1919941 (Refugee)

The applicant, a male from Saudi Arabia, sought a protection visa, claiming a well-founded fear of persecution due to his difficult and abusive relationship with his influential father. The applicant alleged his father, who works for the government, had previously attempted to arrange forced marriages for him and threatened to locate and harm him anywhere in Saudi Arabia or GCC member states if he did not conform to cultural norms or return to Saudi Arabia. The applicant also claimed his "westernised" attitudes and need for mental health assistance in Australia would lead to harm, and that Saudi authorities would be unable to protect him due to his father's position. The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the prescribed reasons, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa), whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Saudi Arabia, he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm.

The court considered the applicant's claims in light of the relevant provisions of the Migration Act, including the definitions of "refugee," "well-founded fear of persecution," and "significant harm." The court also took into account Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information assessments. The applicant's history, including his return visits to Saudi Arabia and contact with the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Canberra, was examined. The court noted the applicant's fear of physical and mental abuse, potential death, and inability to relocate within Saudi Arabia due to his father's connections and threats. The court also considered the applicant's "westernised" attitudes and the potential for harm due to defying cultural norms.

The court found that the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution. It was satisfied that Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act. Consequently, the matter was remitted for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant satisfies section 36(2)(a).