1713360 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the protection visa application of a woman from Jordan. The applicant claimed she feared persecution due to ongoing violence from her first husband and general violence against women in Jordan. She also raised concerns about the interpretation of her statements during the Department interview and provided medical reports detailing her anxiety and depression.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the definition of a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, and alternatively, whether she met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This involved assessing whether she had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and whether there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Jordan. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the applicant was afforded a meaningful opportunity to present her evidence and submissions.

The Tribunal applied the principles outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 84, including the Refugee Law Guidelines and Complementary Protection Guidelines. It found that while the applicant had raised concerns about interpreter accuracy, she had been given a meaningful opportunity to present her case. Having concluded that the applicant did not meet the refugee criterion, the Tribunal then considered the complementary protection criterion. The Tribunal was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant under section 36(2)(aa), meaning there were not substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her removal to Jordan, she faced a real risk of suffering significant harm.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.