1803673 (Refugee)

This matter concerned protection visa applications made by four Iraqi citizens. The first applicant, an educated professional woman from Baghdad, claimed she faced persecution in Iraq due to her advocacy for women's rights. Her husband and two children were also applicants. The primary dispute revolved around whether the first applicant had engaged in, or was perceived to have engaged in, activism for women's rights, and if there was a real chance she would suffer serious harm upon return to Iraq for this reason.

The court was required to determine if any of the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) (refugee criterion), section 36(2)(aa) (complementary protection criterion), or section 36(2)(b) or (c) (membership of the same family unit). Specifically, the court had to assess whether the first applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution based on her membership of a particular social group or her political opinion, and whether she faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Iraq. The court also had to consider its jurisdiction in relation to the second applicant.

The Tribunal found that it had no jurisdiction in relation to the second applicant. However, it determined that the first applicant satisfied the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958*. The Tribunal further found that the remaining applicants qualified for protection visas by being members of the same family unit as the first applicant, pursuant to section 36(2)(b)(i) of the Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with directions that the first applicant satisfied section 36(2)(a), the Tribunal had no jurisdiction regarding the second applicant, and the other applicants satisfied section 36(2)(b)(i) based on their family membership with the first applicant.