1926155 (Refugee)

1926155 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 3812 (30 July 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Farris Faris (MARN: 1678135)
CASE NUMBER:  1926155
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Iraq
MEMBER:Damian Creedon
DATE:30 July 2024
PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 30 July 2024 at 2:49pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Iraq – religion and membership of particular social group – Sunni Muslim in Shi’a majority country – educated professional from wealthy family – attempted kidnappings of applicant and father – conversion to Christianity in Australia – baptism, church activities and public interviews – wife and child now also attending – challenged on social media and abused and disowned by parents – supporting statements – country information – guarantee of full right to religious freedom but prohibition of apostasy or conversion from Islam to other religions, and societal attitudes – decision made without hearing necessary – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1)(c), (2), (6), 5LA, 36(2)(a), 65, 423A(2), 425(2)(a)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
MIEA v Guo Wei Rong and Pam Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 11 September 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
Background:
The applicant, a [Age]-year-old citizen of Iraq, applied for the visa on 5 January 2018. The applicant arrived in Australia on 6 August 2017 as the holder of a Student visa and is presently onshore on a Bridging visa pending the outcome of his application for a Protection visa.
Protection visa applications:
The applicant’s written claims for protection may be summarised as follows:
·The applicant is a Sunni Muslim from the suburb of [Suburb] (also known as [Alternative names]) in Baghdad.
·He is a [Profession 1] by profession and comes from a wealthy and well-known family.
·[Suburb]’s population was predominantly Sunni Muslim; however, Shia Muslim militia forced Sunni Muslim families out of the suburb if they refused to cooperate with the militias. The militias forced [certain professions], amongst other professions, to pay for protection. Although militias received the protection payment, protection was not a guarantee and the children of the aforementioned professionals were still at risk of kidnap for ransom. The applicant’s father is a [Profession 2] and therefore, the applicant meets a profile of interest to the militias.
·In approximately 2008, one of his father’s old [clients], a member of the ‘Jayshul Mahdi’ (also known as the Mahdi Army and Jaish al-Mahdi) Shia Muslim militia group, approached the applicant’s father and advised him that the militia intended to kidnap the applicant. As a result, the applicant’s father sent him to study in [Country]. He graduated from [Country] in 2013 and returned to Iraq in the same year. Shia Muslim militias were still controlling the area but under the name of Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq (AAH).
·[In] March 2014, he was driving to work when a black car stopped him. Four men carrying guns came out of the vehicle and checked the applicant’s identity document to confirm whether he was ‘the [Profession 1]’. Once there was a positive match, they asked the applicant to step aside and checked his vehicle. As they were doing this, the applicant used the opportunity to escape. One of the men started shouting the applicant’s name and then they opened fire. After this incident, he left Iraq for [Country].
·A few days after his departure to [Country], ‘some men’ came to the applicant’s house looking for him. When the applicant’s father told these men that the applicant had departed the country, they attempted to take his father. However, they were unsuccessful as his father started begging and this alerted the neighbours. A crowd formed and this prompted the men not to take the applicant’s father but they gave a warning that they would come back.
·[In] 2016, the applicant returned to Iraq to renew his passport and remained there until [the next month] 2016.
·The applicant fears his political opinion (imputed) may be perceived as being opposed to the Shia Muslim, Iraqi Government due to his ‘ethnicity’ and as a Sunni Muslim.
The delegate refused to grant the visas on 11 September 2019 on the basis that the applicant is not a refugee as defined by s5H(1) of the Act and there were not substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed to his receiving country, there was a real risk he would suffer significant harm.
The applicant applied for a review of the delegate’s decision on 17 September 2019.
Application for review:
Pre-hearing submissions
By email received by the Tribunal on 25 July 2024 the applicant provided comprehensive written submissions in support of his application (Submissions). Under the heading “New Claims/Information and Evidence” the applicant submitted the following (uncorrected):
34. … [T]he Applicant [claims that he] experienced a profound sense of loss following the refusal of his former PV. This refusal led to a strong resentment towards the Islamic faith, which he perceived as the root cause of the violence his country of origin has endured.
35. Given the struggles and challenges he faced, particularly during his upbringing, it is not surprising that the Applicant found solace and resonance in the Christian community in Australia. He claimed to have discovered a place where he felt embraced by love, understanding, acceptance, and peace, contrasting sharply with the environment of fear and repression he had known. This transition reflects a genuine evolution in his beliefs and values, shaped profoundly by his personal experience and the pursuit of a life free from constraints and dangers he once faced.
36. Upon the counsel of a trusted friend, the Applicant was encouraged to find solace and support in the Christian faith. He was assured that Christ would provide him with unwavering guidance and presence in times of need, offering a source of comfort and strength. This encouragement played a significant role in his decision to embrace Christianity. ….
37. As the Applicant's curiosity about Christianity grew, he embarked on a journey of exploration. He actively sought answers by attending [Church] and engaging in conversations with members of the Christian community. This proactive approach allowed him to delve deeper into the teachings, beliefs, and practices of Christianity, aiming to gain a comprehensive understanding of the religion.
38. The Applicant became more interested in the religion as a result of his direct exposure to it. With his interest developing, the Applicant ingratiated himself in Christianity by attending church services and bible studies, once a week, at [Church].
39. On or around October 2019, the Applicant officially and publicly embraced Christianity, with other churchgoers witnessing this significant moment as he officially began a new chapter in his life.
40. During several church services, the pastor invited attendees to accept Christ into their lives. The Applicant responded by raising his hand and informing the pastor of his decision to accept Christ. Following this, the Applicant commenced his Bible studies and immersed himself in Christian teachings.
41. [In] March 2020, the Applicant was baptized at [Church] and thus, officially converted to Christianity. The Applicant’s official baptism certificate will be provided to the Tribunal, See attached Annexure B –Baptism certificate. Also see USB Annexure B Ceremony.
42. During the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person church services were suspended due to restrictions. The Applicant attended church services online, participating in Skype church meetings and regularly engaging with church members. He also continued his Bible education and studies via Skype with other church members.
43. Once restrictions were eased, the Applicant resumed in-person church attendance and has been actively involved in the church's operations. He is a key member of [Church] and is regularly rostered for various tasks and duties. …
44. Over the past five years, the applicant has been involved in the [Church] Family, he has been helping [name deleted] assisting in manual without ongoing operations on activities. …
45. The Applicant got married and began bringing his wife and son to [Church] for every Sunday service. Over time, his wife and son have become well-known and warmly embraced members of the church community. They actively participate in various church activities and events, fostering strong relationships with other congregants. Their regular attendance and involvement have further solidified their presence within the [Church] family, demonstrating their commitment to their faith and the church community. …
46. The applicant wife and child attend every Thursday, playgroup at the [city] church.
47. In 2021, the Applicant celebrated his second Easter and posted a photo on [Social media] featuring Easter eggs with a caption reflecting his insights gained from his learnings in Christianity and extended Easter wishes to friends and family. Following this post, the Applicant received disturbing comments, was labeled an infidel for his Christian faith, and faced intense questioning regarding his conversion from Islam to Christianity. …
48. Subsequent to his conversion to Christianity, the Applicant’s parents began conscientiously sensing his religious transformation. Noticing a change in their son behavior, Christian references, which led his parents directly questioned him, to which he reluctantly admitted his conversion.
49. Upon divulging his acceptance of Christianity, he became the target of verbal abuse, vehement denunciations, and accusations of apostasy from his parents. They vigorously attempted to coerce him into recanting his newfound faith, emphasizing the grave social repercussions within their family and the esteemed Sunni Muslim tribe to which they belonged.
50. Furthermore, they expressed profound apprehension that his adoption of Christianity would besmirch the honorable legacy of their family and tribe, known for its unwavering commitment to Sunni Islam and its distinct absence of any association with Christianity.
51. In asserting his autonomy, the Applicant steadfastly affirmed his right to freely practice and express his religious beliefs, steadfastly refusing any proposal to revert to Islam. Despite his earnest efforts to foster understanding and acceptance of his faith among his parents, they ultimately disowned him.
52. Approximately 6-9 months ago, his mother initiated renewed contact, adopting a more conciliatory approach aimed at persuading him to reconsider his commitment to Christianity and return to the fold of Islam.
53. On 05 April 2021, the Applicant actively engaged in a video interview conducted by his church, [Church], to promote the church’s Easter service that was scheduled to take place on Good Friday that weekend. During the Easter Sunday service, the Applicant courageously shared his personal life journey with the congregation. He spoke passionately about the profound transformation he has experienced since embracing Christianity, highlighting the significant positive impact it has had on his life, please see USB for Annexure G.
54. Of his own volition and with courage, he chose to participate in a public interview published on the church’s YouTube channel and website. In this interview, he articulated his reasons for embracing Christianity, aiming to encourage fellow Muslims and individuals of other faiths to consider the teachings of Christ.
55. In a subsequent video interview following the Easter Sunday service, the Applicant shared that he felt vulnerable recounting such a personal life story but was ultimately relieved and grateful for the opportunity to share it publicly. He expressed a heartfelt desire that his testimony would resonate and positively impact at least one person in the congregation, inspiring them towards faith and personal growth. please see USB for Annexure H – Applicant’s Story.
56. The Applicant has been actively participating in various Church events, including a participation in a Christmas production where he played the role of one of the three wise men. This involvement underscores his commitment to community activities and spiritual engagement within the church – please see USB for Annexure I – Christmas production.
57. We submit him being active in his participation in the church activities on a public platform is a true testimony and indication of his commitment to the spreading of the word of the Christ.
The Tribunal has had regard to the President's Directions and in particular the direction that members are to take all reasonable steps to complete papers allocated to them as quickly as possible, and that generally in reviewing a decision to refuse the grant of a protection visa members should address only those elements of the criteria for a protection visa that are necessary to resolve the application on review.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be remitted for reconsideration.
In reaching its decision the Tribunal did not consider a hearing to be necessary, as it was able to find in favour of the applicant on the basis of the material before it, pursuant to s 425(2)(a) of the Act.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The relevant law:
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).
Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
Evidence:
The Tribunal has before it a range of material, including, relevantly:
(a)the applicant’s protection visa application forms;
(b)the applicant’s identity documents provided to the Tribunal, being his passport;
(c)the protection visa decision (delegate’s decision);
(d)the application for review forms, which include a copy of the delegate’s decision;
(e)documents submitted to the Tribunal in support of the applicant’s review application, including the following:
·A “Certificate of Baptism” recording the baptism of the applicant at “[Church]”, Perth, [in] March 2020.
·A letter dated 19 July 2024 bearing the letterhead of “[Church]” under the hand of [Pastor B], the material aspects of which are as follows:
I first met [the applicant] when he visited [Church] Perth in 2019 and he has continued attending the church since then. He came looking for a spiritual connection where he could live a genuine life of faith, and not long after made a decision to become a Christian - a follower of Jesus. This is the same faith of us at [Church] and mine also as an Ordained Minister of Religion and a Religious Marriage Celebrant.
It has been my pleasure to know [the applicant] for the last 5 years and I have seen him grow as an individual and as an integrated member of Australian society, a commitment he has demonstrated at great financial and time expense whereby he made regular travel to Melbourne from Perth to re-study and gain Australian-endorsed qualifications in [Profession 1 subject] - qualifications he already possessed from his birth country.
He has absolutely embraced the Christian faith and I had the privilege of performing his Water Baptism which is a sacred and important tenant of the Christian faith. [The applicant] has built friendships and connections through participating in regular Bible Studies and regularly volunteers as a Host, greeting people and assisting them with various needs. He is warm, genuinely friendly, and connects well with people be they strangers or regular attendees. We would trust him to lead such a team should he choose to.
In addition to his regular Sunday activities at the church he has also taken on amateur acting roles in video filmed productions that the church produces. Further demonstrating his care for others and a desire to give back to the community, he has negotiated with his manager at the [workplace] he works at to volunteer his time every week to provide free [work] for those who need it but can't afford it. His manager has approved this and has made the [workplace] facilities also available at no cost. He is offering these services via the [Church]'s community outreach department called [name].
I continue to see [the applicant] embrace his new life in Australia by purchasing a house with his wife and welcoming the birth of his first child.
·A Statutory Declaration made by [Mr C] of Adelaide Terrace, Perth, on 22 July 2024 which provides materially as follows (uncorrected):
I confirm that I have known [the applicant] for six years. Our friendship got stronger around 2019, I used to see him on weekly basis to study for our [professional] exams. Our friendship evolved where [the applicant] was confined In me some depressive thoughts about him feeling down and feeling lost, and strong since of abandonment of his faith after his refugee visa was refused. Then I have discussed with him how I coped with depressive thoughts by attempting to church and praying to Christ and I advised him that Christ does not judge you based on your current form or faith. I advised him to go to any church and seek for himself, also offered to take him to my regular church, however he wanted to have unbiased uninfluenced view of the Christian faith. I have observed the changes in his well-being and how he stopped negative thoughts and became a brighter person with positive attitude. After few months [the applicant] confined in me that he was ready to accept the Christ into his life and asked me to be part of his baptism ceremony. Since then I can assert that he has been a strong member of the Christian faith, in fact I saw his unbiased attendance to church and participation in activities more than many of my fellow Christians. I am glad that he is even taken his young child and wife to the church activities. I am not surprised at all with how Christ has helped him come along wav and improve his life.
·A printed extract from a “[Church]” Excel spreadsheet filename “Volunteer-Positions-1-Jan-2019-21-Jul-2024_[the applicant].xlsx”. The extract comprises 15 pages and shows a regular rostering of the applicant as “Host” at “[Church]” services during the period January 2019 to July 2024.
(f)Four video files provided to the Tribunal by the applicant on a USB drive described as “Annexure B”, “Annexure G”, “Annexure H” and “Annexure I” to the Submissions. The Tribunal has viewed and had regard to each of the videos; for the sake of convenience the Tribunal will adopt those names for the purposes this decision; the videos may be described as follows:
·“Annexure B” is a video of 2:32 duration and is referred to in paragraph [41] of the Submissions extracted above. The video shows the applicant receiving the Christian sacrament of baptism. In the video the applicant is asked why he is choosing to be baptised; in answer the applicant describes his spiritual journey from Islam to Christianity; as part of the sacrament the applicant expressly states that he accepts Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour, and that he accepts Christian baptism voluntarily.
·“Annexure G” is a video of 4:33 duration and is referred to in paragraph [53] of the Submissions extracted above; the Tribunal is satisfied that the video meets the description given by the applicant.
·“Annexure H” is a video of 4:02 duration and is referred to in paragraph [55] of the Submissions extracted above; the Tribunal is satisfied that the video meets the description given by the applicant.
·“Annexure I” is a video of 3:48 duration and is referred to in paragraph [56] of the Submissions extracted above; the Tribunal is satisfied that the video meets the description given by the applicant.

The Tribunal has also read and had regard to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) DFAT Country Information Report Iraq, 16 January 2023 (DFAT Report), and to various other sources of country information, details of which are set out in the analysis below.
The Tribunal also notes the current Australian Government Travel Advice on Iraq[1] which advises:
We've reviewed our advice for Iraq and continue to advise do not travel. The security situation remains volatile. Due to the security environment and the threat of kidnappings, you should leave Iraq immediately by commercial means, if it's safe to do so.
We continue to advise:
Do not travel to Iraq, including the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, due to the volatile security situation and the threat of terrorism, armed conflict, kidnapping and violent crime….
Violent crime, including kidnapping, murder and robbery, is common. Organised criminal gangs, militia and tribal groups are significant threats. Corruption is common.
[Tribunal’s emphasis.]
[1] See: < accessed 29 July 2024.
Country of reference:
The applicant claims to be a citizen of Iraq. Based on evidence provided to the department by the applicant, namely his passport, and in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal finds that Iraq is his country of nationality and also his receiving country for the purposes of s.36(2)(a) and s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
The Tribunal is satisfied on the basis of the evidence before it that the applicant does not have a right to enter and reside in any other country. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not excluded from Australia’s protection obligations under s.36(3) of the Act.
Assessment of evidence – general principles:
The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is ‘well-founded’ or that it is for the reason claimed. Similarly, that an applicant claims to face a real risk of significant harm does not establish that such a risk exists, or that the harm feared amounts to ‘significant harm’. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant himself or herself, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for him or her. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant. (MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70).
The Tribunal is aware of the importance of adopting a reasonable approach in the finding of credibility. In Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and McIllhatton v Guo Wei Rong and Pam Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445 the Full Federal Court made comments on determining credibility. The Tribunal notes in particular the cautionary note sounded by Foster J at 482:
…care must be taken that an over-stringent approach does not result in an unjust exclusion from consideration of the totality of some evidence where a portion of it could reasonably have been accepted.
The Tribunal also accepts that ‘if the applicant's account appears credible, they should, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, be given the benefit of the doubt’. (The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, Geneva, 1992 at para 196). However, the Handbook also states (at para 203):
The benefit of the doubt should, however, only be given when all available evidence has been obtained and checked and when the examiner is satisfied as to the applicant's general credibility. The applicant's statements must be coherent and plausible, and must not run counter to generally known facts.
Credibility:
The applicant’s evidence as to his background in Iraq is uncontroversial; it is coherent and plausible and does not run counter to generally known facts, including the country information which is considered in detail below.
The applicant’s account of his conversion from Islam to Christianity was articulately and persuasively stated in his video evidence, particularly “Annexure H”. His account of his conversion is consistent across time and his evidence is internally coherent. His claims in this regard are corroborated by the evidence of [Pastor B] and [Mr C].
The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s general account of his circumstances, and in particular the genuineness of his conversion from Islam to Christianity.
For the sake of completion the Tribunal also accepts that the applicant has a reasonable explanation as to why this claim was not raised before the primary decision was made (that his conversion came after the primary decision): s 423A(2); and that the claim is a genuine one which developed based on his personal circumstances and not so as to strengthen his claim to be a refugee: 5J(6).
His claim for protection will be assessed against this background.
Country information:
General background
Iraq’s recent history is summarised in the DFAT Report in the following terms:
2.1        Iraq gained independence as a kingdom in 1932. A 1968 coup installed the authoritarian Ba’ath party, a secular but predominantly Sunni party. Iraq’s economy and standing in the Arab world grew, and security chief Saddam Hussein assumed leadership in 1979. Under his rule, Iraq became a brutal authoritarian dictatorship. Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, leading to a disastrous decade-long conflict (the Iran-Iraq War) which killed an estimated 500,000 soldiers on both sides. Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, before being forced out by a US-led international coalition (the Gulf War). The UN imposed economic sanctions and a no-fly zone that led to the de facto establishment of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI).
2.2        Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, US President George W Bush singled out Iraq as a threat to global security. With the objective of preventing Iraq from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, the US and its allies (including Australia) launched military action in Iraq in March 2003. The Coalition Provisional Authority assumed control of the country, with the stated aim of rebuilding Iraq’s security forces and restoring infrastructure and services. A fierce insurgency developed against US-led coalition forces, and sectarian violence broke out between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims. An estimated 300,000 people were killed in this conflict. A US troop surge in 2007-08 temporarily reduced the violence, enabling the majority of US troops to withdraw in 2011.
2.3        Ongoing sectarian tensions fuelled the rise of Da’esh (also known as Islamic State), a militant Salafi jihadist group that captured large parts of Iraq in 2014-15. During its occupation, Da’esh committed numerous atrocities. Eventually Iraq’s regular forces, supported by a US-led coalition and Kurdish and other forces, succeeded in wresting back control of Da’esh-held territories. Many of the Iraqi forces were incorporated into a state-sponsored umbrella organisation known as the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), which has become influential in Iraq’s economy, politics and security. While the government declared victory over Da’esh in 2017, the terrorist group remains a security threat today (see Security situation).
2.4        Iraq held a parliamentary election in 2018, but the following year large-scale protests broke out against corruption, non-delivery of essential public services and perceived interference by foreign powers, particularly Iran (see Protesters and demonstrators). These protests were violently repressed by security forces and Iran-aligned militia groups. Protests again broke out following the 2021 parliamentary election. Talks to form a new government stalled and, in July 2022, supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr, an influential cleric whose party won the most seats in the 2021 election, staged a mass sit-in of the Iraqi parliament to protest the nomination by their pro-Iran rivals of former cabinet minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani for the position of Prime Minister. These protests again resulted in violence. Al-Sudani was confirmed as Prime Minister in October 2022.
The DFAT Report assesses the current security situation in Iraq as follows:
2.24      Security incidents occur often and without warning, including rocket attacks, mortar attacks, attacks with improvised explosive devices (IEDs), grenade attacks, small arms fire and assassinations. Targets have included security forces, government offices, diplomatic missions, US-led coalition forces, Iraqi and Turkish military facilities, checkpoints, police stations, recruiting centres, airports and public transport centres, places of worship and religious gatherings, markets, non-government organisations, schools and universities, and civilian infrastructure. Violent crime is common, including kidnapping, murder and robbery. Other serious crime includes drug and people trafficking, prostitution and illegal organ harvesting. Organised criminal gangs, militias and armed tribal groups are significant threats.
2.25      Although the KRI is generally regarded as a less dangerous security environment than other parts of Iraq, it is still affected by high levels of violent crime, including kidnappings, murders, robberies and so-called ‘honour’ killings (see Women). Gun violence is common throughout Iraq. Gun ownership is among the highest in the world, and most households own at least one firearm. The ubiquity of weapons and a strong ‘honour’ culture mean minor disputes often rapidly deteriorate into violence, including murder.
2.26      Despite the territorial defeat of Da’esh in December 2017, Da’esh continues to launch attacks on security forces and civilians in Iraq, including suicide bombings and IED attacks. The group operates from safe havens in the Western Desert and along the disputed territories between federal Iraq and the KRI, supported by Da’esh fighters based in Syria. In 2021, Da’esh carried out more than 1,000 attacks in Iraq, killing or injuring over 2,000 people. These included a suicide bombing in Teyeran Square that killed 32 people in January 2021 and an IED attack in Madinat al-Sadr that killed 35 people in July 2021. Both attacks targeted Shi’a populations. According to the US Department of State, Da’esh also attacked electricity and water infrastructure, and abducted and killed civilians and security personnel, throughout 2021.
2.27      Iran and Turkey carried out rocket and artillery attacks in Sinjar and the KRI in 2022, reportedly targeting members of the KDPI (Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran) and the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a Kurdish terrorist organisation active in Turkey and Iraq). Civilians were reportedly killed in and displaced by these attacks.
2.28      Large-scale, prolonged violent protests began in major cities in October 2019 and continued until mid-2021. These protests came to be known as the ‘Tishreen’ (October) protests, and participants as ‘Tishreenis’. Security forces, allegedly with the support of Iranian-aligned militias, used tear gas, water cannons and live ammunition against protesters, resulting in hundreds of deaths. In July 2022, in a separate period of unrest following the October 2021 elections, supporters of influential cleric Muqtada al-Sadr breached the International Zone in Baghdad (the partially-secured centre of the international and government presence in the city) and staged a sit-in at the Iraqi parliament that lasted several days. They were protesting the nomination by al-Sadr’s opponents of Mohammad al-Sudani as prime minister and attempting to inhibit government formation. In August 2022, al-Sadr’s supporters moved their protest to the Supreme Judicial Council, before forcing their way into the Presidential and Government Palaces. The protesters later clashed violently with groups believed to include Iranian-aligned militias, exchanging small arms and rocket fire continuously for 20 hours. At least 20 people were killed and more than 300 injured in this violence. See also Protesters and demonstrators.
2.29      Iraq is one of the world’s most landmine-affected countries. There are reportedly more than 2,000 hazardous mine areas nationwide from numerous conflicts. Border areas are particularly affected, and areas previously controlled by Da’esh have also been heavily mined, including with booby-traps. Explosive hazards pose risks at farms, schools, hospitals, water treatment facilities, power plants, bridges and other infrastructure, and have prevented the safe return of displaced people.
[Tribunal’s emphasis.]
Conversion from Islam and apostasy in Iraq
The core of the applicant’s claim is that he is at risk of violence or death based upon his conversion from Islam to Christianity. It is necessary, therefore, to examine country information specific to that issue.
The Iraqi Constitution of 2005 established Islam as the official religion and no law may be enacted that contradicts the “established provisions of Islam”. While the Constitution provides for freedom of religious belief, it does not explicitly mention followers of other religions and atheists.[2] Article 2 of the Constitution states that:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation:
A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam.
B. No law may be enacted that contradicts the principles of democracy.
C. No law may be enacted that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this Constitution.
Second: This Constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights to freedom of religious belief and practice of all individuals such as Christians, Yazidis, and Mandean Sabaeans.
[2] See generally, “Iraq - Targeting of Individuals”, European Union Agency for Asylum, January 2022.
Under the heading “Religious conversion and intermarriage”, the DFAT Report notes that:
3.34      Civil laws provide a simple process for a non-Muslim to convert to Islam. However, personal status laws and regulations prohibit the conversion of Muslims to other religions and require administrative designation of minor children as Muslims if either parent converts to Islam or if one parent is considered Muslim, even if the child is the product of rape (see Stateless persons and Yazidis). Civil status laws allow non-Muslim women to marry Muslim men, but prohibit Muslim women from marrying non-Muslim men. Conversion from Islam is reportedly easier in the KRI.
3.35      No laws prevent marriage between Sunni and Shi’a couples. Such marriages have reportedly increased in prevalence as sectarian tensions reduced over the past decade, although would-be couples sometimes face opposition from their families, which in extreme cases can extend to violence.
3.36      DFAT assesses that Iraqi laws and long-standing practices tend to discriminate against non-Muslims. The extent of this discrimination varies by geographic area and may include violence or the threat of violence against members of religious minorities who do not adhere to Islamic standards of dress.
[Tribunal’s emphasis]
The United States Department of State (USDOS), in its “2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: Iraq”[3] supports DFAT’s general advice, noting that:
Personal status laws and regulations prohibit the conversion of Muslims to other religions, and they require the administrative designation of children as Muslims if either parent converts to Islam or if one parent is considered Muslim, even if the child is a product of rape.
[3] See: <>
The USDOS further notes that members of non-Muslim minority groups reported abductions, threats, pressure, and harassment to force them to observe Islamic customs.
Dealing more specifically with the consequences to converts of apostasy, under the heading “Converts and atheists” in its report “Iraq – Country Focus”, the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) notes the following (citations and hyperlinks omitted):
Besides being prohibited under the Personal Status Law, religious conversion from Islam to Christianity or other religions is socially taboo in Iraq, and ill-perceived by society and tribal groups. A study outsourced by the organisation Joint Initiative for Strategic Religious Action (JISRA) showed that, due to the strong connection between ethnic affiliation and religion, atheism can be perceived as a ‘denial of ethnic identity’. Although conversion does occur in Iraq, converts opt to hide their conversion to Christianity or any other religion. Converts might be expelled from the territory upon decision of tribal leaders, sometimes with support of their own family; they might face challenges in seeking a job, buy/rent an apartment or deal with authorities, for instance in obtaining documentations and certificates. Converts from Muslim background experience pressure, ostracism and discrimination, especially from family and community members. The [Kurdistan Region of Iraq] in particular saw an increase in reports of women killed by male relatives, including for reasons such as converting to a different religion. An expert on Iraqi tribes told the EUAA that converting from one religion to any other is ‘a red line’ for all tribes in Iraq, be it from Islam to Christianity or Christianity to Islam: ‘from the perspective of religion, it provides a permission to kill since the person has become an infidel. This is the general code among all the tribes, among all ethnicities and all religions.[4]
[Tribunal’s emphasis.]
[4] EUAA, ‘Iraq – Country Focus’ (page 54), May 2024
This information is supported by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) in its report “Country Guidance: Iraq” where, under the heading “Conversion and apostasy”, it is noted that:
Apostasy is uncommon in Iraq and is generally seen as unnatural. Despite its acknowledgment of religious diversity, the Personal status laws and regulations prohibit the conversion of Muslims to other religions. Whilst civil laws provide a simple process for a non-Muslim to convert to Islam, conversion of a Muslim to another religion is forbidden by law. Article 26 of the National Identity Card Law affirms the right of non-Muslims to convert to Islam but does not grant the same rights to Muslims. Converts from Islam to other religions cannot change their religion on their identity cards after conversion and must continue to be registered as Muslims. Children born to a Muslim and a non-Muslim parent are legally deemed Muslim.
According to COI sources, people who convert from Islam to Christianity may be at risk of being killed in Iraq. While converts may encounter difficulties with the authorities, the main source of problems is usually the community and family, with reactions varying from one family to another. In some cases, family members are open-minded and do not react to the conversion in any way. In others, the convert may be disowned, receive death threats or even be killed. According to some sources, problems typically arise within the extended family. The treatment of female converts is reportedly much worse than the treatment of men. The situation of the convert may also vary somewhat depending on the person’s social status and tribal background. Kurdish tribes could be more permissive towards the convert compared to Arab tribes. There are also regional differences, with reactions being generally harsher in the countryside.
The situation for converts is reportedly worse in other parts of Iraq as compared to the KRI. In 2015, the KRG passed a law to protect the rights of different religious groups. There are no reported cases of anyone being tried in the KRI for changing religion. Although the KRG supports the Christian converts residing in the KRI, state authorities cannot provide the converts constant protection against the possible threat posed by their own tribe. Kurdish authorities are fairly tolerant of the Christian converts but it has not been possible for converts to, for example, change the official status of religion for their children. Some years ago, Kurdish authorities did, however, register a Kurdish Christian group that had converted from Islam. The number of Christian converts in the KRI is generally thought to be around a few hundreds.[5]
[Tribunal’s emphasis.]
[5] EASO, ‘Country Guidance: Iraq’ (page 83-84), January 2021.

In a 2012 report entitled “UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Iraq” the UN High Commissioner for Refugees provides the following information relating to Christian converts (citations omitted):
The Constitution of Iraq requires the Iraqi State to uphold both freedom of religion and the principles of Islam, which, according to many Islamic scholars, includes capital punishment for leaving Islam.
Iraqi Penal Law does not prohibit conversion from Islam to Christianity (or any other religion); however, Iraq’s Personal Status Law does not provide for the legal recognition of a change in one’s religious status.[6]
[6] UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Iraq, HCR/EG/IRQ/12/03, 31 May 2012,
Anecdotal reports of the situation “on the ground” support the views expressed in such higher-level analyses. Two recent articles serve to illustrate such reportage: the Christian news website Missions Box, in a report dated 23 July 2024, notes:
IRAQ — When someone converts from Islam to Christianity in Iraq it can spell a death sentence for them. Despite these risks an increasing number of men and women are taking this bold step, but at a serious cost of intense persecution and isolation. …
Imagine facing torture and death for just five words… I believe in Jesus Christ?
That’s the case for many of those who met in Iraq recently for possibly one of the largest ever gatherings of converts from Islam to Christianity in the Middle East. [7]
[7] See: < see also: P Wooding, “Major Gathering of Converts From Islam to Christianity in Iraq”, Global News Alliance, (16 July 2024), <>
In a 10 June 2024 report entitled “Christian mother, children ordered by court to convert to Islam”, The Christian Post notes:
In a controversial ruling, an Iraqi court has decreed that a Christian mother, Elvin Joseph, along with her three children, convert to Islam. The decision was based on the interpretation of Iraq’s Personal Status Law which mandates that children must adopt Islam if one of their parents converts.
Joseph, a resident of Duhok in the Kurdistan Region, found herself entangled in this legal predicament following the revelation of her mother’s conversion to Islam after her divorce and subsequent remarriage to a Muslim man.
“I am Christian,” Joseph asserted in an interview with Rudaw Media Network. “I am married to a Christian man. I have three Christian kids. My education was in our language. All my official documents are Christian. Our marriage is registered by the church.”
Despite these declarations, the law, which was enacted in 1959, insists that her familial ties to Islam require her and her children’s conversion, the U.S.-based persecution watchdog International Christian Concern said in a statement.
The implications of this law stretch beyond mere religious identity, affecting marital, inheritance and custodial rights under the provisions of Sharia law. Joseph, as a result, faces legal challenges in maintaining her marital union with a Christian husband.
Sami Patros, Joseph’s husband, elaborated on the situation during an encounter at the National Identity Card Office. At that office, “they said your mother-in-law had converted to Islam and, therefore, they said your wife should become Muslim too. This also applies to my children; their religion should be changed from Christianity to Islam.”
The Tribunal does not place decisive weight upon such anecdotal sources of country information; however, they serve to contextualise the views expressed in higher-level country information.
Analysis:
The applicant is a [Age]-year-old Iraqi national, of Arab ethnicity,[8] resident in Australia. He is a convert from Sunni Islam to Christianity. He and his witnesses have provided evidence that establishes that he is genuinely committed to his Christian faith, and that his faith is fundamental to his identity and conscience. His core claim for protection is based upon his genuine fear of persecution in Iraq because of his conversion from Islam to Christianity, which makes him, according to Islamic law, an apostate.
[8] See the applicant’s “Application for a protection visa” form, Department File No. [Reference]; Ref ID [deleted].
While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant genuinely fears being subjected to serious harm in Iraq on account of his apostasy, this in itself is not determinative. The Tribunal is required to be satisfied that the applicant’s fear is, viewed objectively, well founded. This means that the objective evidence before the Tribunal must establish a real chance of serious harm in Iraq, arising from systemic and discriminatory conduct, demonstrative of a failure of effective protection measures, and for the essential and significant reason of (in this case) the applicant’s religion or his membership of a particular social group, namely converts from Islam, or apostates.
The applicant submits in essence that Islamic law, which prevails in Iraq, gives Muslims the right to kill him as an apostate. He submits that he will be at risk if he returns to Iraq. He believes that if he returns, he will be at risk of serious harm, including death; he submits that:
… if [he] were to be removed to Iraq, he will not be able to practice his new religion freely and will be forced to refrain from celebrating or expressing himself and his religion so as to not bring attention to himself, his family, and their conversion as it could potentially lead to capital punishment for leaving the Islam (sic) faith.[9]
[9] See: Submissions, para [61].
Country information noted above reveals that, despite the Iraqi Constitution providing some level of formal protection for religious freedom in Iraq, it is clearly undermined by the legislative supremacy awarded to Islamic law. This includes Islam’s prohibition on apostasy arising out of conversion from Islam to another faith. Country information indicates that apostates in Iraq face risks of physical harassment, physical ill-treatment and threats to their life and liberty. In light of the country information the Tribunal cannot dismiss such threats as remote or speculative.
It follows that if he is returned to Iraq now or in the reasonably foreseeable future the applicant will face a real chance of being subjected serious harm, as that concept is understood in the Act.
The Tribunal accepts therefore that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Iraq, and that the essential and significant reason for such persecution is the applicant’s religion or his membership of the particular social group, namely converts from Islam, or apostates.
The Tribunal finds that the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of Iraq: s 5J(1)(c); that there are no effective protection measures available to the applicant in Iraq that are accessible, durable and appropriate to sufficiently mitigate the real chance: ss 5J(2) and 5LA; and that the applicant could not take reasonable steps to modify his behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution, as such steps would, in the applicant’s case, conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to his identity or conscience: s 5J(3).
For these reasons the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
Damian Creedon
Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

< (accessed 29 July 2024).

[2024] AATA 3812

30 July 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Standing

Statutory Construction