1916227 (Refugee)

The applicant, an Iraqi national, sought a protection visa on grounds including his Sunni Muslim religion, political opinion, membership in particular social groups related to his profession as an academic, family links to the Ba'ath party, and his status as an Iraqi who had resided in a Western country. The delegate had accepted some of these facts but not others, including the extent of his family's political profile, specific incidents of violence against his family and business, and threats made during his employment. The matter was brought before the Tribunal for review.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) (as a refugee) or section 36(2)(aa) (complementary protection) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), and consequently, whether his wife and children, as members of his family unit, also met the criteria under section 36(2)(c). Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess if the applicant held a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and if such persecution would involve serious harm and systematic, discriminatory conduct applicable to all areas of Iraq. Alternatively, it needed to consider if there was a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal from Australia.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant did not meet the definition of a refugee because the risk of serious harm was not applicable to all areas of Iraq, he did satisfy the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). This conclusion was based on a cumulative assessment of the evidence, including the applicant's past adverse attention from Shia militias, his profile as an academic who had resided in a Western country and published critical articles about the Iraqi government, and the general country information regarding the ongoing risks posed by groups such as Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq (AAH). The Tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence as credible and found a real chance he would suffer significant harm, including arbitrary deprivation of life or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, if returned to his home areas of [City 1] or [City 2]. It further determined that relocation to other areas of Iraq, such as Kirkuk, would not be reasonable for the applicant and his family, particularly given his wife and children's presence and his own mental health conditions.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with directions that the first applicant satisfies section 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act*, and that the other applicants satisfy section 36(2)(c)(i) on the basis of their membership in the same family unit as the first applicant.