1726182 (Refugee)

1726182 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 1246 (3 March 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:1726182

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Sudan
MEMBER:Brendan Darcy
DATE:3 March 2022
PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 03 March 2022 at 4:40pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Sudan – particular social group – journalist – mixed marriage – imputed political opinion – anti-Sharia law opinion – opposition to corruption – threatening messages – arrests – fear of sexual violence – fear of killing – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and McIllhatton v Guo Wei Rong and Pan Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445

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 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of the Republic of Sudan/Jumhūriyyat al-Sūdān (Sudan), applied for the visa on 4 December 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa on 16 October 2017.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 20 December 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicant’s husband, [named]. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review by her legal practitioner, [named].
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
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, the applicant 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 under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).
Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
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 a protection 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 the applicant 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).
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 (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
Background
The applicant, a female, was born on [date] in Khartoum in Sudan.
A copy of the applicant’s Sudanese passport is on file with the Department and was valid at the time of application, though it has since expired.
In her written application dated 4 December 2014 (written application) for a protection visa she states her ethnicity as African-Arabian and to be of Muslim faith. In a later written submission dated 1 March 2017 (2017 statement) she clarified she is of [Ethnicity 1] race and Sunni Muslim faith.
In the written application the applicant stated she could read, write and speak Arabic and English.
In her written application the applicant stated that her mother, [and specified family members] remained in Sudan. In her 2017 statement she clarified her parents and siblings remained in Sudan; she had [another] sister who died in 2013.
In the written application the applicant states she undertook education up to [tertiary] level in Sudan and holds [specified qualifications] each from the [named university]. She also obtained an IELTS certificate.
In the written application the applicant states she had been in employment in Sudan from [year] through until September 2011. Her most recent employment had been with [Agency 1] as [Position 1]. Up until her arrival in Australia in 2014, she was a full-time student.
In the 2017 statement the applicant further stated she has worked as a journalist alongside her other employment since [year]. Since [year] she had been [working] for the [Newspaper 1] newspaper. A Form 80 accompanying the 2017 statement indicated that the applicant had continued to work for [Agency 1] as a [Position 1] from September 2011 and remained engaged as a [Position 2] until September 2014 and that her manager was [Manager A].
Travel history
In the written application the applicant claims to have travelled to [two specified countries] in 2003 for work, [another] in 2010 as a tourist and [another country] in 2011 for work and as a tourist.
The applicant was granted the [Student] visa on 7 July 2014 and arrived in Australia holding that visa [in] October 2014. The visa expired [in] December 2014.
Summary of claims
The application lodged the present application for an XA Subclass 866 visa on 4 December 2014. Since arriving in Australia, the applicant has not departed Australia. The claims made in response to questions 43–49 in Form 886C can be summarised as follows:
·The applicant fears returning to Sudan.
·The applicant left Sudan because fear surrounded her life, she felt she could not freely express her opinions or live a normal life, the chance to study in Australia resembled a rescue.
·The applicant had not experienced harm in Sudan, but feared she would be arrested at the airport and be harmed by the Sudanese government if she returned as a result of her actual and imputed anti-government, anti-Sharia law opinion as she was a journalist who has published articles expressing those views.
·She could not seek protection from Sudanese authorities as they were whom she feared would persecute her.
The 2017 statement set out the applicant’s claims in further detail. In the statement the applicant claimed that the written application was prepared without the assistance of an interpreter and she had been advised to keep her claims brief and elaborate on them at a later stage. She had found it difficult to understand the questions contained in the forms [of the written application]. The detailed claims in the 2017 statement can be summarised as follows:
·The applicant’s life growing up was difficult, she was often pressured by her family to ensure she wore a headscarf and was punished when she questioned this. At approximately eight years of age, she was forced to undergo female genital mutilation (FGM).
·The Government of Sudan came to power in 1989 in a military coup, it was evident they held many radical beliefs which affected the people.
·In [year] the applicant commenced attending the [named] University. While there she attended many political panels and discussions about the political situation in Sudan. She [supported] a college newspaper and wrote articles for it criticising the Sudanese government’s economic plans, pricing plans in peripheral regions and she held strong views on the conflict in South Sudan.
·In [year] she was arrested at the [university] and taken to security offices where she was beaten, taunted and abused.
·She was unable to gain employment in government jobs following her graduation from university in [year] until [a specified year]. In [that year] she commenced work as a [Position 2] with [Agency 2], the job had harsh conditions and required her to work in war zones, which she was unaware of when she was offered the job. She continued in the job as she had to support her family. Her role exposed her to atrocities committed by the Sudanese government.
·In [year] she took the exam to become a qualified journalist in Sudan. She began working as a journalist while retaining her [occupation 1] role as the latter provided job security. Articles she wrote criticised Sudanese government policy. As the government monitored the media, several articles were not published.
·The applicant was arrested in [year] when she had been talking in public with a male colleague to whom she was not related.
·In [year] the applicant began [working] for the [Newspaper 1] newspaper. It was a private paper [edited] by [name], who allowed freedom of expression and opinion. He was assassinated in [year]. The paper recommenced publishing in [year]. She wrote articles critical of the government, on the importance of rejecting Sharia law, and the secession of South Sudan.
·In 2009 the applicant commenced writing for [Organisation 1] which is banned in Sudan, and whose Editor-in-Chief is based in [Country 1]. The applicant wrote over 100 articles mostly about corruption in Sudan. Since her arrival in Australia, the applicant has received an email from an anonymous source ordering her to withdraw her articles from the website.
·After writing an email about the denial of corruption in Sudan the applicant received threatening messages stating she must reveal the sources of her information and which opposition party she supported. The applicant tried to ignore the messages and carry on her work.
·After writing articles in related to [economic conditions] following the secession of South Sudan the applicant realised she was being followed to and from work and other places. The applicant also noticed an official in a parked car watching her house. The applicant started receiving threatening messages pressuring her into revealing her sources for an article she wrote about the sale of [assets] to government officials.
·The applicant was arrested in September 2013 during demonstrations in which the Sudanese government killed more than a hundred civilians. The applicant was arrested on the basis of an [article] calling for the overthrow of the regime. The applicant was arrested at the newspaper office and taken to the security offices of the ruling regime where she was interrogated and released at the end of the day. She was abused and slapped during interrogation and threatened with rape and murder. She was arrested and released on a daily basis, subject to the same treatment for three days. During interrogation she was asked about her work, who had encouraged her to write articles about the overthrow of the regime and whether she was aligned to any of the opposition parties. She was threatened with being killed if she did not leave her job.
·Following her arrest, the applicant was traumatised by the interrogations and feared being subjected to further serious harm. She stopped writing articles critical of the ruling regime in order to keep a low profile which she felt may enable her to flee the country. She was eventually offered a [course in] Australia on the basis of her high level of education.
·Following her arrival in Australia in December 2014 she wrote an article on the prevalence of sexual assault in Darfur. Her family received threats as a result saying the applicant would be punished on her return to Sudan. The applicant is aware other journalists reporting on Darfur have faced serious issues.
·The applicant volunteers for [Organisation 2] assisting English language lessons. The applicant has joined [Radio Station 1], a community radio [station], where she has been trained in radio production and presenting. She was asked to produce a news program for the Sudanese community in [Australia] and has a [regular] slot each week. She has used the program to discuss issues affecting the Sudanese community such as racial profiling.
·She fears being detained, killed or subjected to sexual violence if forced to return to Sudan and would be targeted by the Sudanese authorities on the basis of her past and present work as a journalist which she has continued since her arrival in Australia.
·She would not be safe from harm anywhere in Sudan for the above reasons, with the added vulnerability of being a single female without family protection.
On an application for Asylum Seeker Assistance (ASA) the applicant made the relevant claims that her circumstances had changed since her arrival in Australia, and that she wrote an article for a Sudanese newspaper about a tragic event that had occurred in Sudan. After publication she was told by colleagues that convictions were in place for people who had written about the event, her life was at risk if she returned to Sudan, and this led her to apply for protection in Australia.
The applicant attended an interview with the delegate on 10 March 2017 and made additions and amendments to her claims:
·The applicant continued to rely on the information contained in her student visa, protection visa and ASA applications as being true and correct, excepting her answers to question 46 of Form 866C.
·The applicant had always resided in Khartoum.
·The applicant did not mix with the Sudanese community for the first year after she arrived in Australia. The applicant since learned about the Sudanese community in [Australia] and began communicating with Sudanese women around [her district] participating in community activities such as Ramadan.
·The applicant’s involvement in the Australian Sudanese community developed into journalism and learning about the community’s issues. The North Sudanese community in Australia is smaller than the South Sudanese community.
·From August 2015 the applicant became involved with [Radio Station 1] community radio. Broadcasting about issues outside Australia is not allowed, so none of her broadcasting was critical of the Sudanese government, it focussed on issues relevant to the Australian Sudanese community.
·The applicant had not taught English in Australia, she provided some limited assistance to Sudanese women struggling with English. She began this in April or May 2015.
·The applicant had determined it was not safe for her in Sudan following her arrest during the demonstrations in 2013. This was prior to her arrival in Australia.
·While at university the applicant attended political discussions every day, these were in the form of lectures attended by most students that covered a range of political opinions. The applicant’s participation was limited to occasional questions, she did not join a political party.
·During her second year of university in approximately [year] the applicant started producing a journal. She was the main writer producing comments of political discussions. It was published and distributed fortnightly for approximately two and a half years. It was in the form of a single poster that was pasted up in the cafeteria or main hall.
·The applicant was first arrested about the time of a military revolution in Sudan. The applicant had been writing about the rate of poverty, Sharia law, and the war in the South. The government had been concentrating on universities and students, targeting students who did not support them. The applicant was not surprised to be arrested.
·The applicant was first arrested by the security force [at the university] and was held from approximately 10am to 2pm. The applicant was held at the university security office and was among a number of students arrested. She was questioned about her political opinion and subjected to degrading treatment and was smacked. She was not charged with any offence and did not get any medical treatment.
·The applicant had worked as a journalist on and off for 20 years. She was always anti-government, and a lot of newspapers would not employ those who were anti-government.
·The applicant worked as a government [occupation 1] in Khartoum South, [serving clients]. Her last wage was SDG[amount] per month. Her work hours were 8:30am–3:30pm or sometimes to 6:00pm. Her manager’s name was [Manager B] but she could not recall a last name.
·The applicant worked to support her mother and [family].
·The applicant began working for the [Newspaper 1] newspaper in [year] as it was the only newspaper that would accept her articles. She would go to the [Newspaper 1] office after finishing her [occupation 1] work, meeting with colleagues and forming ideas, then going home to write. She would then send the articles to the newspaper. The applicant would work on her articles 4–5 hours a day and was paid about SDG[amount] per month.
·In the course of her writing in 2009 she started talking about the corruption in Sudan and received text messages asking for her sources. She kept on writing until around 2010–2011. She then wrote a series of articles in 2012.
·From 2011 onwards she was on reduced hours with the [occupation 1 base] to accommodate her study. Some days she would go to [Newspaper 1] in the morning.
·The applicant began publishing articles on [Organisation 1] from 2009, she was not paid for these and the website was based outside Sudan.
·When the applicant was arrested in 2013 other journalists from [Newspaper 2] were also arrested. The newspaper was prevented from publishing for [days]. She was arrested by security forces at the newspaper office at around [time] and was detained at the Intelligence Headquarters in Khartoum until [time]. She did not get medical treatment following her release.
·The demonstrations at the time of the applicant’s 2013 arrest were related to the cost of petrol. A rise in the cost of petrol causes the prices of all goods to go up.
·The applicant applied for her passport following the approval of her Australian [course]. While it took a long time to gather the required documents it only took a week to get the passport after lodgement.
·The applicant found out about the mass rapes in Darfur when it was published on another newspaper’s website.
·The applicant has not received any threats while in Australia, nor an email telling her to withdraw articles from [Organisation 1’s site]. Her family has told her the security forces have come to the house looking for her.
·The applicant stopped writing for [Organisation 1] about a year before the interview as she did not want harm to come to her family.
·The applicant declared ‘[occupation 1]’ as her occupation on her incoming passenger card as this corresponded to her passport.
·The applicant applied for her Australian [course] herself online. The letter from her employer sent with her student visa application was to enable her to get an exit visa. If the Sudanese government knew she was travelling to Australia they would have prevented her from leaving.
·She was confused when completing the protection visa application form, and did so without the assistance of a translator which led to the mistake of stating she had never experienced harm in Sudan.

The delegate invited the applicant to comment on information and provide further information following the interview. The applicant’s representative responded on 5 April 2017. The response can be summarised as follows:
·It was clarified that [Manager A variant] was the manager for the organisation where she worked as a government [occupation 1]. [Manager B] was her direct manager. The applicant understood that the question at interview related to her direct manager.
·The applicant did not recall advising Red Cross that her situation had changed after her arrival in Australia and she always intended to apply for protection. She was not assisted by an interpreter when interviewed by Red Cross so she may not have understood the questions. After realising that conviction orders had been placed on individuals who had written about the situation in Darfur she was further convinced it was not safe for her to return to Sudan.
·The applicant was advised by colleagues regarding the situation for individuals who wrote about Darfur, she confirmed this with newspaper reports.
·The information contained in the letter from [Manager A variant] that accompanied the applicant’s previous student visa application is correct. Most employees of [Agency 1] are [professionals] and academics who are opposed to the government. [Agency 1] is a poor institution that is marginalised and therefore the government and authorities show little interest in it. There is no connection between [Agency 1] and the Ministry of Interior or Intelligence. To obtain permission to travel, the applicant obtained a letter from the [executive] who is [an occupation 1] and colleague. He signed the letter to assist her and this by no means indicated the government and associated authorities do not have an interest in her.
·It is plausible Sudan does not have stringent procedures and databases which prevent political dissidents from leaving the country. As the applicant was able to obtain a letter from her employer, it is plausible the letter aided her leaving the country, particularly given she was attending a training course abroad affiliated with her work as [an occupation 1].
·The applicant has written further articles for [Organisation 1] since leaving Sudan and has been a vibrant member of the Australian Sudanese community, building her anti-government profile.
·While trained as [an occupation 1] the applicant has a passion for journalism and genuinely yearns to bring a change to her country. It is evident the articles written by the applicant have brought her to the attention of the authorities in the past. Given her work in Australia, especially among the Sudanese community and the articles she has written since departing Sudan, it cannot be discounted that there is a real chance the applicant would face serious and significant harm upon return to Sudan.
On 16 October 2017 the delegate refused the application for a protection visa. The delegate made the following findings in doing so:
·Despite her claims to the contrary the applicant was assisted in preparing both her student visa and protection visa applications. The applicant was assisted by [Organisation 2] in preparing her protection visa application, though they did not represent the applicant in relation to the application. It is possible, as it was the standard manner in which they prepared protection visa applications, that they advised the applicant to keep answers short and provide further information later. Keeping an application short is not the same as providing information that is then contradicted by the later information as happened in this case.
·The applicant declared that everything in her student visa application was correct;
·The applicant’s claims of needing an interpreter to complete paperwork are inconsistent with information provided in relation to her student visa application stating her preferred language was English and that she had completed [tertiary] studies with English as the language of instruction, and had completed courses in Australia delivered in English. On this basis the delegate found it highly unlikely the applicant misunderstood questions on her student visa application, ASA application or protection visa application. The applicant’s claims that she misunderstood questions would have had more weight had they been raised prior to the interview, and if she had less ability with the English language.
·On the whole the delegate did not accept that discrepancies in information provided by the applicant in different interactions could be attributed to a lack of representation, or lack of access to an interpreter.
·The delegate accepted that the applicant had been registered with [Agency 3] in Sudan, presented a card issued by [Union 1] and a letter from [Radio Station 1] that were consistent with her claims.
·The delegate did not accept that two editions of the [Newspaper 1] newspaper provided by the applicant were genuine as they included links to the applicant’s [then] current email address, which tended to undermine the claims that she was targeted on account of her activities as a journalist.
·The delegate did not give weight to the articles purportedly from [Organisation 1] that the applicant presented due to a perceived lack of consistency between the original Arabic versions and their English translations.
·Due to inconsistencies with different forms lodged with the Department in relation to both her student and protection visa applications the delegate had concerns regarding whether the applicant actually held a [specified level] degree, as the applicant had provided no independent evidence of having attained the degree.
·The delegate highlighted the inconsistencies in the applicant’s claims relating to her employment history finding that the applicant had worked from [year] until coming to Australia for a Sudanese government ministry, primarily as [an occupation 1] but with a number of communication roles. These communication roles would explain her [Agency 3] and [Union 1] documents, noting both these organisations have been identified as pro-government in country information.
·The delegate dismissed the applicant’s claims that [Newspaper 1] was an anti-government newspaper by reference to credible country information that indicated it was ‘traditionally pro-government’. The delegate found that the applicant had not worked for [Newspaper 1] writing anti-government articles and could not have received threats as a result.
·The delegate found the applicant’s account of her 2013 arrest and detention vague and unpersuasive. The delegate found it highly implausible that the security services would not have made her position with [Agency 1] untenable if she were writing and publishing articles that would have caused her to have an anti-government profile – especially if she was being followed between home and work as claimed. It was equally implausible [an executive] of a Government Ministry would be free to write two letters in support of the applicant’s student visa application. Country information showed the Sudanese government prevented political dissidents from departing Sudan.
·Cumulatively the delegate found the applicant was not threatened or harmed in Sudan because of her journalism. She was able to leave Sudan with the support of her employer as she was not of interest to the authorities at the time she departed Sudan.
·The delegate found the applicant’s claimed involvement with [Radio Station 1] was credible, but this was limited to topics of interest to the Sudanese community inside Australia.
·The delegate found there were a number of other inconsistencies which when viewed cumulatively with the delegate’s other concerns served to undermine the credibility of the applicant’s claims.
On 25 October 2017 the applicant lodged the present application for review with the Tribunal.
On 14 December 2021 the representative made submissions on behalf of the applicant that can be summarised as follows:
·The applicant remains steady in her claims relating to her fear of harm in Sudan, on the basis of her imputed or actual political opinion and work as a journalist and that she had experienced harm in Sudan as a result of this, including her arrests in [specified year] and 2013.
·Many of the credibility findings made by the delegate were challenged and the representative provided supplementary factual and country information relating to the initial claims made by the applicant.
·The applicant has entered into a Nikkah, an Islamic marriage to an Australian citizen [named] [in] March 2019. [The applicant’s husband] is not of the Muslim faith, and as a result the applicant now has a further claim on the basis that Sudanese authorities do not tolerate marriage between Muslim women and non-Muslim men.
·Further when the applicant discussed the idea of marrying a non-Muslim, her family indicated this would result in their disowning her. This would further place her at risk of harm in Sudan as a woman without male protection.
·Country information was supplied to support her claims stemming from her marriage to [her husband].
The submissions were supported by the following documents:
·A statement made by the applicant on 13 December 2021, making the same clarifications or claims outlined in the submissions.
·A statement from [name], the applicant’s spouse.
·Letters of support from friends of the applicant and [her husband].
·Copies of the certificate of graduation and transcript for the applicant’s [tertiary level] degree.
·A reference from [Newspaper 1] newspaper confirming the applicant’s employment there from [year] to September 2014.
·A letter from the applicant’s psychologist.
·Translated media reports from BBC Arabic.
·A copy of the applicant and [her husband’s] Nikkah (Islamic marriage) certificate.
As mentioned above, on 20 December 2021, the applicant appeared before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments. No further submissions were required at the end of the hearing.
There were no non-disclosure certificates attached to either the Departmental or Tribunal files.
Country information: Sudan
The Republic of Sudan became an independent country on 1 January 1956. A protracted rebellion led to the establishment of South Sudan as an independent country in 2011.
Demography
The most recent DFAT country information report on Sudan was issued on 27 April 2016. It states the following about Sudan’s demography:
Demography
2.7 Sudan is the third largest country on the African continent, spanning almost 1.9 million square kilometres and sharing borders with Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, the Central African Republic, Chad, Libya and South Sudan, as well as the Red Sea.
2.8 Sudan has an estimated population of 35.5 million people, with an annual growth rate of 1.72 per cent. There are over five million people in Khartoum and 66 per cent of people still live in rural areas.
2.9 While there has been no accurate demographic data collected since Sudan’s independence, Sudan is home to hundreds of ethnic and sub-ethnic groups, speaking a multitude of languages. Arabic is the dominant and official language and sources suggest that Arabs account for 70 per cent of the population. Historically, Arabs have been clustered into two large groupings – the Ja’aliyiin and Juhaynah. The Ja’aliyiin are predominantly agriculturalists located close to the Nile River from Dongola to Khartoum. The current President belongs to the Ja’aliyiin sub-tribe Al-Bedairya Al-Dahmashya. The Juhaynah are nomadic, herding livestock across Sudan. Major sub-tribes associated with the Juyaynah include the Baggara, located mainly in the Darfur and Kordofan regions, and the Kabbabish, located predominantly between Darfur and Dongola.
2.10 Prominent non-Arab groups include the Nubians, who live along the Nile River in northern Sudan, the Beja who reside in eastern Sudan, the Fellata located mainly in Gezira, the Nuba (a collective term for the different tribal groups inhabiting the Nuba Mountains) in South Kordofan and the Fur, Massalit and Zaghawa located in the Darfur region.
2.11 Ninety-seven per cent of the population are estimated to be Muslim, with the overwhelming majority Sunni. The small Christian population is mainly a mix of Coptic and Greek Orthodox Christians.
Recent developments
The United States State Department country report on human rights practices covering events in 2019 (USSD report 2019) stated:
Sudan began the year as a republic with power concentrated in the hands of authoritarian President Omar Hassan al-Bashir and the National Congress Party (NCP). The NCP, which ruled for three decades with nearly absolute political authority, remained in power until early April. Protests that began in mid-December 2018 over economic concerns continued during the first few months of the year, growing in size and transforming into demands for regime change under the slogan Freedom, Peace, Justice. On February 22 [2019], President Bashir declared a state of emergency, which the National Assembly endorsed on March 11, for a period of six months. The Bashir regime then issued a series of decrees prohibiting the holding of public gatherings, processions, strikes, and similar activities without permission of the competent authority and gave security forces sweeping powers of arrest, search, and restriction of movement. Emergency courts were established to try arrested protesters. Nonetheless, the protests continued, and on April 6, following the largest demonstration to date, a “sit-in” was established in front of the headquarters of the armed forces.
On April 11, Omar al-Bashir was removed from his position as the president. A self-appointed Transitional Military Council (TMC) took over, with Lieutenant General Ahmed Awad Ibn Auf as de facto head of state. The TMC announced the suspension of the country’s constitution, dissolved the cabinet, the national legislature, state governments, and legislative councils and announced a three-month state of emergency, to be followed by a twoyear transition period. Ibn Auf, however, was unacceptable to the Sudanese people and, in less than 24 hours, he was replaced by General Abdel al-Fatah Burhan. The Forces for Freedom and Change (FFC), a coalition of opposition parties, and the TMC began negotiations to form a transitional government while the sit-in continued. On June 3, security forces violently dispersed the protesters at the sit-in site, killing and injuring hundreds. After a few tense days, however, the two sides returned to the negotiations.
On July 5, the TMC and FFC verbally agreed to form a civilian-led transitional government (CLTG), and on August 17, signed a political agreement and a constitutional declaration formally establishing a new government. The CLTG is composed of a Sovereign Council, a Council of Ministers headed by the prime minister, and a Legislative Council. The 11-person Sovereign Council is composed of six civilians and five military officers. On August 20, Dr. Abdalla Hamdok was sworn in as prime minister, thus dissolving the TMC. On September 5, Prime Minister Hamdok announced 18 of the 20 members of his cabinet. As of year’s end, the Legislative Council had not been formed. Under the constitutional declaration, general elections are to be held in 2022. The country last held national elections (presidential and National Assembly) in 2015.[1]
[1] USSD, ‘2019 country report: Sudan’ (Executive summary), 11 March 2020
A European Parliament briefing of December 2020 observed:
In taking office, Prime Minister Hamdok asserted that the transitional government's top priorities were interlinked: economic growth was unattainable without a prior end to the wars in the peripheries, which could reduce the share of the defence budget from 70 % to 20 %. However, the pace of reforms was slowed down because of disagreements between the various stakeholders and the Covid-19 crisis.
Formed on 5 September 2019, the transitional government has taken steps to honour the demands of the protesters for improved accountability and observance of the civil and political rights of the Sudanese. The government established a national investigation committee to probe the bloody attack by the security forces on pro-democracy protesters on 3 June 2020 [sic, 2019], albeit with representatives sympathetic to those forces. A milestone agreement with the UN allowed it to open a Human Rights Office to support transitional reforms. The government repealed the public order law, a visible component of legislation oppressive to women, and outlawed the practice of female genital mutilation. Conditions have improved for minorities to exercise religious freedom, and the harassment and arbitrary detention of ordinary citizens by intelligence officers have largely ended.
In December 2019, Burhan, the head of the Sovereign Council, ordered the formation of a “committee to remove empowerment, fight corruption and recover looted funds” from the Bashir era. Assets of the dissolved National Congress Party (NCP) and assets valued at US$4 billion from Bashir and his associates were seized. Bashir himself was sentenced to two years in prison for corruption. The committee also fired civil servants belonging to the old regime, such as diplomats and the board members of the Central Bank.[2]
Human Rights Watch (HRW) in its report covering events in 2020 observed that Sudan had repealed its Public Order Law.[3] In its report covering events in 2020 it observed:
Authorities repealed an abusive public order law, outlawed female genital mutilation, removed the death penalty and lashing as punishments for consensual same-sex conduct and many other offenses, and abolished apostasy as a crime. However, many of the other reforms envisioned in the 2019 Constitutional Charter were not implemented.
The government has yet to set up a legislative council and key transitional commissions. It has not embarked on security sector reform…[4]
[2] European Parliament. ‘Sudan: A transition under pressure’ (Page 5), 18 December 2020
[3] Human Rights Watch, ‘World Report 2021, Sudan – events of 2020’, January 2021
[4] Human Rights Watch, ‘World Report 2021, Sudan – events of 2020’, January 2021
However, in October 2021, the country experienced a sudden reversal in the direction it had taken since the fall of al-Bashir. The UK Guardian reported on 25 October 2021 the following:
Sudan’s military has seized power in a coup, arrested leading civilian politicians including the prime minister, Abdalla Hamdok, and declared a state of emergency as thousands of protesters flooded the streets of Khartoum in opposition.
A health ministry official said late on Monday that seven protesters had been killed and 140 people wounded after security forces fired on demonstrators. As night fell in Khartoum, witnesses described gangs of young men armed with sticks reportedly beating anyone found on the streets.
Sudan has been on edge since a failed coup plot last month unleashed recriminations between military and civilian groups who have been sharing power since the toppling of the autocrat Omar al-Bashir two years ago.
Gen Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, who headed Sudan’s power-sharing “sovereign council”, justified the seizure of power and the dissolution of the country’s transitional government by saying infighting between the military and civilian parties had threatened the country’s stability. The military was meant to have passed leadership of the joint sovereign council to a civilian figure in the coming months.
“The armed forces will continue completing the democratic transition until the handover of the country’s leadership to a civilian, elected government,” Burhan claimed in a statement, adding that the country’s constitution would be rewritten and a new legislative body formed.
Large parts of the internet and mobile phone network were cut off in the immediate aftermath of the coup. As protesters blocked streets and set fire to tyres in the capital and its twin city of Omdurman, security forces used teargas to disperse protesters who chanted: “The people are stronger, stronger,” and: “Retreat is not an option!”
Video shared on social media, however, showed people running from the sound of gunfire, and one man being treated for what looked like a gunshot wound.[5]
[5] ‘Sudan’s PM and other leaders detained in apparent coup attempt’, The Guardian, Sudan, 25 October 2021

Key civilian groups including the Sudanese Professionals Association and Forces of Freedom and Change called for civil disobedience and refusal to cooperate with the coup organisers. Protests started on 25 and 26 October 2021 against the coup and at least 10 civilians were reported as being killed and over 140 injured by the military during the first day of protests.[6]
[6] ‘At least four dead as Sudan military fire on anti-coup demonstrators’, Radio Dabanga, 25 October 2021, >
Protests and strikes continued, with 200,000 to 2 million protestors participating around Sudan on 30 October 2021[7] and 15 shot dead by security forces in protests organised by the Sudanese resistance committees on 17 November 2021.[8]
[7] ‘Millions turn out across Sudan to defy military takeover, met with harsh violence from joint security forces’, Mada Masr, 30 October 2021
[8] ‘15 confirmed dead in Sudan protest carnage’, Radio Dabanga, 18 November 2021
On 26 October 2021, the African Union suspended Sudan’s membership, pending a return to power of the Hamdok government.[9] On 27 October, the European Union, the United States and other western powers stated that they continued to recognise the Hamdok cabinet as ‘the constitutional leaders of the transitional government’ and insisted on their ambassadors having access to Hamdok.[10]
ASSESSMENT OF CLAIMS AND FINDINGS
[9] ‘African Union suspends Sudan over coup’, Al Jazeera English, 27 October 2021, archived from the original on 27 October 2021
[10] Beaumont, Peter (18 November 2021), ‘Sudan pro-democracy activists call for escalation after lethal crackdown’, The Guardian, archived from the original on 19 November 2021
Country of reference
The applicant claims to be a citizen of Sudan and provided copies of her passport to the Department with her application. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is a citizen of Sudan, and that Sudan is the applicant’s receiving country for the purposes of the refugee and complementary protection assessment.
Third country protection
The Tribunal notes that the East African Community (EAC) is an intergovernmental organisation composed of six countries in eastern Africa: Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. Membership allows citizens of EAC member countries holding validly issued passports to enter and temporarily reside in each other’s territories. Sudan shares an international border with EAC member, South Sudan. Sudan applied to join the EAC in 2011 but its membership has been opposed. It has not reapplied.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the claimant has the right to enter and reside in any safe third country for the purposes of s.36(3) of the Act.
Accepted personal circumstances
Based on the applicant’s overall written, documentary and oral evidence, the Tribunal accepts the following aspects about the personal circumstances of the applicant:
·The applicant, a female, was born in [year] in Sudan’s capital city of Khartoum.
·The applicant’s father passed away in 2014 and her mother remained in Khartoum until she passed away in 2019.
·The applicant has [specified remaining family] (while [another] sister died in 2013).
·The Tribunal accepts the applicant experienced FGM at a young age.
·The applicant belongs to the Islamic faith as a Sunni Muslim.
·The applicant can speak, read and write in English and Arabic.
·While in Sudan, the applicant undertook and holds [specified qualifications].
·While living in Sudan, the applicant was employed by [Agency 1] as [an occupation 1] and later with the same employer as a [Position 1].
For the purposes of this decision, the Tribunal relevantly accepts the applicant’s home is Khartoum where her family continues to reside.
The applicant has variously claimed that her ethnicity is African-Arabian at the time of application, as [Ethnicity 1] in her 2017 statement and Nubian at the scheduled hearing. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s ethnicity is African-Arabian whereby her African heritage is predominantly Nubian. The Tribunal notes that she has not advanced claims that she has a well-founded fear of persecution based on her ethnicity.
The applicant arrived in Australia without ever being engaged to be married, married or living in a de facto relationship. The applicant married an Australian citizen, [named], in an Islamic ceremony solemnised in March 2019. It accepts the marriage would be considered unconventionally provocative in Sudan and by the applicant’s family members as the applicant’s husband is not a Muslim. The applicant has never had any children or dependants, biological or otherwise. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has lately claimed her marital status as the essential and significant reason she has a well-founded fear of persecution.
The applicant has also advanced claims that, as a Muslim woman, she has been outspoken about the adverse impact on the enforced wearing of the hajib (headscarf) to enforce modesty and conformity among Sudanese women in public under Sudan’s Sharia or Islamic laws. The Tribunal accepts this. Nonetheless, recent country information indicates that since 2019 the hijab is no longer mandatory and there is no longer a modesty law as Sudan has become a secular state.[11]
[11] ‘Sudan ends 30 years of Islamic law by separating religion, state’, The Times of India/Bloomberg, updated 7 September 2020,
Notwithstanding the credibility of these aspects of the applicant’s personal circumstances and her recent marital status claim, the Tribunal has proceeded to set aside this decision based on her dispositive claim that she has a real chance of serious harm or a real chance of significant harm based on her profession as a journalist.
Does the applicant have a membership of a particular social group?
Critical to this review application is the applicant’s claim that she belongs to a profession or some other particular social group that has a real chance of persecution or a real risk of harm arising from her claimed former employment.
The meaning of the expression ‘for reasons of ... membership of a particular social group’ was considered by the High Court in Applicant A’s case and also in Applicant S’s case. In Applicant S Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Kirby JJ gave the following summary of principles for the determination of whether a group falls within the definition of particular social group at [36]:
First, the group must be identifiable by a characteristic or attribute common to all members of the group. Secondly, the characteristic or attribute common to all members of the group cannot be the shared fear of persecution. Thirdly, the possession of that characteristic or attribute must distinguish the group from society at large. Borrowing the language of Dawson J in Applicant A, a group that fulfils the first two propositions, but not the third, is merely a ‘social group’ and not a ‘particular social group’. …
Whether a supposed group is a ‘particular social group’ in a society will depend upon all of the evidence including relevant information regarding legal, social, cultural and religious norms in the country. However, it is not sufficient that a person be a member of a particular social group and also have a well-founded fear of persecution. The persecution must be for reasons of the person’s membership of the particular social group.
In this matter, the applicant has claimed that she had been a journalist prior to her departure from Sudan and that she continued to be a journalist after arriving in Australia.
According to the American Press Institute, an educational organisation affiliated with the Newspaper Association of America, journalism is the activity of gathering, assessing, creating and presenting news and information; it is also the product of these activities. The Institute goes on to state that journalism can be distinguished from other activities and products by certain identifiable characteristics and practices.[12] These characteristics and practices include obligations to independent truth telling, a professional discipline for verifying information and a capacity for monitoring power and position in any given society.
[12] American Press Institute: >
Based on the applicant’s evidence – written, documentary and oral – the applicant claims that she was worked in online, print and broadcast journalism.
The number of organisations to which the applicant has credibly contributed include prominent newspapers such as [Newspaper 1] and [Newspaper 2]. The applicant’s community radio programs also demonstrate the applicant’s ongoing participation in journalism since arriving in Australia. The applicant also presented registration in the [Agency 3] in Sudan which was obtained in [year] as well as [Union 1] ([year] membership). The applicant explained the ruling party required registration which was part of the arrangements by which the press was controlled. The applicant insisted that these restrictions did not mean she was pro-government. Moreover, the applicant holds a commensurate academic qualification to demonstrate she has studied key aspects of media in a reasonably rigorous degree by completing a master’s in mass communication in Sudan.
The Tribunal is aware of the importance of adopting a reasonable approach in the finding of credibility. In Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and McIllhatton v Guo Wei Rong and Pan Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445 the Full Federal Court made comments on determining credibility. The Tribunal notes in particular the cautionary note sounded by Foster J at 482:
care must be taken that an over-stringent approach does not result in an unjust exclusion from consideration of the totality of some evidence where a portion of it could reasonably have been accepted.
The Tribunal also accepts that ‘if the applicant’s account appears credible’, she should, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, be given the benefit of the doubt.
The Tribunal notes that the delegate found the applicant’s educational and professional history indicates the applicant was a qualified [occupation 1] who worked for a government department. Because she remained a long-term employee of a government department right up to when she departed Sudan, the delegate found her claims to have a genuine, urgent and deep fear of persecution as a journalist at the time of her departure as lacking in credibility.
In this decision, the Tribunal has found the delegate’s findings about the applicant’s activities as a journalist overly strident. Firstly, it is not unusual for professionals with a [different] qualification to undertake journalism, either on a professional or amateur basis.
Secondly, the Tribunal has particularly been impressed with the applicant undertaking a sustained broadcasting role in a community radio station based in [Australia] for many years. A search of the applicant’s name on the internet also reveals a record of accessible audio files of interviews, reportage and commentary in both the English and Arabic languages.
Thirdly, the applicant provided persuasive testimony that journalism was something she has always been interested in and described it as her vocation. The Tribunal accepts this given her body of work over a period of time.
Fourthly, the overall evidence indicates that it was likely the applicant, a registered journalist by Sudanese laws, was not a person of interest at the time of her departure for Australia. After all, there is no evidence her public service employment had ever been threatened. That does not necessarily undermine her claims about holding anti-government opinions or that she was a journalist of high professional and ethical standards. Neither does it mean she was not affected by the chilling effect of censorship and punishment given she left the country at a period of high-handed authoritarianism. Nor does it follow the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution based on membership of the particular social group of journalists at the time of decision.
Lastly, the Tribunal received oral testimony from the applicant’s husband, [named], who has supported her in providing the Sudanese and other Nile Basin listeners access to the dramatic events that have occurred in that African region.
The applicant has a body of published and broadcasted work commensurate with being a journalist that supports her membership of that particular social group, as a vocation or that expresses her political opinion as an independent journalist, observer or commentator. She has demonstrated participation in the Sudanese professional body for journalism. Based on this evidence the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a committed journalist who feels a demonstrated duty to independent truth telling, has a professional discipline for verifying information and a capacity for monitoring power and position in any given society, with particular emphasis on Sudan.
For the purposes of the Refugees Convention, the Tribunal accepts the applicant held and continues to hold membership of a particular social group, as a journalist. The Tribunal would also accept there is a related or overlapping nexus reason under the Convention, namely the applicant has an imputed and actual anti-government political opinion, given her journalism has principally covered and commented upon political developments in Sudan under the al-Bashir dictatorship and his National Congress Party.
A well-founded fear of persecution as a journalist, if returned to Sudan
It has been critical to the applicant’s claims that while filing reports for [Newspaper 2 name variant], she was arrested in 2013. She claimed to be detained for three consecutive dates at an intelligence building in Khartoum. It was further claimed she was interrogated as to who was instigating her stories and commentary and what relationships she had to forces aiming to overthrow the government. Interrogation included being slapped and threatened with sexual assault.
The Tribunal notes that this happened at a time of high localised inflation within Sudan when an independent South Sudan detached from Sudan, and the authorities became less dependent on petrodollars. Publicly available information indicates there were widespread protests against the al-Bashir government due to petrol and food price inflation.
On balance and in the context of the country information outlined above about the al-Bashir government, the Tribunal accepts this past harm incident as outlined by the applicant to be credible and that this traumatic event triggered the applicant seeking to depart Sudan as soon as practicable.
A Freedom House report notes that key security personnel with the former regime remain instrumental in the current transitional government and violence continues to be pervasive. As such, it cannot be found meaningful change has occurred in Sudan:
Since military commanders and a prodemocracy protest movement ousted the repressive regime of Omar al-Bashir and his National Congress Party (NCP) in 2019, Sudan has been ruled by a transitional government in which military and civilian leaders are to share power until national elections can be held. The government has begun to enact reforms, and space for the exercise of civil liberties is slowly opening, but security personnel associated with the abuses of the old regime remain influential. Violence involving security forces, other armed groups, and rival ethnic communities persists in many parts of the country.[13]
[13] Freedom House: Freedom in the World 2021 - Sudan, 3 March 2021,
The same report outlines that journalists have continued to face issues in Sudan. This suggests that the applicant would be at risk of harm upon return given her past work in Sudan as well as her work in Australia which has included reporting on the situation in Sudan and interviewing opposition figures in Sudan:
Journalists have expressed concern that individuals connected with al-Bashir’s regime retained positions at media outlets in the country, and key newspapers continued to be closely affiliated with former officials and other political parties. In January 2020, the government committee tasked with recovering assets from the former ruling party suspended the newspapers Al-Rai al-Am and Al-Sudani and the television channels Ashorooq and Teiba… However, in July 2020 the military announced that it had appointed a commissioner to bring legal cases against online journalists who insult the armed forces. Journalists reportedly received threats that they would be prosecuted if they did not stop criticizing the military and delete critical reports. In May, two reporters were harassed by intelligence officers in North Darfur State for investigating and reporting on the COVID-19 pandemic.[14]
[14] Ibid.
The report further notes that dissidents continue to face issues from the authorities:
Ongoing violence by security forces and nonstate actors during the year also served to deter unfettered discussion and criticism among ordinary citizens.[15]
[15] Ibid.
In June 2020 the International Federation of Journalists reported that ‘21 newspapers have been suspended, leaving hundreds of journalists without income and the country deprived of newspapers in a critical moment’.
According to SUJ (Sudanese Union of Journalists), the government currently controls several media outlets through appointed ‘administrative supervisors’ while ‘national media organisations are being heavily penalised, with more than 500 journalists likely to be dismissed soon, according to a plan drawn up by the Empowerment Removal Committee (ERC), created to dismantle former president Bashir’s system’.
The report further outlined:
The latest blow against press freedom was struck last week when the authorities announced legal changes which would result in jail terms of up to 10 years for criticising the actions of the Committee. The new provision has already claimed its first victims, among them Atyib Mustafa Abdelrahman, an SUJ member, columnist and publisher, who was arrested for his critical stance, the union claims. [...] These restrictive measures have grown during the Covid-19 crisis.
According to SUJ, journalists have been repeatedly threatened, harassed and summoned in recent weeks. Journalists Lana Awad Sabil and Aida Ahmed Abdelgadir were arrested after publishing reports about the number of Covid deaths. No journalists have been allowed to cover the proceedings of the High Committee for the Emergency of Corona and the relevant authorisations and permits have been removed from accredited journalists and correspondents, hindering their movement during the curfew period.
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reported that in July 2020 ‘the army had announced on Facebook that it had appointed a Special Commissioner in May to sue anyone who insults or defames the military on the internet.’[16]
[16] Committee to Protect Journalists, ‘Sudan tightens cybercrime law as army pursues “fake news”’, 23 November 2020
Human Rights Watch in their annual report noted that in July 2020, the transitional government amended the 2007 Cybercrimes Act, increasing its penalties rather than repealing vaguely worded offences criminalising the ‘spread of false news’ and publication of ‘indecent materials’. On 18 July 2020, the Sudanese army appointed a special commissioner to bring lawsuits against individuals who ‘insult’ the military online, both inside and outside the country.[17]
[17] HRW – Human Rights Watch: World Report 2021 – Sudan, 13 January 2021, >
The United Nations has expressed concern about the mistreatment of journalists in Sudan in recent weeks:
United Nations chief Antonio Guterres urged authorities in Sudan to respect freedom of expression and the press, calling the coup-stricken country hostile to journalists in a report submitted Friday to the Security Council. Hundreds of political activists, journalists, protesters and bystanders watching anti-coup rallies were arrested following the country’s latest upheaval on October 25. “Amidst an increasingly hostile environment for journalists, I urge the authorities to respect freedom of speech and of the press,” Guterres said in the quarterly document, which has not yet been made public but was obtained by AFP. “I reiterate my call for the immediate and unconditional release of all those arrested and detained arbitrarily, and to cease arrests of political opposition leaders and activists,” he added. Sudan has a long history of military coups, enjoying only rare interludes of democratic rule since independence in 1956. “The future of the Sudanese transition remains uncertain,” Guterres said. He additionally condemned “the use of live ammunition by security and military forces against peaceful protestors resulting in deaths and injuries,” calling it “unacceptable”.[18]
[18] ‘UN Chief urges Sudan to respect freedom of Press”. Inquirer, 4 December 2021,

The applicant has provided oral evidence that she particularly feared those authorities who were sensitive to her broadcasts against the government’s ongoing persecution of Darfuris and the risk of restoring Sharia-based laws negatively impacting on women. The applicant argued that the coup was triggered by members of the defence forces being dragged into peace agreements with Darfuri and other Sudanese minorities and who did not want to be internally or internationally criticised for it.
Should the applicant return to Sudan and undertake journalistic activities, the Tribunal accepts the applicant will take up her role and vocation as a journalist, a profession she has demonstrated considerable determination to pursue. The Tribunal accepts the applicant will be interested in political and humanitarian issues affecting her country of nationality and reference under such circumstances.
Accordingly, the Tribunal accepts that the totality of information suggests that the applicant’s fear of harm due to her imputed political opinion and membership of a particular social group, as a journalist, is genuinely and urgently held, both subjectively and objectively. Despite the al-Bashir regime’s demise and a period of liberalisation up until 2019, it is apparent there continue to be targeted threats, intimidation and significant physical ill-treatment directed at journalists.
The applicant has claimed she is a person of interest and that she will be arrested, interrogated and tortured, on arrival. The Tribunal finds the applicant only has a remote or far-fetched chance of such serious harm on arrival.
However, the Tribunal accepts that there was a genuine past harm incident prior to the applicant’s departure from Sudan for Australia and that it was triggered by anti-government opinions expressed as a registered journalist. It is in this context that the Tribunal cannot be confident that the applicant’s sur place activities in Australia, which includes broadcasting anti-government views, will not contribute to the applicant facing a real chance of coming to light as a committed critical journalist in her home area of Khartoum. It follows from this, the applicant, while in the community, has a real chance of becoming a person of interest by members of Sudanese authorities whose role it is to significantly physically harass and physically ill-treat journalists whose duty it is to report independently and fiercely on matters of public concern, even when those in authority will find embarrassment, shame and/or accountability from her reportage.
Should the applicant return to any part of Sudan and undertake her professional and moral vocation as a journalist, she will have a right to live anywhere in that country. As her persecutor operates throughout Sudan, internal relocation of the applicant outside of her home area of Khartoum will not reduce the appreciable risk of serious harm based on her membership of a particular social group, namely as a journalist.
Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds that she is a journalist. The risk faced by the applicant is a moderate risk of persecution which the Tribunal assesses to be equal to or more than a real chance of serious harm at the time of making this decision – a decision made in the aftermath of the 2021 coup and crackdown on journalists and broadcasters by Sudanese armed forces.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the essential and significant reason for the persecution feared is on the grounds of her membership of a particular social group and her political opinion, as a journalist. On the basis of the evidence before it, including the country information cited above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that state protection is available to the applicant under Sudan’s military-dominated government. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant would be able to avoid the harm referred to by internally relocating within Sudan. For these reasons, the Tribunal accepts the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution in all areas of Sudan for the reasons stated.
In considering whether she comes within the definition of a refugee contained in the Refugees Convention, it accepts that she is outside the country of her nationality and unable to return to it owing to her well-founded fear of persecution. The Tribunal finds, therefore, that for the purposes of s.36(2)(a) of the Act, the applicant is a refugee.
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention.
Therefore, the applicant satisfies the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).
As mentioned above, there is no third country in which the applicant can enter and reside, either temporarily or permanently, for the purposes of s.36(3).
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
Brendan Darcy
Member

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration
Administrative Law
Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review
Procedural Fairness
Jurisdiction
Statutory Construction
Remedies
Natural Justice

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

1726182 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 1246

Cases Citing This Decision

Cases Cited

Statutory Material Cited

[2022] AATA 1246

3 March 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Remedies

Natural Justice