1717958 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant, who had previously lived in Iraq, claimed to have renounced his Muslim faith and identified as an atheist. He also alleged past threats and abduction by militia members, and expressed concerns about his safety if returned to Iraq due to his religious beliefs and criticisms of political and religious figures. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as a refugee, or alternatively, whether he was entitled to complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa).

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's claim of being an atheist and the associated risks in Iraq. It considered extensive country information regarding the treatment of atheists and critics of religious and political figures in Iraq, including reports of societal intolerance, potential prosecution for "desecration of religions," and risks from armed groups and vigilantes. The Tribunal also examined the applicant's social media activity and his explanations for his public expressions of atheism, despite the general tendency for atheists in Iraq to keep their views secret. The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence to be detailed and consistent, and accepted that he had renounced his Muslim faith and was an atheist.

Applying the legal principles concerning well-founded fear of persecution, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, specifically for being an atheist. The Tribunal found that the real chance of persecution related to all areas of Iraq and that effective protection measures were not available. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the applicant could not reasonably be expected to modify his behaviour to avoid persecution, as doing so would conflict with a characteristic fundamental to his identity. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

As the Tribunal had determined that the applicant satisfied the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a), it was not required to consider the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal's decision was to remit the matter for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant satisfies section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).