1721096 (Refugee) - [2021] AATA 1819

1721096 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 1819 (22 April 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1721096
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Jordan
MEMBER:Mr S Norman
DATE:22 April 2021
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants a protection visa.

Statement made on 22 April 2021 at 12:22pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Jordan – persecution by relative – applicant mother returned to Jordan – applicant son’s health conditions – ability to find work in Jordan – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 30 August 2017 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The applicants who claim to be citizens of Jordan, applied for the visas on 14 June 2016.
The Department delegate’s decision was not lodged with the Tribunal.
The applicant mother [did] not attend the hearing (having departed Australia [in] September 2018). The applicant son [attended] the Tribunal hearing on 15 April 2015. The Tribunal also obtained evidence from two witnesses and one support person at hearing (when asked, the applicant son agreed that no other witness evidence was to be taken). The applicants were initially assisted in the Protection visa application by a migration agent. At hearing, the Tribunal was assisted by an interpreter.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).
Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
The applicants provided numerous evidence and submissions in support of their claims. Though not all has been expressly referred to herein, the Tribunal has considered all evidence and submissions prior to drafting this decision.
The s.438(1)(b) Certificate:[1]
[1] PDF – from p.133.
The applicant mother and applicant son lodged a joint Protection visa (PV) application with the Department. The Department subsequently issued a s.438 Certificate (Certificate) referring to folios 184 & 185 of the Department [file]. It was claimed the information was provided to an officer of the Department ‘in confidence’. The material information related to a ‘dob-in’ report that claimed the applicant son was working illegally in Australia for cash in hand. It was also said the applicant son and his step-brother in Jordan ([Mr A]) and the applicant mother and her step-son in Jordan (again [Mr A]) have a good relationship contrary to the claims being made in the PV application (and discussed below).
The Tribunal put this information to the applicant son at the hearing by way of s.424AA. After noting the Tribunal believed the Certificate valid, given it related to information given to the Department ‘in confidence’, the Tribunal advised this information contradicted the applicant son’s material claims. The applicant son said he could prove he worked lawfully in Australia, but the evidence he provided (tax information – no copy was taken), did not prove the applicant son had never worked illegally.
Be that as it may, and as stated at hearing, given the Tribunal was unable to test this ‘dob-in’ evidence with the source, and given the Tribunal was not aware of the motivation for providing the information, the Tribunal said it did not propose to consider this information further; or place any weight on this information in its decision. The applicant son understood and agreed.
Meaningful opportunity to appear:
In migration agent submissions dated 4 July 2017,[2] it was claimed the applicants suffered PTSD and Major Depression and Major Depressive Disorder, Chronic Anxiety, Chronic Depression with panic disorder (medical evidence lodged[3]). The agent also lodged a medical certificate dated 15 March 2021, attesting to the applicants ‘good character’.
[2] PDF – p.26.
[3] PDF – from p.179.
The applicant son also said he had two disabilities; the first a recurring middle ear infection leading to hearing loss. The second was an injury to his right leg that causes ‘ongoing issues’. He also said he had ‘cognitive issues’ and trouble concentrating and needs people to speak slowly to him so he can better understand.[4]
[4] PDF – from p.191.
At the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal requested the interpreter speak slowly to the applicant son. Throughout the hearing, the applicant son appeared to be able to respond meaningfully to material questions put to him, and minimal requests for clarification were made. It was claimed that he could be confused at times, but during the hearing, his two witnesses and his support person, were allowed to clarify what had been said as necessary.
In the circumstances, the Tribunal was satisfied the applicant son was provided a meaningful opportunity to put evidence and submissions, including at the hearing.
Membership of the same family unit:
As noted above, the applicant son made similar claims to his mother – though the applicant son also lodged other claims (both lodged Part C forms with the Department[5]). The applicant son also listed numerous relatives in Australia,[6] and that he is able to contact family in Jordan[7] (he was also assisted with the Part C by an agent).
[5] PDF – from p.191 & p.198.
[6] PDF – p.204.
[7] PDF – p451.
In migration agent submissions dated 4 July 2017,[8] it was said that r.1.12(4)(b) and r.1.05A read together, provided that the applicant son should be considered a dependent on the applicant mother as he was “wholly or substantially reliant on them for financial, psychological or physical support”. It was also claimed the applicant mother was substantially financially and physically dependent on the applicant son.
[8] PDF – p.26.
Based on the evidence provided, the Tribunal was satisfied the applicant mother and applicant son were related.
However, on 5/10/2018 an email was received from [name deleted] (the support person at hearing), advising that [the applicant mother] departed Australia [in] September 2018, on a Bridging visa A. The applicant son was said to have remained onshore. The applicant mother was claimed to have returned to Jordan in order to try to ‘fix the issues’; and the applicant mother returned to Jordan to ‘finish the problem’.[9]
[9] PDF – p.703.
By undated letter, the applicant mother confirmed she had departed Australia [in] September 2018 due to “a number of serious reasons”. Put briefly, this related to the sale of the applicant mother’s land in Palestine (discussed below). The applicant mother also said she had left the applicant son ‘in Australia’s hands’. The applicant mother also said that her son [Mr B] (the support person’s husband) protected her in Jordan (during his temporary stay there) but she fears for her safety after he returned to Australia (email 25 December 2018). The applicant mother also said she had bond money saved and was planning to move from her apartment. The applicant mother also said her health (diabetes) is causing her problems in Jordan and she wished to return to Australia (though she had not returned as at the date of the Tribunal decision). The applicant son repeated this material information by email dated 5 October 2018.[10]
[10] PDF – p.62; and see p.70 & 85 (s.424A letter); and p.89.
A s.424A letter dated 20 December 2018, noted the applicant mother had departed Australia, and that s.36(2) of the Act provided inter alia that a PV can only be granted if a non-citizen applicant was in Australia. The fact the applicant mother had departed Australia was not disputed (though she did not withdraw the Tribunal review application).
In the circumstances, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant mother meets the criteria for the grant of a Protection visa; and the decision relating to her must be affirmed.
Regarding the applicant son, he did say that he had many relatives in Australia.[11] However, none were members of the same family unit for the purposes of the Protection visa.
The applicants’ citizenship / receiving country / s.36(3)-(5) of the Act:
[11] PDF – from p.250.
The applicant mother (DOB: [date] – now [age] years old – hereafter the ‘mother’) and the applicant son (DOB: [date]), claim to be citizens of Jordan. The delegate noted they both last arrived in Australia [in] May 2016.
Both lodged a photocopy of the face page of their Jordanian passports.[12] The Tribunal has finalised its decision on the mother as set out above. However, and with respect to the applicant son, the Tribunal accepts his identity is as stated in his passport, that he is a citizen of Jordan, and that Jordan is his receiving country.
[12] PDF – p.97.
At hearing, the Tribunal noted the applicant son’s passport had expired. The Tribunal noted that evidence it had seen indicated the passport could be renewed (ie) online with the assistance of the Embassy of Jordan in Canberra.[13] The applicant son did not dispute this at hearing; and the Tribunal accepts this to be correct.
[13] See Embassy of Jordan in Canberra – Embassy of Jordan in Canberra (jordanembassy.org.au), and refer to the bottom of the homepage where the ‘renew/issue passport’ tab is located.
Further, based on the lack of evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal accepts the applicant son cannot access protection pursuant to s.36(3)-(5) of the Act.
The applicant son’s support person at hearing:
To the extent it was considered necessary, the Tribunal has included the evidence of the witnesses and the support person herein. However, and towards the end of the hearing, the support person advised she was the applicant son’s brother’s ([Mr B]’s) wife, and that only a short period prior to the hearing, she had undergone a caesarean section (her new born child was also in the hearing room). The Tribunal accepts this is correct.
The support person also said she (words to the effect) would not have risked her health if she did not believe the applicant son was at risk of harm in Jordan. The Tribunal noted she was a close family member of the applicant son, and as such she was protective of him. However, I also attempted to explain that the Tribunal still needed to determine whether the applicant son had a real chance of suffering serious or significant harm in Jordan.
The claimed harm by [Mr A] (the applicant son’s step-brother):
Both the applicant son and his mother claimed to fear harm for the same reasons in Jordan (though the applicant son’s additional claims are discussed below).
At hearing, the applicant son said he had 3 x brothers, and 2 x sisters who resided in Irbid; he had 1 x sister who resided in [location]; and he had 1 x sister who resided in Aqaba (the mother now resides with the sister, her daughter, in Aqaba). He also had aunts and uncles who resided in Jordan (not only in Irbid), and he had around 10-20 cousins who also resided in Jordan.
That being said, the mother said she married ‘[Mr A]’s’ father in Kuwait in 1975; and they both fled to Jordan in 1990 (due to the war). At hearing, the applicant son (DOB: [date]) said they had moved into the father’s home and resided there (at least) between 2000-2012. It was claimed that around 2013/2014, the applicant son and his mother moved into the home of [Mr A] (around the time of the death of the father).
The applicant son had lodged a Certificate of Death from Irbid, for [the applicant son’s father] – date of death was [December] 2013; and an UNRWA certificate; and Court evidence of claimed property ownership dated [February] 1999.
The applicant son claimed to have suffered harm from (principally) [Mr A] in Jordan (though [Mr A]’s wife had also caused harm). It was claimed the applicant son and his mother fear being physically and mentally tortured by [Mr A] (DOB: [date]) - who is the step-son of the mother and the step-brother of the applicant son.
It was said [Mr A] started harming both the applicant son, his mother and his own father, sometime around 2008 (though lesser harm had arisen prior to that time). It was claimed that [Mr A] had been severely mistreating the applicant son and his mother since 2008, and that the applicant son and his mother subsequently lived with [Mr A] in Jordan (Irbid) – as he was the eldest and lived nearby.[14] Both the applicant son and the mother, witnessed each other being harmed. It was also said the applicant son had suffered repetitive head injuries and has chronic PTSD. The harm they feared was said to include but not be limited to, being insulted, being regularly hit, being verbally abused, having hot coffee poured on legs, and psychological harm. The agent also reported that [Mr A] was angry the mother and the applicant son had departed Jordan (though as noted herein, the mother had returned to Jordan).
[14] PDF – p.183.
The country information stated:
Nonfelony offenses, such as certain cases of domestic violence, are first subjected to mediation by the Family Protection Department (FPD) of the PSD. The law provides options for alternative sentencing in domestic violence cases, with consent of the victim.
…..
Women may file complaints of rape or physical abuse with certain NGOs or directly with judicial authorities. However, due to social taboos and degrading treatment at police stations, gender-based crimes often went unreported.
…..
In 2019 the Ministry of Social Development launched a national initiative aimed at preventing and responding to gender-based violence. The ministry also created a manual for providing health care to and treating sexual assault victims. NGOs reported that health-care providers and teachers were still hesitant to report abuse due to the absence of witness protection guarantees. Specialized judges continued expediting and classifying domestic violence cases; misdemeanor cases took approximately three months to resolve, according to legal aid NGOs. A judge must oversee the resolution of each case and confirm consent of both parties, and may order community service or quash criminal charges. Another legal aid NGO assisted the Government of Jordan in developing mediation guidelines.[15]
[15] US DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 2020 COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES: JORDAN, 30 MARCH 2021, ‘PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES’, JORDAN - UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE , ACCESSED 12 APRIL 2021.
The Tribunal noted it was possible the applicant son and his mother had been harmed as claimed, but that in more recent times, the Jordanian authorities appeared to be more concerned about ensuring persons subject to family violence, were protected. The applicant son did not agree.
Next, it was claimed that [Mr A] harmed the applicant son, his mother and (previously) the father in order to pressure them to sell land that they owned in Palestine (the Tribunal understood the land was owned by the father and the mother – and after they passed, it would be transferred to the father’s uncles). It was said that [Mr A] wanted money from the sale of the land, and that [Mr A]’s attitude and the harm he inflicted on them worsened after the husband/father passed away in December 2013. It was claimed the land in Palestine could not be sold because it was co-owned by other relative/s and they were not willing to sell the land.
In all submissions prior to the hearing, the applicant son (and his mother) had claimed the land in Palestine could not be sold. At hearing, one of the witnesses said the land could be sold as it was possible to sell the portion of the land owned by an individual owner of the land. However, another witness said the land could not be sold as the mother could not enter Palestine (without her now deceased husband) to sell the land; and about which the applicant son appeared to agree. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has decided to accept the land in Palestine cannot be sold by the mother.
The Tribunal then noted that none of the information before it indicated that [Mr A] was a ‘foolish man’ and it may not appear plausible that he would have pressured the applicant son (and especially the mother) from at least 2008, if it was correct that the mother could not sell the land. The Tribunal understands that it was then explained this had none-the-less happened; that other persons (being the father/husband’s brothers) also owned parts of the land and they did not speak to each other; that it was not known whether [Mr A] spoke to any of his uncles. One witness said the problem had arisen out of greed (presumably [Mr A]’s) and the Tribunal accepts this may be correct. However, the Tribunal does not accept it is plausible that [Mr A] would have continually pressured the mother to sell the land, if as was principally claimed and now accepted, the land in Palestine could not be sold.

Next, the following was put to the applicant son at hearing by way of s.424AA. Though the problems with [Mr A] had allegedly worsened further after the December 2013 death of the father, the Tribunal noted the mother had:
· Been granted a sponsored Visitor visa on 18 May 2014 and arrived in Australia [in] July 2014 – and she subsequently returned to Jordan
· Been granted another Visitor visa on 9 December 2015, and she arrived in Australia [in] May 2016 (with the applicant son)
When asked why the mother returned to Jordan (in 2014) if her claim to have a real chance of suffering serious or significant harm was genuine, the applicant son said she returned in order to ensure he was protected and to bring him to Australia. The Tribunal understands the applicant son and his mother have numerous extended family members in Australia, and numerous family members in Jordan. However, the fact the aged and vulnerable mother, the claimed principal focus of [Mr A]’s attention, returned to the very place she feared serious (or significant) harm, and then continued to reside with [Mr A] for many months, does not support a finding the applicant son or mother have a real chance of suffering serious (or significant) harm in Irbid, Jordan (where they had lived with [Mr A]).
Next, the Tribunal understands it need not make an applicant’s case, but the fact that no claim was made that an attempt was made to relocate the applicant son to another relative’s home in Irbid, if his safety was at risk, also does not support a finding the applicant son or mother have a real chance of suffering serious (or significant) harm in Irbid, Jordan (where they had lived with [Mr A]).
Next, the Tribunal noted the mother had said she feared returning to her home in ‘particularly’ Irbid, Jordan, as [Mr A] would seriously harm her. However, at hearing the applicant son explained that when his mother returned to Jordan in September 2018, she had then lived in Irbid with another son ([Mr B]) for around 7 or 8 months ([Mr B] was temporarily residing in Jordan at the time). It was claimed (words to the effect) that [Mr B] was able to protect the mother while negotiations continued with [Mr A].
On behalf of the applicant son, it was also said that cultural barriers in Jordan, prevented her daughters from assisting the mother to “escape the abuse” by [Mr A]. It was also said the daughters’ families were unable to reside with the mother in her house. On their behalf, it was also claimed that Jordan is a highly patriarchal culture which impacts on the mother’s capacity to reside with either matriarchal or patriarchal blood relatives. However, the agent said that [Mr A] was unable to force the applicant son and his mother to leave the family home in Jordan “because shame would be cast on him culturally”.
At hearing, the applicant son then explained that when his brother [Mr B] returned to Australia (around early to mid-2019), and from that time, the mother had resided with her daughter (the applicant son’s sister) in Aqaba (for approximately 2 years at the time of the Tribunal hearing). Therefore, and given other country information relating to ‘tribal culture’ (see below), this is one reason that satisfied the Tribunal the submission the mother (or the applicant son) could not move from [Mr A]’s home, and safely live with other family members in Jordan (including with the daughters/sisters) in order to escape the mistreatment by [Mr A], was not true.
Though after considering the evidence and the country information about domestic violence in Jordan, the Tribunal will accept the applicant son and his mother were previously mistreated by [Mr A], when they were living in his home in Irbid, Jordan.
No protection from the State or family members:
The agent said there would be a failure of state protection in Jordan. The agent then provided numerous country information extracts in support of the claim. At hearing, and when asked if anyone had reported [Mr A]’s behaviour to the police, the applicant son said that his brother [Mr B] had encouraged the applicant son and his mother to report their mistreatment by [Mr A]. However, the police believed this was a family matter and did not take any action. The country information stated:
3.12 In Jordan as elsewhere, certain individuals and groups have disproportionate access to power and influence. In Jordan and the broader Arab world, this phenomenon is referred to as ‘wasta’, though it varies in importance from country to country. Wasta can affect business, bureaucratic, political and social dealings
3.13 The nature of wasta tends to cement advantage and disadvantage over time. …
3.14 … wasta, in DFAT’s assessment, is not evidence in and of itself of official or societal discrimination against Palestinians, but a central component to understanding how Jordanian society operates.[16]
[16] DFAT Thematic Report, Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon, 2 March 2015.
As stated above, the Tribunal accepted the applicant son and his mother had been harmed as claimed, but that in more recent times, the Jordanian authorities appeared to be more concerned about ensuring persons subject to family violence, were protected. The applicant son did not agree. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied the State was unwilling to protect the applicant son or his mother, in future, particularly given they no longer resided with [Mr A] in Irbid.
Next, it was said that though the applicant son and his mother have family in Jordan, nobody in Jordan was able and willing to provide them with protection from the harm they feared from [Mr A], and they were not able to be provided with an alternative place of residence.
However and first, the Tribunal noted the evidence the mother was not accepted by the wives of her sons, with whom she had attempted to temporarily reside in Jordan. The Tribunal then said this may have arisen from a personality issue between the mother and her daughters-in-law, but the applicant son did not agree. Second, the mother has resided with her own daughter in Aqaba, since early to mid-2019 (almost two years up to the time of the Tribunal hearing), and therefore she did find an alternate place to reside in Jordan. The Tribunal also noted the extended family may not have been well placed to assist the applicant son and his mother while they resided with [Mr A], but that since they had both departed [Mr A]’s home, the extended family were now in a better position to assist. The applicant son did not agree but the Tribunal believes the fact of the mother having (apparently safely) lived in Aqaba with her daughter, is evidence of her being afforded adequate protection by the extended family.
Next, in migration agent submissions dated 4 July 2017[17] it was said that [Mr A]’s extensive personal contacts, developed through his ownership of a [shop], together with the close-knit nature of Jordanian society and [Mr A]’s determination to cause harm to the applicant son and his mother meant that [Mr A] would be able to locate the applicant son and his mother without difficulty. However, and though the mother is the principal focus for [Mr A] (given she owns the land), and that [Mr A] knows the mother is residing with her daughter in Aqaba, when asked why [Mr A] had not taken steps to harm the mother in that time, the applicant son said the mother only travelled outside the house in Aqaba, when she was accompanied by inter alia her daughter, and sometimes they drove in a car. However, if [Mr A] was a real threat to the applicant son and his mother, the Tribunal is satisfied he could have brought substantial pressure to bear on the mother, in the prior two years, if he continued to wish to pressure her (the telephone ‘threats’ are discussed below).
[17] PDF – p.26.
The applicant son did say that his sister, with whom the mother lived in Aqaba, received ‘threatening phone calls’ from [Mr A] in the prior two years. However, other than the mother being accompanied when travelling within Aqaba, no harm had otherwise come to her and it did not appear she was required to take any material steps to protect or hide herself. Therefore, and even accepting the sister received the claimed phone calls, the Tribunal is not satisfied the mother had taken any material steps to protect or hide herself while resident with her daughter in Aqaba.
Next, the applicant son said that he was of particular interest to [Mr A], as [Mr A] knew that if he harmed the applicant son, or at least threatened to do so, then the mother may ‘find a way’ to sell the land. However, other than one witness whose evidence was rejected, the Tribunal has been assured there is no way the Palestinian land could be sold. Further, and when asked, the applicant son was unsure who would inherit the land once his mother had passed, but he assumed it would be transferred to his uncles. Notwithstanding the applicant’s mental health, the Tribunal believes that if the applicant son was to inherit the land, he would know this (he was aware of the land, its location, its value and – generally - who owned the land). He is [age] years old, and though it was claimed he had some intellectual issues (including cognitive issues), he was able to work in, and study in [Australia]. The Tribunal also notes the applicant son said he had other close family members in Jordan, but was not sure if they had been approached by [Mr A].
The Tribunal will accept the applicant son may fear [Mr A] in Jordan, particularly if he was to return to live at [Mr A]’s house in Irbid. However, given the Tribunal is satisfied the mother was and continues to be the principal focus of [Mr A], and given the Tribunal is satisfied she had safely resided in Aqaba, for around the last two years, and before then for at least 7-8 months in Irbid with her son [Mr B], the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant son would be of any material interest to [Mr A], should he return to Jordan, and not reside with [Mr A] in Irbid.
The Tribunal notes the now [age] year-old applicant son claimed to have numerous relatives in Jordan and Australia. He had also obtained skills in Australia (English language and ‘[trade]’ [courses]); work [in various roles]), and he would no longer need to reside with [Mr A] in Irbid. The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant son could safely reside there either on his own, or with the assistance of extended family members – discussed below – he did not say he would need to continue to reside with [Mr A]). The Tribunal also notes that Irbid is claimed to be around 1,572 square kilometres and with a population of 1,911,600 (in 2018[18]). Accordingly, the Tribunal believes the applicant son could choose to avoid any personal animosity in Irbid, by choosing to live/work away from [Mr A].
[18] Knoema, World Data Atlas, Jordan, Irbid - Jordan | Data and Statistics - knoema.com , accessed 15 April 2021.
Therefore, if the applicant son did not reside with [Mr A] in Irbid, Jordan, he could reside independently in Irbid, and/or with the assistance of other family members, and he would not have a real chance of suffering serious (or significant) harm from [Mr A].
The applicant son’s additional claims:
It was claimed the applicant son has disabilities; the first a recurring middle ear infection leading to hearing loss (though at hearing, the applicant son did not display any obvious signs of not hearing what was being said to him). The second was an injury to his right leg that causes ‘ongoing issues’ (the Tribunal accepts this to be correct). He also said he had ‘cognitive issues’ and trouble concentrating (and the mental health issues noted above).
In migration agent submissions dated 4 July 2017,[19] it was said the applicant son was a member of various particular social groups (principally relating to persons with a disability), and should he be returned to Jordan he would be subject to either serious or significant harm. The country information, the gist of which was put at hearing, stated:
The law generally provides equal rights to persons with disabilities, but authorities did not uphold such legal protections. Disabilities covered under the law include physical, sensory, psychological, and mental disabilities. The Higher Council for Affairs of Persons with Disabilities (HCD), a government body, worked with ministries, the private sector, and NGOs to formulate and implement strategies to assist persons with disabilities. Citizens and NGOs universally reported that persons with disabilities faced problems obtaining employment and accessing education, health care, information, communications, buildings, transportation, the judicial system, and other services, particularly in rural areas.[20]
[19] PDF – p.26.
[20] US DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 2020 COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES: JORDAN, 30 MARCH 2021, ‘PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES’, JORDAN - UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE , ACCESSED 12 APRIL 2021.
The country information, again the gist of which was put at hearing, also stated:
The unemployment rate in Jordan surged to 24.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2020 from 19 percent in the same period of the previous year, amid the severe impact caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. This was the highest jobless rate since the series began in 2005, as the jobless rate for both men (22.6 percent vs 17.7 percent in Q4 2019) and women (32.8 percent vs 24.1 percent) increased.[21]
[21] Trading Economics, SMSF Factsheet, Jordan Unemployment Rate | 2005-2020 Data | 2021-2023 Forecast | Calendar | Historical (tradingeconomics.com) , accessed 12 April 2021.
…..
In Jordan, the unemployment rate measures the number of people actively looking for a job as a percentage of the labour force.[22]
Regarding the economy:
Jordan is currently facing back-to-back second and third waves of COVID-19 infections, while the country’s major economic indicators continue to deteriorate. The twin deficits have substantially widened, the debt level has increased, and unemployment is rising. However, the fall-out on Jordan’s economic growth during 2020 remains relatively modest compared to peer countries. Going forward, Jordan’s economic outlook largely depends on the rebound in global demand and international travel as well as the pace and scale of domestic vaccination.
…..
Jordan’s real GDP growth is projected to recover to 1.4% in 2021 from an estimated contraction of 1.8% over last year. In the immediate run, several policy measures are expected to provide some boost including public sector employees’ salary increase, social security net programs and the minimum wage increase. Exports are expected to perform better as demand strengthens in the U.S. and Gulf countries. Nevertheless, growth in the immediate run faces significant downside risks due to rising COVID-19 cases and slow vaccination, and over medium-term remains constrained by the country’s chronic structural weaknesses.[23]
Though:
Jordan has done well at minimizing the health impact of the COVID‐19 crisis. Soon after the outbreak, the Government of Jordan announced a first set of measures and incentives to address immediate liquidity and cost of financing concerns for various sectors/businesses, and measures to protect vulnerable households. Nevertheless, domestic lockdowns, the global economic slowdown, trade disruptions, and the suspension of international travel are likely to have a sizable impact on the Jordanian economy. The unprecedented economic shock of COVID-19 has exacerbated existing structural weaknesses in the economy and unresolved social challenges and put pressure on country’s fragile macroeconomic stance.[24]
[22] Trading Economics, SMSF Factsheet, Jordan Unemployment Rate | 2005-2020 Data | 2021-2023 Forecast | Calendar | Historical (tradingeconomics.com) , accessed 12 April 2021.
[23] Jordan’s Economic Update – April 2021, 2 April 2021, The World Bank, Jordan's Economic Update — April 2021 (worldbank.org) , accessed 13 April 2021.
[24] The World Bank in Jordan, 1 October 2020, Jordan Overview (worldbank.org), accessed 12 April 2021.
The applicant son said that in Jordan, he would not earn more than 50 dinars per month, on which he could not support himself. He also said that due to his aforementioned injuries he finds it difficult to perform manual work for more than 15 minutes at a time.[25] However, by letter dated 15 March 2021, evidence was provided from [an employer] which claimed inter alia the applicant son had worked at [Company 1]; and that he was reliable and respected by his fellow workers. Also lodged were other reference/s.
[25] PDF – p.196.
At hearing, the applicant son initially explained that he worked for [Company 1] for around 4-5 days per week for around four years (working between 6.30am and 3.00 - 4.30pm). He initially said he was also employed [doing certain work] after his mother returned to Jordan in September 2018. He later told the Tribunal he also currently worked in [another role] for around 15-20 hours per week. The applicant son also told the Tribunal he had completed a ‘[trade]’ course [in] Australia. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant son can only perform manual work for more than 15 minutes at a time, and that his work capacity had (at least) significantly improved since the earlier claim.
The applicant son did say that while [working in a particular role], he was allowed to sit down while performing his work; though the Tribunal presumes this may also be available to him in Jordan. The applicant son also said he had obtained the [work] through extended family connections in Australia, though the Tribunal said it presumed, and now accepts, that he could find work in a similar way in Jordan. He also said that his employers in Australia accepted his disabilities, and allowed him to work, and he did not believe this would also be the case in Jordan. However and as noted above, the Tribunal was satisfied that his work capacity had significantly improved, and consequently, this should not prevent him from obtaining work commensurate with his skills in Jordan.
One of the witnesses said that even ‘doctor’s and lawyers’ find it difficult to obtain work in Jordan, though the Tribunal said it understood the majority of workers in Jordan worked in market stalls and or other small businesses, and the witness agreed. The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant son’s training and experience (including as [deleted]), would allow him to find work in Jordan.
Next, the now [age] year-old applicant son said that [Mr A] had forcibly removed him from school in Jordan, when he was young. The applicant son said he worked with [Mr A] from January 2010 to May 2016.[26] It had also been claimed the applicant son had been forced to work without pay for [Mr A] since he was around [age] years of age. Though no such claim was made, the Tribunal does not accept the now adult applicant son would again be forced to work for [Mr A].
[26] PDF – p.460.
The Tribunal then referred to his PV form in which it was claimed he had studied in Jordan between 2001 and 2012, and was said to have completed his higher school certificate in Jordan (and the school attendance was apparently a standard full time work load). The applicant son said this was wrong, that he had completed year [grade] in Jordan, but though he claimed to have completed years [grade] (in the PV form), he only attended school during those two years, for around one day per week. However, in Australia, the applicant son had completed an English language course and a [trade] [course at college]. In the circumstances, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant son has been, or would now be, denied education in Jordan, assuming he had the financial capacity and motivation to continue with same.
Next, it was claimed the applicant son feared returning to Jordan, as he may have to live on the street; and that many homeless people in Jordan have drug problems and living on the street is dangerous. When asked at hearing, the applicant son claimed never to have taken unlawful ‘drugs’ either in Jordan or Australia. He eventually agreed it was living on the street that could cause him to take drugs. The Tribunal noted his mother had found accommodation with his sister in Aqaba, though the applicant son feared she may be asked to move. When this was questioned, the Tribunal understood that he feared this may occur and no such advice had been given to him by anyone in Jordan.

Regarding homelessness in Jordan, the country information, the gist of which was put at hearing, stated:
In 2017, the Ministry of Social Development in Jordan only reported sixteen cases of homelessness from 2000-2017. The vast majority of these cases (15/16) were accredited to mental health problems, and the sixteenth case consisted of a man who was unemployed and had recently lost his family.
Additionally, all sixteen of these individuals were taken care of and are no longer homeless. The Ministry of Social Development worked to place these citizens in mental health facilities or reconnect them with family members who can help them.
One of the main explanations for a low rate of homelessness in Jordan is its collectivist, tribal culture. A study conducted by Joshua Ahearn reveals that the Jordanian government is not responsible for solving issues of homelessness and instead, homelessness is remedied by family and community members.[27]
[27] Homelessness in Jordan, The Borgen Project, 21 August 2021, Homelessness in Jordan: Why Reduced Numbers?| The Borgen Project , accessed 12 April 2021.
When discussed at hearing, the applicant son said his extended and or immediate family in Jordan did not assist each other, however his extended and or immediate family in Australia did assist each other. Given the mother lived with the applicant son’s sister in Aqaba, and given they still spoke with at least some of the family members in Jordan, the Tribunal does not accept the extended family in Jordan would not assist the applicant son or his mother.
Next, the Tribunal notes the applicant son said the land his mother owned in Palestine, was very expensive and if sold (though the Tribunal has found against this) may assist the family. The Tribunal also notes the applicant son had married a woman in Australia [in] September 2017.[28] However, at hearing the Tribunal was advised the applicant son and his wife had separated and divorced around late 2018 or early 2019. The Tribunal accepts this to be correct. The Tribunal also notes that no claim was made that this might give rise to protection obligations in Australia, and after considering the claims, I also accept this to be correct.
[28] PDF – p.46.
After then having considered all the accepted claims, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant son has a real chance of suffering serious (or significant) harm in Jordan, for any reason arising from his (now apparently diminished) disabilities.
Failed asylum seeker:
At hearing, the Tribunal said it would consider whether the applicant son, having lived in a western country for a lengthy period, and having applied for protection in Australia, would be harmed for that reason in Jordan. The Tribunal then put the gist of the following to the applicant son for comment. A Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board paper from 2008 stated:
Information on the treatment of failed refugee claimants who are returned to Jordan and persons who have exited the country illegally could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response.[29]
And more recently:
3.68 The General Intelligence Directorate (GID) is Jordan’s internal security organisation. It seeks to prevent any threats to the regime from materialising, and will closely monitor anyone—Palestinian or East Banker—it perceives as a threat. DFAT assesses that the GID does not discriminate against Palestinians because they are Palestinians, but will closely monitor individuals seen as a threat through the prism of Jordan’s national security interests.
[29] Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Jordan: The treatment of failed refugee claimants who are returned to Jordan, persons who have exited the country illegally or persons whose permission to leave has expired; whether there is a distinction made between citizens of Jordan, stateless Palestinians from the Occupied Territories, and stateless Palestinians who reside in Jordan under United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) registration, 5 August 2008, JOR102879.E, available at: 24 March 2021].
When discussed, the applicant son said he feared [Mr A] in Jordan; and the Tribunal has dealt with this claim elsewhere. He also said that other people who had returned to Jordan, may have had different claims to his. However, the applicant son made no claim which indicated he may be perceived as being a threat by the Jordanian security apparatus. The Tribunal also notes the mother had returned to Jordan, and though the applicant son was said to speak with her around 5-10 times per month, no claim was made that the mother was in any way harmed, harassed or even questioned on her return to Jordan, about her application for protection in Australia.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant son has a real chance of suffering serious (or significant) harm in Jordan, for claiming protection in Australia.
The Tribunal understands the test in s.5J(1)(c) of the Act is whether the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the home country. Based on the above findings, the Tribunal has not accepted there is a real chance of the applicant son suffering serious (or significant) harm in his home area (Irbid, Jordan).
What if I am wrong?:
In migration agent submissions dated 4 July 2017,[31] it was said the applicant son and his mother were unable to relocate within Jordan; including within Irbid or to the capital of Amman or anywhere else. It was said that [Mr A]’s extensive personal contacts, developed through his ownership of a [shop], together with the close-knit nature of Jordanian society and [Mr A]’s determination to cause harm to the applicants meant that [Mr A] would be able to locate them without difficulty.
[31] PDF – p.26.
The Tribunal remains sufficiently satisfied of its above finding. However, if I were to ask ‘what if the Tribunal is wrong?’, I asked the applicant son why he could not safely reside in Aqaba, where his mother is apparently safely residing with her daughter (his sister). The applicant son had said his mother was receiving threatening phone calls, but as noted above, even though [Mr A] knew where she was then living, the Tribunal was not satisfied she had taken any material steps to protect or hide herself. The applicant son also said that [Mr A] would find him in Aqaba, though as stated above, the Tribunal was not satisfied that [Mr A] would target the applicant son as was claimed.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant son can reside safely in Aqaba as does his mother, and he could safely access that city, as did his mother.
Relocation:
Regarding whether it was reasonable to relocate within Jordan the country information stated:
D. FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT
The law provides for freedom of internal movement, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation, although there were some restrictions. Restrictions on freedom of movement due to public health measures designed to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic included the suspending of regular commercial passenger flights from March through September, though a limited number of repatriation flights were permitted; and temporary restrictions on travel between governorates were implemented. [32]
[32] US DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 2020 COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES: JORDAN, 30 MARCH 2021, ‘PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES’, JORDAN - UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE , ACCESSED 12 APRIL 2021.
When discussed at hearing, the applicant son said (words to the affect) ‘is there anything bigger than harm and death’. Based on the above discussion and findings, the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant son can work (at least) in market stalls and or other small businesses in Aqaba, that the country information indicates that the Jordan economy is projected to improve, and that Jordan has ‘done well at minimizing the health impact of the COVID‐19’. There is no evidence relating to housing, health or other issues that have satisfied the Tribunal it would be unreasonable for the applicant son to relocate to Aqaba.
At hearing, the Tribunal noted that Aqaba had an important port and tourism would provide employment.[33] The applicant son did not agree, but the Tribunal is satisfied he could obtain work commensurate with his skills in Aqaba.
[33] See ‘Aqaba’s port helping to boost Jordan’s manufacturing and transport sectors’, Oxford Business Group, Aqaba's port helping to boost Jordan's manufacturing and transport sectors | Jordan 2016 | Oxford Business Group , accessed 15 April 2021.
The applicant son also said he was ‘young when he first entered Australia’ in 2016 (he was [age] years old), and he had settled in Australia. However, and referring to this claim, the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant son could reasonably relocate within Jordan given he resided in Jordan until he was [age] years of age, and he had managed to settle in Australia, a country with a language, history and culture different to his own. The Tribunal also notes that if the applicant’s health conditions worsened (though no claim about this was made), he could be supported by his mother and sister in Aqaba.
Next, at hearing one witness referred to the current unrest in Jordan, principally arising from corruption. This included recent protests in amongst other places, Amman (marking the 10th anniversary of Arab Spring pro-democracy demonstrations[34]); Irbid and Aqaba (a day after oxygen ran out at a state hospital leading to the deaths of at least six COVID-19 patients[35]); Aqaba (commemorating the 10^th anniversary of the ‘Youth of March 24’ protest, which took place in 2011[36]). The Tribunal is also aware the half-brother of the Jordanian king has been placed under house arrest.[37]
[34] JORDAN POLICE DETAIN SCORES OF ACTIVISTS, BREAK UP PROTESTS, 24 MARCH 2021, US NEWS, JORDAN POLICE DETAIN SCORES OF ACTIVISTS, BREAK UP PROTESTS | WORLD NEWS | US NEWS , ACCESSED 15 APRIL 2021.
[35] PROTESTS IN JORDAN AFTER COVID-19 PATIENTS DIE DUE TO HOSPITAL OXYGEN SHORTAGES, 15 MARCH 2021, FRANCE 24, PROTESTS IN JORDAN AFTER COVID-19 PATIENTS DIE DUE TO HOSPITAL OXYGEN SHORTAGES (FRANCE24.COM) , ACCESSED 15 APRIL 2021.
[36] Garda World, Event, Jordan: Activists plan to rally nationwide March 24 (garda.com) , accessed 15 April 2021.
[37] JORDAN PRINCE ‘UNDER HOUSE ARREST’ AMID SECURITY CRACKDOWN, 3 APRIL 2021, ALJAZEERA, JORDAN PRINCE ‘UNDER HOUSE ARREST’ AMID SECURITY CRACKDOWN | ABDULLAH II NEWS | AL JAZEERA , ACCESSED 15 APRIL 2021.
At hearing, the Tribunal said it understood it remained unclear whether these protests would escalate, though activists had been arrested. The Tribunal accepts that significant human rights issues have been identified in Jordan.[38] However, the applicant son’s mother, sister and brother-in-law (amongst other relatives) are all said to reside there without any claimed problems. Further, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant son has any interest in becoming (ie) an ‘activist’ (for any reason). Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied it is reasonable for the applicant son to relocate to Aqaba.
[38] US DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 2020 COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES: JORDAN, 30 MARCH 2021, ‘EXECUTIVE SUMMARY’, JORDAN - UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE , ACCESSED 12 APRIL 2021.
The Tribunal understands that in SZSYV v MIBP & Anor [2015] FCCA 2457 (11 September 2015), Judge Antoni Lucev stated (at [30]) the:
Court notes that factual findings made in relation to one aspect of a matter can, as purely factual findings, be relied upon by the Tribunal in assessing whether an applicant meets the different criterion for another aspect of the matter such as with refugee (“serious harm”) claims and complementary protection (“significant harm”) claims
The Tribunal understands this has not been set aside by a superior court. The Tribunal also notes the ‘real risk’ test imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test (see MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33); and that the following findings are based on there being determined to be no real chance of suffering serious or significant harm.
That being said, for the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore the applicants do not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa. It follows that they are also unable to satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(b) or (c), and cannot be granted the visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.
Mr S Norman
Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)    denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K     Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L     Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa)    a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[30] DFAT Thematic Report, Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon, 2 March 2015.