1711505 (Refugee)

The applicant, a former Christian who had become an atheist and expressed critical views of both Islam and Christianity, sought a protection visa. The applicant also identified as a supporter of the secularisation of the constitution. The applicant's claims of persecution were based on activities undertaken on social media and online forums, which allegedly led to threats, warnings, blocked posts, and suspended accounts. The application for a protection visa was made after a previous spouse visa application was refused. The decision under review was made by the delegate of the Minister.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a convention reason, namely political opinion or religious belief, and whether the delegate erred in finding that the applicant's claims were not credible. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the applicant's expressed views on secularisation constituted a political opinion for the purposes of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and whether the applicant's change of religious belief and subsequent criticisms of religion placed them at risk of persecution in Jordan. The court also had to assess the delegate's findings regarding the applicant's mental health and the credibility of their evidence, including whether their activities and interactions were exaggerated, manipulated, undated, or occurred after the spouse visa refusal.

The court affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. The court accepted the delegate's assessment that the applicant's claims were not credible, noting inconsistencies and unconvincing evidence. The court also considered country information which indicated that there were no legal penalties for conversion or apostasy in Jordan, and that while ostracism and discrimination existed, it was generally at a low to moderate level. The court found that the applicant's activities and interactions were either exaggerated, manipulated, undated, or did not clearly predate the refusal of the spouse visa, and therefore did not establish a real chance of persecution for a convention reason. The delegate's adverse credibility findings were upheld.