationship to [Mr B].
In reaching this conclusion I have noted the submission that [Mr B] has moved to an area outside Nasiriyah and that his house is guarded because he is at risk of harm from militias. I accept that a senior officer in an anti-terrorism squad would likely be provided with some form of security at his home. However, as noted above, no evidence has been provided or located which suggests that family members of those involved in anti-terrorism face a real chance of suffering serious harm because of this in Nasiriyah.
At the hearing the applicant noted that militias had increased their strength in recent years and had also entered the political sphere. He also spoke about his concern about the violence and conflict caused by ongoing demonstrations and protests in Nasiriyah. Exactly how he believed this would impact on him if he returned to Iraq was not clear, but it appears that his fears related to general violence and unrest.
I accept that the power and influence of many Shia militias has increased in Iraq since the formation of the PMU and the defeat of ISIS. I also accept that the demonstrations in Nasiriyah have been violent, that many protestors have been killed and many more injured or arrested. However, I am not satisfied the increased power of the militias, the violence surrounding the demonstrations, or the general situation in Nasiriyah mean that the applicant would face a real chance or experiencing serious or significant harm if he returned to Iraq.

100. According to the evidence the main conflict in Nasiriyah has been between those vying for power and influence including the government, security forces, various political and militia groups and protestors. Apart from his relationship with his brother, which is dealt with above, there is no suggestion that the applicant is associated with the government or any of the militias or political groups in the city. He does not claim that he would join the protestors if he returned to Iraq and there is nothing in the evidence regarding his past activities in Iraq which suggests he would do so. There is nothing in the available evidence which suggests that civilians are not involved in or closely associated with the protests in Nasiriyah face a real chance of suffering serious or significant harm from the protestors or those targeting them. And as noted above, after considering a range of evidence, EASO concluded the risk of civilians in Nasiriyah falling victim to indiscriminate violence in Dhi Qar was low.
101. While I acknowledge that there will likely continue to be conflict between militias, protestors and the government in Nasiriyah, after considering all the relevant evidence I am not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant would suffer serious or significant harm because of this if he returned to Iraq now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
IS THE APPLICANT A REFUGEE?
102. After considering the applicant’s claims singly and cumulatively, I am not satisfied that he faces a real chance of suffering serious harm amounting to persecution for any of the reasons set out in s.5J(1) of the Act. Therefore, I am not satisfied that he has a well-founded fear of persecution now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
DOES THE APPLICANT MEET THE COMPLEMENTARY PROTECTION CRITERIA?
103. After considering the applicant’s claims singly and cumulatively, I am not satisfied that he faces a real risk of suffering significant harm on return to Iraq. Therefore, I am not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Iraq, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.
CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS
104. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).
105. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
106. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).
DECISION
107. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Roslyn Smidt
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.
…

5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…

5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)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.
(2)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.
(3)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 the 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.

(4)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.
(5)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.
(6)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
(1)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.
(2)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.
…

36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) 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 the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

(c) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

(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.
…

[2021] AATA 926

12 March 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Standing

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice