1707962 (Refugee)

This case concerned an application for a Protection Visa by a citizen of Iraq. The applicant claimed that her problems began in March 2014 after she conducted a conference on women's rights and the marriage of minors, during which she expressed strong views against the legislation and those who endorsed it. She alleged that this led to harassment from students and colleagues, including being called "infidel" and "secular," and receiving threatening phone calls in September 2014, followed by a letter with bullets sent to her parents in January 2015. The applicant arrived in Australia in December 2014 and applied for a Protection Visa in May 2016.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a refugee visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, or alternatively, whether she was entitled to complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's credibility, the plausibility of her claims regarding threats and harassment, the time lapse between the alleged inciting incident and the threats, and the lack of corroborative evidence. Additionally, the Tribunal considered the applicant's activism, or lack thereof, in Australia and her personal circumstances, including her acceptance of a polygamous marriage, in relation to her claimed feminist views.

The Tribunal found the applicant to be an uncompelling witness, noting her responses were not spontaneous or fulsome, and was not persuaded by her explanations for delays in leaving Iraq or in applying for the visa. While accepting she may have answered a question at the conference, the Tribunal did not accept she used the specific language claimed, nor did it find her to be an activist for women's rights based on the single incident. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the alleged threats were received, citing a lack of evidence and implausibility, and concluded that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no substantial grounds to believe there was a real risk of significant harm upon her return to Iraq, considering her family support network and the country information regarding academics.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection Visa, finding that she did not satisfy the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. As a result, she also could not satisfy the criteria under sections 36(2)(b) or (c) relating to being a member of the same family unit as a visa holder.