1909335 (Refugee)

This case concerned an application for a protection visa by a female applicant from Iraq. The applicant claimed she feared harm from insurgents and Islamic extremist groups, and also feared harm as a widowed female living alone, and as a Christian. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) as a refugee, or alternatively under section 36(2)(aa) as a person facing significant harm.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of country information and the specific circumstances of the Kurdistan region of Iraq. Regarding the fear of harm from insurgents and extremist groups, the Tribunal found that while such groups were active in other parts of Iraq, there was no evidence of their presence in the applicant's home town or Erbil, and the situation in 2014 when ISIS was active was significantly different to the present. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's claims regarding her status as a widowed female living alone, noting that while Kurdish society remained conservative, women generally enjoyed more legal rights than in other parts of Iraq, and that the applicant had a home to return to and family support. The Tribunal also assessed the risk to the applicant as a Christian, noting that while there were pressures on Christians in other parts of Iraq, the Kurdistan region, and specifically the applicant's Christian enclave, was generally tolerant, and the Kurdish government did not discriminate against Christians.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm from insurgents and Islamic extremist groups, nor from her status as a widowed female living alone, nor from her religious beliefs. The Tribunal found that any potential harm from opportunistic attacks or isolated incidents was remote, and that the applicant had support structures in place that would mitigate any risks. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.