1912249 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning an Iraqi national seeking a protection visa. The applicant had arrived in Australia by boat and was therefore barred from applying for a partner visa. His brother, who had fled Iraq with him and applied for protection at the same time, was granted a temporary protection visa based on his conversion to Christianity. However, the applicant's own application was not successful, leading to this review.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically under section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958, which concerns complementary protection. This required the Tribunal to determine if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Iraq, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. A further crucial consideration was whether it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate within Iraq to an area where such a risk would not exist, as per section 36(2B)(a) of the Act.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's nationality was not in dispute, and he had compelling reasons for fleeing Iraq, including a land dispute with a powerful political figure and threats from his tribe, extended family, and militias, he did not meet the refugee criterion. However, the Tribunal determined that the applicant did face a real risk of significant harm if returned to Iraq. The central point of contention became the reasonableness of internal relocation. The Tribunal considered country information regarding the challenges of relocation within Iraq, particularly for individuals lacking established social networks, and noted the applicant's lack of such networks beyond his home governorate. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that relocation to the Kurdish Region of Iraq (KRI) would not be reasonable due to the language barrier, the applicant's lack of connections, and the difficulties in navigating the Kurdish bureaucracy.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant under section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act. The matter was remitted for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant satisfies this criterion.