1908035 (Refugee)

The matter concerned an application for a protection visa by citizens of Jordan. The applicants, a married couple, claimed they had a well-founded fear of persecution and would suffer significant harm if returned to Jordan. The dispute arose from a property disagreement with a neighbour, which escalated to include religious harassment and threats, with the neighbour allegedly holding significant influence within the community. The applicants also raised health issues and the unreasonableness of relocation due to their age and medical conditions.

The court was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether they were refugees under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, or alternatively, whether they qualified for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Jordan. This involved assessing the credibility of their claims regarding the neighbour's actions, the religious dimension of the harassment, the neighbour's standing in the community, and the availability of effective protection measures within Jordan. The court also had to consider whether relocation within Jordan was a reasonable option for the applicants.

The Tribunal concluded that while the applicants had been given a meaningful opportunity to present their case, the matter should be remitted for reconsideration. The Tribunal found that the applicants were citizens of Jordan and that Jordan was their receiving country, noting that expired passports could be renewed in Australia. The Tribunal considered the applicants' claims of religious insults and harassment stemming from a property dispute, acknowledging that certain individuals can wield disproportionate power in a community. It also took into account the applicants' age and health, which made relocation potentially unreasonable. Ultimately, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicants met the criterion for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.

The Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with a direction that the applicants satisfy section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.