1713152 (Refugee)

This matter concerned protection visa applications made by citizens of Jordan. The primary applicant, Ms A, claimed she would suffer persecution due to her Christian faith and her profession as a teacher, fearing she would be compelled to teach an extremist Islamic curriculum. Her son, Mr C, claimed to have developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and associated mental health issues due to exposure to information about Islamic extremism and witnessing the plight of Christian refugees from Iraq. A fifth applicant identified as bisexual, claiming she would face social discrimination and harassment in Jordan due to her sexual orientation, which is not legally protected and is contrary to Sharia law. The Tribunal considered whether any of the applicants qualified as refugees or were entitled to complementary protection.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants were refugees within the meaning of the Migration Act 1958, or whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being returned to Jordan, there was a real risk that any of the applicants would suffer significant harm. This involved assessing the credibility of the claims regarding religious persecution, the impact of exposure to extremist ideologies on mental health, and the risks associated with identifying as bisexual in Jordan, considering the provisions of sections 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) of the Act, as well as the relevant guidelines.

The Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration. While not making specific findings on the merits of each claim at this stage, the Tribunal directed that the fifth applicant should be considered to satisfy section 32(2)(a) of the Migration Act, and the other applicants should be considered to satisfy section 36(2)(b)(i) on the basis of their membership in the same family unit as the fifth applicant. This indicates that the Tribunal found potential grounds for protection, particularly concerning the fifth applicant, and that the family unit's applications were linked to her claim.