2009571 (Refugee)

[2025] ARTA 1203

2009571 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 1203 (27 March 2025)

DECISION AND  

REASONS FOR DECISION

Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number:  2009571

Tribunal:Jessica McLeod

Date:27 March 2025

Place:Melbourne

Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decisions under review and remits the applications for a protection visa for reconsideration, in accordance with the orders that

(i)that the first named applicant meets s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act; and

(ii)that the other applicants satisfy s 36(2)(b)(i) of the Migration Act, on the basis of membership of the same family

Statement made on 27 March 2025 at 12:43pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Jordan – race – Palestinian – political opinion – opposition to the Jordanian government – social media activity – fear of detention – employment – education – family Jordanian citizenships revoked – Israeli-Palestinian conflict – internal relocation – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and transitional Provisions No1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2; rr 1.03, 1.12, 2.08

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is a review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs (the delegate) to refuse to grant the applicant (a claimed [Country 1] citizen) a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicants in this case are a three-person family group of Jordanian citizens of Palestinian ethnicity comprising of a husband (Applicant 1), his wife (Applicant 2), and their [age]-year-old son (Applicant 3). They have consistently claimed that in Jordan they face racial discrimination and problems resulting from Applicant 1’s political opinion and expression.

3. The applicants have endured a long (10 year) protection visa process, including five years from application to Department’s decision, and almost a further five years to receive this review outcome. They applied for the visas in June 2015[1] and in February 2020 Applicant 1 participated in a video interview with the delegate, who then refused the grant of visas in June 2020. A few days later, the applicants lodged a review application with the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal (now the Administrative Review Tribunal)[2] and on 20 December 2024, they all appeared in a hearing before the Tribunal which was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages. In this hearing, Applicants 1 and 2 gave evidence and presented arguments and their legal representative gave oral submissions. The applicants were granted additional time and subsequent extensions to provide further submissions, which they did in February 2025.

   [1] Applicants 1 and 2 arrived in Australia together [in] November 2014 and they applied for the protection visas on 28 June 2015. Applicant 3 was born in Australia in [specified year] while his parents’ applications were still pending and is taken (by virtue of Regulation 2.08 of the Migration Regulations 1994) to have applied with his parents.^[1]

   [2] On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal has reviewed the applicants’ case to determine whether they meet the criteria for a protection visa in s 36(2) of the Act, by meeting either the refugee criteria in s 36(2)(a), the complementary protection criteria in s 36(2)(aa), or the criteria in s 36(2)(b) or s 36(2)(c) relating to members of the same family unit as a protection visa holder who meets the relevant criteria.

5. Set out below are the Tribunal’s consideration of the relevant issues and the reasons for the Tribunal’s ultimate findings that Applicant 1 in fact meets the refugee criteria on the basis of his political claims and that Applicants 2 and 3 are members of the same family unit as Applicant 1. The Tribunal assesses that their case should therefore be remitted for reconsideration.

   CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   Identity / Nationality / Background

6. Through their primary and Tribunal review processes, the applicants have provided the following information about their identity, nationality and background:

   ·     They are all Jordanian citizens and have been since birth. They have no other citizenships. Applicants 1 and 2 were both born in Amman, Jordan in [specified year] (Applicant 1) and [year] (Applicant 2).[3] Applicant 3 is their son. He was born in Australia in [year]. They are all of Palestinian ethnicity and are Muslims.

   ·     Applicant 1’s father who is now deceased, was born in Hebron (a Palestinian city in the southern West Bank) and held Jordanian citizenship. Applicant 1’s mother was born in Jerusalem and Applicant 1 describes her as holding Jordanian, Palestinian citizenship. They migrated to Jordan and his mother still lives there. Applicant 1 is the [place in family]. He has [specified siblings]. All of his siblings are Jordanian citizens. They all reside in Jordan except for [two] who reside in [specified countries]. His remaining brother in Jordan has bipolar disorder and is unable to work; he receives treatment and stays at home and is supported by the applicants and other family members. Applicant 1’s [other siblings] are all [married].

   ·     Applicant 2’s father was born in [City 1] (a Palestinian city in the [West Bank]).  Her mother was born in Jordan. They migrated to Jordan and later became Jordanian citizens, and they still live there, in Amman. Her father has a small [shop] but at times, his siblings in the West Bank (who ran a [business 1] there) have sent money to help support them. Now, Applicant 2 and her siblings help to support their parents. She is one of [number] children. She has [specified siblings], though only one [sibling] lives in Jordan. The others live in [specified countries]. Their parents had not wanted any of their children to live in Jordan.

   ·     Both Applicants 1 and 2 have family members who have had their Jordanian citizenship revoked. For Applicant 1, this happened to several of his [relatives] on both sides) and they now live in Jerusalem, Hebron and elsewhere in the West Bank. For Applicant 2, it was her father’s [relative] who also had to go and live in the West Bank. Both were young when these revocations happened; they aren’t sure of the circumstances.

   ·     Applicants 1 and 2 were married in Jordan in October 2013, though their wedding was held in February 2014.

   ·     They are both tertiary educated, though their schooling and university education were through private institutions, paid for by their own families. For Applicant 1, the funds came from his father’s job in [another country] and the payout he received when [he] lost his job, and from his father’s retirement savings, and also from the sale of his father’s business and inheritance after his father died. For Applicant 2, the funds came from the [shop] and the [business 1] income.

   ·     Between September 2010 and February 2014, Applicant 1 took several international trips for business purposes – including individual trips [Country 2] [details of international travel deleted].

   ·     Applicants 1 and 2 departed Jordan through the Queen Alia International Airport in Amman at the end of October 2014 and then stayed a few days in [Country 2] before arriving in Australia together [in] November 2014 on a student visa.[4] They have never since departed Australia.

   ·     The applicants have long been psychologically impacted by their life of discrimination. Applicant 2 continues to suffer from mental health problems in Australia, further compounded by her absence from other family members, several relatives’ deaths since she has been in Australia, and other personal losses they have felt deeply.

   [3] The Tribunal notes that Applicant 1’s date of birth was initially incorrected recorded by the Department as [dates], but it is in fact [another date], as reflected in his identity documentation.

   [4] Applicant 2 was the secondary (dependent) applicant on Applicant 1’s student visa.

   Protection claims

7. In summary, throughout their protection visa application (2015)[5], protection visa interview (2020), and Tribunal review process (2024/2025), the applicants have claimed to fear that if returned to Jordan they will face persecution on political and racial grounds, and the cumulative effect of both.

   [5] It is noted that while the statutory declaration dated 22 June 2015 provided with their applications was authored by Applicant 1, both Applicant 1 and Applicant 2 referred to this ‘statement’ in responding to Questions 90 to 97 in the section ‘[Y]our reasons for claiming protection’ in their protection visa application forms. The Tribunal accepts that that this statutory declaration was intended to represent both Applicant 1 and 2 (and now also Applicant 3).

8. This overall claim set has remained generally consistent throughout the primary and review processes, although some of the supporting detail has differed and to the Tribunal, they have provided much more context, supporting detail and other evidence. Where relevant, the differences or additions are discussed in the ‘Consideration of Claims and Evidence’ below. 

   Political claims

9. The applicants claim that Applicant 1 will be persecuted (including charged, imprisoned and otherwise harmed) on the basis of his previously expressed anti-government political opinion, and that but for the fear of persecution, he would continue to express his strongly held views against the Jordanian government. They also fear that Applicants 2 and 3 will also face consequences as a result of Applicant 1’s views and actions and the actions which may be taken against him.

10. Applicant 1’s political views are rooted in the strong sense of injustice at the treatment Palestinian Jordanians are subjected to on a daily basis. He has expressed his views and his frustration with injustice through protest participation and online posts (commenting on electronic media reports and posting on social media). Such activity resulted in his being monitored by the Jordanian authorities, called for questioning several times and subjected to intimidation techniques, and denied a certificate of good conduct for a lengthy period which caused him long periods of unemployment (2008 – 2012). He was eventually able to obtain a Good Conduct certificate by paying third parties who had political influences (by paying for ‘wasta’).[6] Since his arrival in Australia, he has continued to express his opposition to the discriminatory practices against Jordanian Palestinians.

    [6] The applicants have explained ‘wasta’ as referring to an individual’s access to power and influence, and as something very prevalent in the Arab world. Wasta is a concept, but can also be used to describe a powerful, influential or well-connected person (is. a person that has wasta). The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) describes ‘Wasta’ as the phenomenon that certain individuals and groups have disproportionate access to power and influence: ‘DFAT Thematic Report: Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon’, 2 March 2015, CISEC96CF1255

11. The applicants fear that if they return to Jordan, Applicant 1 may be treated as a political enemy and charged with political activity adverse to the interest of the state and subjected to serious harm. He may be subjected to disproportionate mistreatment and will not be afforded due process. Palestinians are unusually trialled before specific military tribunals which lack the basic judicial processes. They are also severely mistreated whilst in custody. As the applicants do not have wasta, Applicant 1 will not be able to avoid these consequences. He doesn’t know any politically powerful individuals with wasta who could assist him. He also does not have the financial capacity to pay a bribe to evade arrest.

12. The impact on Applicant 1’s life will be significant, not only in terms of facing possible charges, imprisonment and harm in custody, but also in his ability to engage in work and earn a living. Applicant 1 will be unable to obtain a Good Conduct certificate.

13. The applicants claim that Applicant 1’s political views combined with their being Palestinian may result in the revocation of the citizenship of Applicants 1 and 2, and/or the refusal to provide evidence of citizenship for Applicant 3 (as he is not currently registered with the Jordanian government). They claim to fear the impact on Applicants 2 and 3’s ability to support themselves and live safely should Applicant 1 be charged, imprisoned or otherwise harmed.

    Discrimination against Palestinian Jordanians

14. The applicants submit they will be subject to societal and official discrimination, preventing them from obtaining basic needs and suitable employment to allow for the provision of such needs. Applicants 2 and 2 acknowledge that they were able to obtain such things previously and gain an education and travel, but they achieved this through various workarounds not required by other citizens and they were helped by the financial aid of their families, which they no longer have the benefit of and will be in a poorer financial position if returned. They also submit that Applicant 2’s fragile mental health will further exacerbate the impact of the discrimination. 

15. The applicants claim that Palestinians in Jordan are not afforded the most basic civil rights which other Jordanians take for granted. As Palestinians they have long faced severe social and officially sanctioned discrimination – in education, healthcare, dealings with the Jordanian authorities and in the workplace. Palestinians are extremely vulnerable to poverty.

16. They claim that Palestinians are viewed with suspicion by native Jordanians and the Jordanian authorities, so they are subjected to enhanced scrutiny and disproportionate treatment. Unless they have powerful ‘wasta’ behind them, they face restrictions or denial of civil and political rights and severe injustices.

17. Palestinians can only get work in the private sector, not public. However, getting any employment is made difficult by the discrimination and the requirement for to provide a ‘Good Conduct certificate’ from the Jordanian intelligence, and the need for ‘Wasta’. Not having Wasta adversely affects almost every aspect of life in Jordan, including access to tertiary education, healthcare and dealings with government.

18. For Palestinians, obtaining Good Conduct certificates involves a complicated and drawn-out process as Palestinians are viewed with suspicion by native Jordanians and the Jordanian authorities, so they are subjected to a greater degree of scrutiny.

19. Further Palestinian Jordanians with dissenting political views against the state are generally denied a Good Conduct certificate unless they have the support of a powerful person or ‘Wasta’. This they claim, was the case for Applicant 1.

20. The applicants claim that whereas non-Palestinian Jordanians possess high (or higher) ‘wasta’ passed down through familial ties, the applicants, like most Palestinians in Jordan, have little ‘wasta’ resulting in many difficulties subsisting in day-to-day life. They submit that if not for being ethnic Palestinians, they would not have such limited wasta and face inherent discrimination. In their personal circumstances, their lack of wasta has impacted them greatly.

21. The applicants contend that despite being in the majority, as Palestinian Jordanians they are subjected to persecutory conduct. It is submitted that due to the applicants’ ethnicity, they fear serious harm in the form of severe economic hardship, a denial of a capacity to earn a livelihood, and a denial of access to basic services. The applicants submit that these forms of serious harm would be brought about by the official and societal exclusion of Palestinians, manifesting in the restriction of employment opportunities (‘capacity to earn a livelihood’), housing and shelter (‘access to basic services’) and other circumstances amounting to serious harm.

22. The applicants submit that their lack of wasta directly results from their being ethnic Palestinians and as a result, they face inherent discrimination. They claim that this lack of wasta has a cumulative effect increasing the likelihood of, and/or exacerbating the effects of, the racial discrimination such that it will impact their ability to access employment, housing and other opportunities. For Applicant 3, they submit it will also limit his education opportunities. Further, they submit that the extended period of time they have lived away from Jordan (11 years for Applicants 1 and 2 and his whole life for Applicant 3) will further reduce their level of wasta and result in an increased risk of being unable to find suitable employment, access basic services (including medical services) or avoid significant economic hardship. The applicants submit too that they are at risk of having their citizenship revoked (or not recognised for Applicant 3), as has happened to other Palestinian Jordanians. They have submitted a journal article referring to this and to the systematic discrimination against Palestinians in Jordan.[7]

    [7] Somer Dlol, ‘The Palestinian Diaspora in Jordan: A case of Systematic Discriminations’, (Research paper, 2015) <

23. Relevantly the applicants also submit that the recent Israeli-Palestinian conflict exacerbates the societal and official discrimination and risks likely to be experienced by the applicants. They have provided evidence of the authorities quashing demonstrations and other civil unrest among the Palestinian population. They submit that overall, the pervasive and ongoing nature of the conflict exacerbates their risk of serious harm. They also submit that being Palestinian, Applicant 1 faces a higher degree of risk for his political views and actions, and that this has associated risks for Applicants 2 and 3.

    CONSIDERATION, REASONS AND FINDINGS

24. As discussed above, the applicants’ overall claim set has remained generally consistent throughout the primary and review processes, although some of the supporting detail has differed and to the Tribunal, they have provided much more context, supporting detail and other evidence. Notably, additional evidence was provided by Applicant 2, who hadn’t been invited to participate in an interview at the primary stage. The applicants were also represented before the Tribunal and have satisfactorily responded - during the hearing itself and via post-hearing submissions - to the delegate’s concerns and various issues raised in the Tribunal hearings. The Tribunal has factored into its reasoning all this additional context, responses and explanations and the further developments which have occurred in Jordan in the five years since the delegate’s 2020 decision. 

    Identity / Nationality / Background / s 36(3)

25. The Tribunal accepts that the claimed nationality, identity and background of the applicants as set out above. The Tribunal finds that they are Jordanian citizens of Palestinian ethnicity and that their profiles and backgrounds are as set out above.

26. The Tribunal accepts that Applicants 1 and 2 are married to each other and that they are the parents of Applicant 3 who was born onshore in [year]. Regarding Applicant 3’s nationality, although the applicants have not yet registered him with the Jordanian authorities or applied for evidence of his Jordanian citizenship, as both his parents are Jordanian citizens, his parents are married to each other and they are both Muslim and so are not in an interfaith marriage, the Tribunal is satisfied that they are Jordanian citizens by operation of law.[8]

    [8]  United States Department of State, 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2023 - Jordan', US Department of State, 20 April 2024, 20240423130836

1. The Tribunal has considered s36(3) and whether the applicants could enter and reside in a safe third country. There are some indicators of Jordanians having visa free status in Georgia for up to a year and for an unspecified duration in Syria and in the country of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. However, in the applicants’ case, the Tribunal is not satisfied that a year represents an ability to reside, and the available information about visa-free status in Syria or Saint Vincent and Grenadines does not clearly demonstrate the applicants have a right of entry and residence as those terms are intended by s 36(3). The available information about residency in Syria is dated during the Assad regime and does not clearly address the updated situation taking into account the 2024 change of regime or the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Rather, the information indicates that the situation in Syria remains complex and subject to change and that Palestine refugees in Syria face significant humanitarian and security related challenges.[9] And while Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is free of the challenges in Syria, there is a lack of clarity around how the applicants, as Palestinian Jordanian refugees may be treated there. This is also the case for Georgia.

   [9] UNWRA, ‘Syria, Lebanon and Jordan emergency appeal 2025, 2025, ‘

2. On the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants have a right to enter and reside in these countries or elsewhere as that term is expressed in s 36(3), or that they would not face persecution or a real risk of significant harm there. The Tribunal finds that s 36(3) does not apply in the circumstances of this case.

   Consideration of Protection Claims

   Discussion of the applicant’s evidence and country information

   Palestinian ethnicity

3. In terms of the demography and situational context the applicants would be facing if they returned to Jordan, sources indicate that Jordan has an estimated population of just under 11.5 million, as at 2023[10] and that close to half of Jordanian nationals are thought to be of Palestinian origin.[11]Some estimations put this as high as 70 per cent.[12] The term ‘‘Palestinian Jordanians’ is commonly used to describe Jordanian citizens of Palestinian descent while ‘East Bankers (i.e. to the East of the river Jordan) describe descendants of those Jordanians resident in Jordan before the immigration of Palestinians from 1948. Based on the applicants’ evidence and its discussions with Applicants 1 and 2, the Tribunal is satisfied the applicants are Jordanian citizens of Palestinian descent and so may be referred to as ‘Palestinian Jordanians’.

   [10] World Health Organisation, ‘Population Jordan’, httpa://data.who.int/countries/400, accessed 26 March 2025; World Bank, ‘Population, total – Jordan’, accessed 26 March 2025

   [11] Minority Rights Group International, ‘Jordan – Current Issues’ , accessed 26 March 2025

   [12] DFAT, ‘DFAT Thematic Report: Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon’, 2 March 2015, CISEC96CF1255.

4. The applicants contend that despite being in the majority, as Palestinian Jordanians they will be subjected to persecutory conduct and that this will be fuelled and exacerbated by their lack of wasta, Applicant 1’s political views and expression and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

5. The country information before the Tribunal indicates that how persons of Palestinian descent are treated in Jordan depends on whether or not they have Palestinian citizenship. In 2015, DFAT reported that Palestinian Jordanian citizens had the same access to public services as other Jordanian citizens, that 41 per cent participated in the workforce (a rate which was then comparable to other regional Palestinian populations and the same as the wider Jordanian workforce participation rate) and that health status of the Palestinian population was essentially identical to other Jordanians (noting that the overall population’s health status is wide-ranging, in line with Jordan’s wide-ranging socio-economic levels).”[13] However, DFAT did concede that Wasta and some official discrimination did exist.

   [13] Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), ‘DFAT Thematic Report: Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon’, 2 March 2015, CISEC96CF1255

6. DFAT noted that ‘Wasta’ (which it described as the phenomenon that certain individuals and groups have disproportionate access to power and influence) is a central component of how Jordanian society operates which can affect business, bureaucratic, political and social dealings and which by its nature, has tended to cement advantage and disadvantage over time. DFAT reported that:

   “Generally speaking, most Palestinians in Jordan have little wasta when dealing with government bureaucracy, which is dominated by East Bankers. DFAT has been told that Palestinian businesses will frequently employ East Bankers with wasta in positions that liaise with the bureaucracy. The apparent need for East Banker ‘front men’ has been described by some to DFAT as evidence of discrimination against Palestinians. However, DFAT assesses it more as an acceptance of the situation as it is. In numerous academic studies, Jordanians have reported that they do not like wasta, but tend to use it on an everyday basis. Wasta works in both directions. A lack of wasta prevents the descendants of desert tribes—East Bankers—from penetrating urban professions dominated by Palestinians. Moreover, as some industries are dominated by Palestinians, some Palestinians have more wasta—and thus a greater ability to obtain quicker, cheaper or better service (or prevent those with which they are in dispute from easily obtaining these services)—than many East Bankers in relation to these industries…”

   “The system maintains itself by having those in positions of influence (who achieved those positions through wasta) ensure, through wasta, that their families and allies replace them. Thus, wasta plays an important role in the recruitment and promotion of public sector employees. This has made the public sector inefficient, as employees are frequently under-qualified, and the sector has become bloated by too many appointments made in the name of wasta. Wasta also plays a part in private sector employment, but to a lesser extent; people tend to be more judicious about hiring competent staff over family members when their own money is at stake. As discussed in ‘Employment’, below, the public sector is dominated by East Bankers and the private sector by Palestinian-Jordanians.

   Beyond employment, wasta is also used, by those possessing it, to facilitate earning better marks at school, gaining university admissions, scholarships or bank loans, having fines (such as speeding tickets) waived or obtaining government services quickly.”[14]

   [14] DFAT, ‘DFAT Thematic Report: Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon’, 2 March 2015, CISEC96CF1255

7. On the matter of societal treatment, DFAT assessed at that time that:

   “…people of Palestinian descent do not face societal discrimination on account of their being Palestinian. An individual’s wasta, both within the Palestinian community and in dealing with East Bankers or the bureaucracy, will determine, to a great degree, the level of access that individual has. But a lack of wasta is not equivalent to discrimination, societal or otherwise.”

8. Of the more recent country information, researchers describe Palestinian Jordanians as facing low discrimination, since as citizens they are officially not excluded from holding civil and political rights.[15] However, there is also evidence suggesting that despite their being large in number, Palestinian Jordanians do face some level of discrimination, prejudicial treatment, and social stigma.

   [15] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB Canada), JOR201736.E - Jordan: Treatment of individuals of Palestinian descent, including stateless Palestinians, by society and state authorities; access to employment, education, health care, and housing; state protection (2021-May 2024)’ 8 October 2024, 20250103115733

9. Minority Rights Group International notes that Palestinians remain vastly under-represented in government, that they face discrimination in private and state-sector employment, that a quota system limits the number of public university admissions for Palestinians^.[16] The United States Department of State (USDOS) makes similar remarks.[17]

   [16] Minority Rights Group International, ‘Jordan – Current Issues’, , accessed 26 March 2025

   [17] US Department of State, 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2023 - Jordan',  20 April 2024, 20240423130836

10. The UN Country team in Jordan concedes that while Palestinian Jordanians may be formally integrated into Jordanian society and even have citizenship, the Jordanian state still considers them to be refugees with a right to return to Palestine.[18] Palestinians are reportedly at a disadvantage when dealing with the authorities including the police who view them as suspicious and the authorities reportedly have a growing concern ‘over the permanent nature of the Palestinian plight’. Societally too, Palestinians may encounter prejudicial attitudes by East Bankers for not being ‘real Jordanians’ and because they are considered as ‘belonging to Palestine’.[19] The USDOS also noted, consistent with the concept of wasta although they did not refer to it as so, the use of family, business, and other personal connections to advance personal interests is widespread.

    [18]  IRB Canada, JOR201736.E - Jordan: Treatment of individuals of Palestinian descent, including stateless Palestinians, by society and state authorities; access to employment, education, health care, and housing; state protection (2021-May 2024)’ 8 October 2024, 20250103115733

    [19] IRB Canada, JOR201736.E - Jordan: Treatment of individuals of Palestinian descent, including stateless Palestinians, by society and state authorities; access to employment, education, health care, and housing; state protection (2021-May 2024)’ 8 October 2024, 20250103115733

11. At the hearing, the Tribunal raised with the applicants that while they may face discrimination in aspects of their life and that that may be unfair and unjust, the question is whether such treatment rises to the level of serious harm or persecution. It put to the applicants that Applicants 1 and 2 and their families had been able to get an education, get higher education, get employment and get medical treatment even if they had to find workarounds or pay for those in things in ways that other groups of citizens in Jordan have not had to. In response, the applicants submitted that while they had managed in the past, their circumstances are worse now. After an extended period of time away (and his entire life for Applicant 3) their wasta will be even lower, and they do not have the ability to pay for it anymore. They do not have the same family financial support or inheritance from Applicant 1’s father which had been crucial for them in the past. They have also submitted evidence of Applicant 3’s poor mental health, and the exacerbated psychological impact of the discrimination for her. And they are concerned about the authorities’ revoking their citizenship, as has happened to other Palestinian Jordanians, and the authorities’ willingness to recognise Applicant 3’s citizenship, even if by law he already has it.

12. The family claims that their risk of racial persecution is also affected by their political claims. These are discussed below.

    Applicant 1’s political views and expression

13. It is claimed that Applicant 1 has previously expressed his anti-government political views in through protests and online and that he has been identified by the Jordanian government as a political dissident. It is claimed that he and the other applicants will face harm on this basis.

14. The Tribunal notes that Applicant 1 was not asked to explain his anti-government or anti-discrimination views in the primary process. When asked to explain them at the Tribunal hearing Applicant 1 spoke passionately about his views on the discrimination and mistreatment of Palestinians and related issues such as issues with needing and lacking wasta, the additional bureaucratic requirements they are subjected to, being deprived of public education and medical services in the public health system, and concerns around government corruption. These were also referred to in pre-hearing submissions.

15. As for details on his previous political activities or expression of these views, in the protection visa interview, the applicant spoke about protests he participated in during his university days (2008 – 2012) and said he had posted comments/posts online in response to published articles or posts by other anti-government or opposition figures. He gave the names of the websites he posted on but said he had no evidence of his posts as he often deleted them within a couple of days. He said he felt strongly enough to do it but feared drawing so much attention that it would jeopardise his chances of later getting a visa and leaving Jordan. He said that he used an alias when posting online but that he feared this would be traced because he had needed to use his real name and details to register on the platforms. His friends were always warning him to delete anything he posted. The applicant said that he had not made any similar online posts while he had been in Australia. He said he hasn’t felt the same sense of injustice since he has been here as he has been safe and able to live life. The delegate put to the applicant that his written statutory declaration had read as though he was continuing to post online in Australia. The applicant clarified that he had meant that he is continuing to suffer in Australia because of his previous online activity. 

16. To the Tribunal (via the hearing and pre and post-hearing submissions), the applicant gave additional details about the protests he participated in including their locations and the issues or purposes of the specific demonstrations. These included the use of excessive police force upon Palestinians (one was specifically in response to the authorities’ killing of two young Palestinians), and to the widespread corruption amongst authorities more generally. He also participated in demonstrations against the stripping of 3000 Palestinians of their earned Jordanian citizenship, the Jordanian authorities’ encroachment against student parties forming in the University, and the prejudice in unfairly awarding other ethnicities government benefits and scholarships. His participation was always non-violent and peaceful, but the demonstrations were all dismantled and dispersed by Jordanian authorities. He said that in addition to protesting and posting online he also expressed his dissatisfaction of the Jordanian state and the authorities to his family and friends. It was submitted that although Applicant 1 has not been a member of any specific political group or movement and had not organised or had any specific role in the protests, he may be perceived as affiliated due to his participation in these protests organised by specific groups, and his support/following of anti-government figures online.

17. The applicant has submitted a sample of his online posts to the Tribunal. These included some of his Facebook posts from 2020, 2021 and 2023. In particular, Applicant 1 drew the Tribunal’s attention to some comments he made online in August 2020 criticising the Jordanian Prime Minister and Chief of Police and Minister for Education over the government’s crackdown on the Teacher’s Union and arrest of 1000 teachers protesting against the action. He said this comment drew the attention of the Jordanian intelligence. This is discussed further below.

18. When asked in the PV interview about whether he has come to the adverse attention of the Jordanian authorities, the applicant referred to being called into the intelligence office, made to wait long a time. He also referred to being interviewed, and to facing extensive delays in the issuance of his good conduct certificate. He said that he was questioned about his views on the regime, and he admitted that he was opposed, that he took issue with the treatment of Palestinians by the authorities and their subjection to racial discrimination. He indicated that while the officers probably suspected he may have been expressing his views publicly including online and engaging in political activities, they had no evidence of such and so, they just threatened that he had better keep his views to himself and warned him to respect the laws and regulations of Jordan, otherwise he should leave. He said he did not receive his good conduct certificate until he engaged and paid a Wasta to advocate for him, but even then, it took around eight months.

19. To the Tribunal however, the applicant denied that he had been open about his political views when questioned for his Good Conduct certificate. He suggested there must have been some misunderstanding. He said he didn’t recall saying this and that he hadn’t actually done that. He said the reality is, it would be impossible to have that luxury to express his criticism of the government in such a fashion; if he had done that, they would have detained him immediately. The Tribunal put to him that this was strange because he told the delegate in the PV interview that he had done so. He submitted that perhaps he hadn’t understood when the delegate questioned him about it. In a post-hearing submission, it was admitted that in the PV interview, Applicant 1 had attempted to embellish on his claims and that his evidence to the Tribunal was the truth.

20. The applicant has told the Tribunal that the authorities had identified him as a political dissident. He said he was contacted and required to present for questioning by the Jordanian intelligence on three or four occasions. They would never tell him why he was called, he was just required to present, and they would make him wait for up to four hours in an interrogation room and release him. They never actually questioned him on these occasions. He believes these actions were taken in response to his participation in the protests which was noticed by agents of the state presenting themselves as students (whom he described as the ‘eyes and ears of the intelligence’), and that they sought to intimidate him and make him aware that he was noticed and identified, and to let him know they knew of his views and were watching him. Following these encounters, he limited his expression of his political opinion both in-person and online. He said that he further tempered his activities after marrying Applicant 2. He continued to post but was careful and would later delete them.

21. The Tribunal discussed with the applicants their international travel prior to coming to Australia, with both applicants having visited [Country 3] and Applicant 1 having travelled to [other specified countries], much of it on business but one vacation each. They both confirmed they had never faced any serious problems departing or re-entering Jordan and they were never prevented from travelling, though Applicant 1 mentioned he faced many questions, which he described as being normal harassment against Palestinians.

22. Applicant 1 claims that his activities had been noticed in Australia. He told the Tribunal that one online comment in particular (the [August] 2020 comment against government crackdown on the teachers’ union) drew the adverse attention of the Jordanian intelligence office. They contacted his brother by phone on [a day that month] asking about him and warning that Applicant 1 had better shut up. He provided the Tribunal with a written statement from his brother attesting to this. He confirmed to the Tribunal that the intelligence didn’t visit his brother nor contact him after that time. Nor have they contacted anyone else in the family.

1. Applicant 1 has also submitted that the lengthy period of time he has spent in Australia would essentially be a flag for the Jordanian authorities who would be suspicious of his reasons. In the PV interview he submitted that while trying to renew his Jordanian passport in 2019, the authorities had requested he present to the Embassy, but fearing they would question and/or detain him, he declined to go. He insisted to them that he was unable to attend for personal reasons, and although they eventually just sent him his new passport, the process had been delayed by around six months. However, after he received it, they called and advised there was an error with the details in it and requested he send it back, which (although he could not see any error) he did, and it took a further three months for them to send him his new passport. While waiting he had enquired with the embassy as to whether there was any issue and they said there wasn’t, but the process took a long time. The applicant said these interactions with the embassy officials made him fearful, and he was suspicious of their motives.

2. The applicant told the Tribunal that they renewed their passports to maintain a current form of ID, so they could access things such as Medicare. Applicant 1 referred to the same matters he told the delegate about his passport renewal process in 2019, but confirmed it was issued, and he did not face any similar issues or any problems renewing it most recently in 2024. There is no indication there was any issues with Applicant 2’s passport renewals.

3. As a finding of fact, the Tribunal accepts that Applicant 1 genuinely holds the claimed anti-government views, and that these views are rooted in the discrimination he has experienced and perceived as a Palestinian Jordanian. His evidence on such things was forthcoming and impassioned and Applicant 2 also shared experiences of discrimination which the Tribunal accepts reinforces these views. On the basis of his oral evidence and written submissions, and the samples of his social media activity submitted to the Tribunal, it also accepts that he participated in the claimed protests and that he has sometimes shared his anti-government opinions online. The Tribunal also considers that Applicant 1’s claims about being subject to intimidation after being identified by Jordanian intelligence for his participation in on-campus protests are plausible when considered with country information from around that time about reports of a heavy intelligence presence on some university campuses and freedom of assembly being heavily restricted.[20] Country information also confirms the significance of the Teachers’ Syndicate strikes and the government’s sensitivity and crackdowns around the time of Applicant 1’s 2020 post and government warning, and, significantly, arrests of social media posters who criticised the government.[21]

   [20] Freedom in the World 2010 – Jordan’, Freedom House, 3 May 2010, accessed 22 March 2025.

   [21] Freedom House, 'Freedom in the World 2024 - Jordan', March 2024, 20240328125055

4. In terms of assessing the extent of Applicant 1’s profile, or the level of interest the Jordanian authorities may have in him, the Tribunal discussed with the applicants at the hearing that there is a generality to Applicant 1’s views such that the Tribunal considers they would be common to many people in Jordanian, particularly Palestinians. It also noted that he has never been overtly connected with any particular political civil rights movements or groups and on his own evidence he wasn't actually questioned, detained or prevented from travelling or doing anything. It appears to the Tribunal as though while he was in Jordan, the authorities didn’t consider him to be a serious threat. It also noted that his online activism seemed low level and sporadic and that his further touch points the authorities here, with his passports being renewed in Australia may indicate that he is not of official interest to Jordanian authorities.

5. However, the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s responses and submissions on these matters. It accepts the submissions that although commonly held in private, the applicant’s opinions are ones that are sensitive and problematic for the government and are rarely publicised even in the ways the applicant has done. The Tribunal accepts too that the authorities monitored him in the past and it finds the applicant’s claims and evidence from his brother to be credible and that he has drawn the attention of the Jordanian government even from Australia. The Tribunal notes that the opinions he has expressed in Australia are in character with his previous expression in Jordan and are genuinely held views. The Tribunal has no concerns about s5J(6); there is no need to disregard his conduct in Australia.

6. The Tribunal is mindful that his passport was renewed just last year but, in these circumstances, and noting the more recent suppression of political expression discussed below, the Tribunal does not consider the passport or lack of further contact with the brother to be conclusive of the authorities’ lack of interest in him. Furthermore, and critically, the Tribunal accepts that were Applicant 1 to return to Jordan, he would want to be more active, online or in other ways. While his posting here has been sporadic, it accepts his explanations that he has been less agitated about the situation being far away and at peace in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that but for the fear of harm, the applicant would have been in the past, and would in the future be, more open and expressive with his political opinions.

   Assessment against the refugee and complementary protection criteria

   Political claims

7. Dealing first with the political claims, although Applicant 1’s activities can be construed as low-level, the Tribunal has accepted that the applicant has been previously monitored and questioned about his political views, and subject to intimidatory tactics before leaving Jordan. It accepts he was warned through his brother to cease publicising his views about the government’s actions in 2020 and it cannot discount the possibility that his more recent posts have also been monitored. Additionally, the Tribunal has accepted that Applicant 1 would be – or would want to be but for the fear of harm – more active in expressing his views if he returned to Jordan. As shown in the country information below, the Tribunal accepts that Applicant 1’s political views and expression will be problematic on return. 

8. The country information confirms that it is an offence under Jordanian law to criticise the royal family and government officials and policies.[22] Journalists, activists and social media users have been prosecuted under these laws for criticising the government. In recent years, the authorities have become less tolerant of dissent and placed increasing restrictions on freedom of assembly and online freedom of expression.[23] In 2021, Freedom House changed its assessment of Jordan from being ‘Partly Free’ to ‘Not Free’ due to “….harsh new restrictions on freedom of assembly, a crackdown on the teachers’ union following a series of strikes and protests, and other factors related to the quality of parliamentary elections.”[24]

   [22] Human Rights Watch, ‘'Human Rights Watch World Report 2025', January 2025, House, 'Freedom on the Net 2021 - Jordan', 21 September 2021, 20210924120052;  Freedom House, 'Freedom in the World 2021 Jordan', 3 March 2021, 20210311122618; Advox (Global Voices), 'COVID-19 and shrinking freedom limits in Jordan', 6 January 2021, 20220203101503; Foreign Policy, 'Jordan’s King Is His Own Worst Enemy', 13 April 2021, 20220203101836; Atlantic Council, 'Jordan was never ‘boring.’ A vibrant protest movement has been ignored for too long.', 9 April 2021, 20220203102343; War on the Rocks, ‘Jordan: Still stable but less so’, 7 May 2021, 20220203102659; Human Rights Watch, 'Jordan: Crackdown on Political Activists', 4 June 2019, 20190605160259; Human Rights Watch, 'Jordan: New Arrests of Activists', 28 November 2019, 20191129083825 

   [24] Freedom House, 'Freedom in the World 2021 Jordan', 3 March 2021, 20210311122618 

9. The current environment is no less restrictive and nor was the intervening period. According to Amnesty International, the authorities escalated their crackdown on freedom of expression and association in 2023. Freedom House has continued to deem Jordan as ‘Not Free’ in its three subsequent annual assessments in 2022, 2023 and 2024.  It continues to report that “…the discussion of topics such as politics, the monarchy, religious affairs, and security issues is inhibited by the threat of punishment under the various laws governing expression.”

10. According to Human Rights Watch, in 2024, Jordanian authorities continued to limit civic space, arresting and harassing peaceful dissidents and journalists and using vague and abusive laws to limit free speech and peaceful activism.[25] Authorities require prior notification for any demonstration or event. They have broad discretion to disperse public gatherings and they have been known to cancel planned public events without advance notice or explanation.[26] Violations of the law on assembly can draw fines and jail time. Security forces are known to engage in violent confrontations with protesters and in recent years hundreds of journalists, politicians, and activists have been arrested including at protest events under vague stipulations in the penal code and the Cybercrime Prevention Law.[27] The United States Department of State has reported that in some cases, authorities shut down demonstrations and pre-emptively arrested those seeking to protest. This has included pro-Palestine demonstrations in relation to the current regional conflict.[28] According to Human Rights Watch, activists are often charged with terrorism-related crimes that had definitions so vague they could be applied to nearly any political speech or behaviour the government disliked.[29]

    [25] Human Rights Watch, ‘'Human Rights Watch World Report 2025', January 2025,

    [26] US Department of State, 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2023 - Jordan', 20 April 2024, 20240423130836

    [27] Freedom House, 'Freedom in the World 2024 - Jordan', March 2024, 20240328125055

    [28] US Department of State, 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2023 - Jordan', 20 April 2024, 20240423130836; MENA Rights Group, ‘Jordan must end crackdown on pro-Palestine activism’, 19 December 2024.

    [29] US Department of State, 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2023 - Jordan',  20 April 2024, 20240423130836

11. In the online space it is reported that “…the telecommunications law requires companies to enable the tracking of private communications upon the issuance of a court order, and authorities are allowed to order surveillance of people suspected of terrorism. Many Jordanians hold a long-standing belief that government agents routinely listen to their phone calls and monitor their online activities.” [30] The USDOS reported that throughout 2023, the government monitored electronic correspondence and internet chat sites. Many individuals believed they were unable to express their views fully or freely via the internet, including by personal email.[31]

    [30] Freedom House, 'Freedom in the World 2024 - Jordan', March 2024, 20240328125055

    [31] US Department of State, 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2023 - Jordan', 20 April 2024, 20240423130836

12. Cybercrime legislation enacted in 2015 had (until a tougher new law was enacted in 2023) provided for the finding and/or imprisonment of up to three months for internet users convicted of defamation for online comments and there were examples of this being enforced. While human rights activists, lawyers, and journalists are of particular focus, social media users, including activists, have been arrested for their activity in recent years.[32]By 2023, there had been 3,330 cases under the 2015 cybercrimes law. [33]

    [32] Freedom House, 'Freedom in the World 2024 - Jordan', March 2024, 20240328125055

    [33] Human Rights Watch, 'Human Rights Watch World Report 2024', 11 January 2024, 20240112083455

13. In September 2023, new tougher cybercrime laws were enacted. The revised laws strengthened penalties to include at least three months and significant fines in the tens of thousands[34]. It offers authorities overly broad discretion to prosecute citizens by criminalizing use of the internet including social media for publishing news deemed false or damaging national unity, among other things.[35] Some news platforms reportedly  removed their comments section because Article 33 of the law allows “the prosecutor or court [to] order any website, social media platform, or person responsible for a public account to remove or block content deemed to have violated the law, to temporarily ban the user or publisher, and to hand over relevant information, including users’ personal data.”[36] Self-censorship has reportedly increased in media organizations and among activists on social media platforms due to fear of arrest and prosecution by government authorities.[37] In late 2023 and early 2024, Jordanian authorities arrested and harassed scores of Jordanians who participated in pro-Palestine protests across the country or engaged in online advocacy.[38]

    [34] Amnesty International, ‘The State of the World's Human Rights; Jordan 2023, 23 April 2024, 20240424131540

    [35] Freedom House, 'Freedom in the World 2024 - Jordan', March 2024, 20240328125055; US Department of State, 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2023 - Jordan', 20 April 2024, 20240423130836

    [36] Amnesty International, ‘The State of the World's Human Rights; Jordan 2023, 23 April 2024, 20240424131540; US Department of State, 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2023 - Jordan', 20 April 2024, 20240423130836

    [37] US Department of State, 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2023 - Jordan', 20 April 2024, 20240423130836

    [38] Human Rights Watch, ‘'Human Rights Watch World Report 2025', January 2025,

14. Consistent with the applicant’s claims, Amnesty International’s 2024 report confirmed that civilians continued to be tried in military courts[39] and there can be a lack of due process when it comes to Palestinians. There is also country information suggesting the applicants’ fears of citizenship revocation (at least for Applicant 1) are not completely unfounded. Freedom House reported in 2024 that “Jordanian citizens of Palestinian origin risk the arbitrary revocation of citizenship or documentation.”[40] Similarly, it has been reported that there have been "increasing instances of arbitrary legal processes and elusive policies" used by Jordanian authorities to "strip Palestinian refugees of documentation and rights" previously conferred, including those with "full Jordanian citizenship." Such practices have reportedly led to the revocation of thousands of Palestinian Jordanians' citizenship since 2004.[41]  

    [39] Amnesty International, ‘The State of the World's Human Rights; Jordan 2023, 23 April 2024, 20240424131540

    [40] Freedom House, 'Freedom in the World 2024 - Jordan', March 2024, 20240328125055

    [41] IRB Canada, JOR201736.E - Jordan: Treatment of individuals of Palestinian descent, including stateless Palestinians, by society and state authorities; access to employment, education, health care, and housing; state protection (2021-May 2024)’ 8 October 2024, 20250103115733

15. In the applicants’ case, although the Tribunal considers Applicant 1’s activism to be so far be low level, it accepts the submissions from his representative that the country information shows that there need only be a minimal level of political dissidence to draw the adverse attention of the authorities, and that Jordanians lack freedom of political expression, and that there is low tolerance for dissidence and opposition of the King or the regime in general. The Tribunal also accepts that the new 2023 Cybercrime laws make clear that social media activities, even if sporadic would be enough to for a person to be detained and punished, including with imprisonment.

16. In the specific case of this applicant, with his history of previous interactions, it is not a far-fetched or too remote a possibility to conclude that there is a real chance that he may be subject to enforcement actions by the Jordanian intelligence or other body if he returns to Amman, or in fact anywhere in Jordan within the reasonably foreseeable future. Further, while in the past he has acted with some restraint out of fear of repercussions, the Tribunal accepts that were he free of this fear his activism would be of a higher scale, and if he were not to modify his behaviour, the risk would be further elevated.

17. The Tribunal finds that the threat of, or actually, being detained and imprisoned, and facing a risk of physical harm in custody is a form of forms of serious harm as it includes a threat to the applicant’s life or liberty and/or significant physical harassment or ill-treatment.

18. The Tribunal is satisfied that the real chance of serious harm would arise for Applicant 1 applicant because of his actual anti-Jordanian regime political opinion and his Palestinian ethnicity and lack of wasta which might arguably save others. The Tribunal is satisfied that he fears, and that he faces, a real chance of being persecuted for the essential and significant reasons of his actual political opinion and his race. This persecution would be non-random. It would involve systematic and discriminatory conduct carried out by the Jordanian authorities against Applicant 1 because of his actual anti-Jordanian government opinion and his race.

19. As submitted by the representative, the Jordanian regime and authorities exercise effective control over all areas of Jordan and the Tribunal is satisfied that if the applicant were to settle elsewhere in the country, he would still face a real chance of harm for his political opinion and activities became known. The Tribunal is satisfied that the real chance of harm relates to all areas of Jordan. Further, as the feared harm would be inflicted by the authorities themselves, the Tribunal finds that effective protection measures are not available to the applicant. 

20. As for s5J(3), for Applicant 1 to avoid a real chance of persecution by modifying his behaviour, he would have to conceal his true political beliefs and/or his race and requiring someone to do such things is impermissible by virtue of s5J(3)(c)(ii) and s5J(3)(c)(iii) and are not reasonable modifications. There are no reasonable steps Applicant 1 can take to modify his behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution.

21. Taking all the relevant circumstances into account, and the country information and other research, the Tribunal finds that Applicant 1 has a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of his political claims and/or his political claims combined with his Palestinian ethnicity. 

22. The Tribunal notes the arguments about the impact on Applicants 2 and 3 by virtue of their relationship to a political dissident and that should Applicant 1 be detained they will suffer adverse consequences. However, the country information does not support, however that family members of political dissidents (even if they are of Palestinian ethnicity) are subject to persecutory conduct. Even if they are impacted by Applicant 1’s treatment, the Tribunal is not satisfied that any harm would arise through systematic and discriminatory conduct or an intentional infliction of harm against them. The Tribunal is not satisfied they have a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of Applicant 1’s political views and expression. For the same reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied they face a real risk of being significantly harmed either. The Tribunal finds that in relation to this matter, there are not substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of Applicants 2 and 3 being removed from Australia to Jordan, there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm.

1. Applicants 2 and 3 do not meet s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) on the basis of the claims regarding Applicant 1’s political opinion and expression.

   Discrimination against Palestinian Jordanians

2. It is not disputed that the applicants are Jordanian citizens of Palestinian ethnicity, and the Tribunal accepts that they will face a level of discrimination on this basis if they return. The issue to be determined in the assessment below is whether this amounts to persecutory conduct under the refugee criteria or a real risk of significant harm.

3. Clearly the country information discussed above shows that there is some differential state-based treatment and societal discrimination and stigma. Notably, however, the country information indicates that Palestinians who are non-citizens, ex-Gazans, or who live in camps or rural areas fare considerably worse than Palestinian Jordanian citizens[42] like the applicants, whose families hail from Jerusalem and the West Bank and live in Amman.

   [42] DFAT, ‘DFAT Thematic Report: Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon’, 2 March 2015, CISEC96CF1255;

4. Of course, not faring as badly as another group does not of itself negate the existence or risk of persecution and the Tribunal has considered the applicant’s circumstances and all the submissions made about this issue. The Tribunal has considered the submissions about the applicants having a low level of Wasta (perhaps even lower after their time away) and their families’ financial constraints, particularly as there is no more money or inheritance from Applicant 1’s father (which he had used to pay for university and other things). It has also considered Applicant 2’s gender and her mental health and the exacerbated psychological impact of the discrimination for her, and that Applicant 3 was born and has only lived in Australia.

5. However, the country information indicates that persons with the applicants’ profiles should be able to obtain an education, access healthcare and participate in the (private sector) workforce and maintain other civil and political rights. The information indicates that school education is free from ages six to 18 and compulsory until age 16 and that while Palestinians are disadvantaged by the quota system for public universities, most private universities are Palestinian owned and Palestinian students have a high attendance rate. And whilst there have been recent crackdowns and adverse sentiments towards pro-Palestinian causes the current conflict is having some impact, the country information does not suggest that things have worsened for Palestinian Jordanians to the point that they face persecutory treatment. It does not suggest Applicant 3 will be barred from schooling, or that Applicant 2 will be denied medical or mental health treatment. It does not suggest that they will be unable to find some work, even if in the private or informal sector, or that delays in obtaining a new Good Conduct Certificate or other reasons will mean that they are denied opportunities to earn a living.

6. The Tribunal has considered the applicants’ circumstances and the country information, but it is not satisfied that the applicants’ Palestinian ethnicity of itself (nor for Applicant 2 being a Palestinian Jordanian woman), even when the effects are cumulatively considered, will result in their facing a real chance of serious harm. The Tribunal finds that the applicants do not have a well-founded fear of persecution on this basis; they do not meet s 36(2)(a).

7. In relation to complementary protection, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk of the applicants facing discrimination of such severity as to amount to significant harm, even when cumulatively considered. The Tribunal is not satisfied they face a real risk of being arbitrarily deprived of their lives, facing the death penalty or being tortured due to their ethnicity. Nor does the Tribunal accept they face a real risk of being denied health care (including mental healthcare) a basic education for Applicant 3, or access to accommodation or other goods and services they need to live. The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicants face a real risk of being subjected to intentionally inflicted cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or degrading treatment or punishment, or any kind of significant harm, if they are removed to Jordan. The applicants do not meet s36(2)(aa) on this basis.

   Findings on the member of the same family unit (MSFU) criteria and s 36(2)(c)(i)

8. The Tribunal has determined above that Applicant 1 meets the s 36(2)(a) refugee criteria on the basis of his political claims and he is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Applicant 2 applied for the protection visa at the same time, and in the same application as Applicant 1 and Applicant 3 was added to it when he was born.

9. For the following reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that Applicants 2 and 3 are members of the same family unit as Applicant 1.

10. The Tribunal has accepted that Applicant 2 is the wife of Applicant 1 and there is credible evidence that they are in a genuine committed marriage. Such evidence includes their marriage certificate, their identity documentation and the identity documentation of Applicant 3 which names them as his parents, as well as the evidence given in their applications and to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is satisfied that Applicant 2 is Applicant 1’s spouse, as defined in s 5F of the Act. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicants have been married since 2013, that they have a mutual commitment to each other to the exclusion of all others, and that their relationship is genuine and continuing. The Tribunal is satisfied that they live together and have done for many years.

11. The Tribunal finds that Applicant 2 is the spouse of Applicant 1 as defined in s 5F of the Act, and accordingly finds that she is a member of the same family unit as Applicant 1 for the purposes of reg 1.12(4)(a) and s 36(2)(c)(i) of the Act.

12. As for Applicant 3, he is the [age] year old son of Applicants 1 and 2. He is well under 18 years of age and lives with Applicants 1 and 2. He is a dependent of Applicant 1, as defined in reg 1.03. There is credible evidence for this including (in addition to the evidence given to the Tribunal by Applicants 1 and 2) Applicant 3’s birth certificate and his Australian medical records. The Tribunal is satisfied that Applicant 3 is the dependent child of Applicant 1.

13. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that find that Applicant 2 and Applicant 3 are the spouse and dependent child of Applicant 1 and that they are members of the same family unit as Applicant 1.

14. The Tribunal finds that Applicant 2 and Applicant 3 satisfy s 36(2)(b)(i) of the Act.

    CONCLUSIONS

15. For the reasons given above the Tribunal is satisfied that the first named applicant (Applicant 1) is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and satisfies the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a).

16. The Tribunal is also satisfied that Applicant 2 and Applicant 3 are the spouse and dependent child of Applicant 1 and are members of the same family unit as the first named applicant (Applicant 1) for the purposes of s 36(2)(b)(i). As such, it follows that the other applicants will be entitled to a protection visa provided the criterion in s 36(2)(b)(ii) and the remaining criteria for the visa are met.

    DECISION

17. The Tribunal sets aside the decisions under review and remits applications for a protection visa for reconsideration, in accordance with the orders that:

    (i) the first named applicant meets s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act; and

    (ii) that the other applicants satisfy s 36(2)(b)(i) of the Migration Act, on the basis of membership of the same family unit as the first named applicant.

    Hearing date:  20 December 2024

    Representative:  Mr Emad Fuad Khraim

    ATTACHMENT A - RELEVANT CRITERIA AND MANDATORY CONSIDERATIONS

    Criteria for protection visa

    The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (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 Applicant 1 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 further attachment to this decision.

    Criteria relating to ‘member of the same family unit’

    Sections 36(2)(c) provides as an alternative criterion that Applicant 1 is a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen mentioned in s 36(2)(aa), who holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant. Section 5(1) of the Act provides that one person is a ‘member of the same family unit’ as another if either is a member of the family unit of the other or each is a member of the family unit of a third person.

    The definition of ‘member of the family unit’ appears in reg 1.12 of the Regulations. Relevantly, reg 1.12(3)-(4) state that:

    (3)  Sub regulation (4) has effect for the purposes of the main definition so far as it is relevant to a provision of the Act or these Regulations applying in relation to any of the following visas:

    (a)  a Protection (Class XA) visa;

    …

    (4)  A person is a member of the family unit of another person (the family head) if the person is:

    ….

    (a)  a spouse or de facto partner of the family head; or

    (b)  is a child or step - child of the family head or of a spouse or  de  facto  partner of the family head (other than a child or step - child who is engaged to be married or has a spouse or   de   facto   partner) and:

    (i)  has not turned 18….

    ‘Spouse’ is defined in s 5F of the Act as follows:

    (1) For the purposes of this Act, a person is the spouse of another person (whether of the same sex or a different sex) if, under subsection (2), the 2 persons are in a married relationship.

    (2)  For the purposes of subsection (1), persons are in a married relationship if:

    (a)  they are married to each other under a marriage that is valid for the purposes of this Act; and

    (b)  they have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a married couple to the exclusion of all others; an

    (c)  the relationship between them is genuine and continuing; an

    (d)  they:

    (i)  live together; or

    (ii)  do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis.

    ‘Child of a person’ is defined in s 5CA of the Act as follows:

    (1)  Without limiting who is a child of a person for the purposes of this Act, each of the following is the child of a person:

    (a)  someone who is a child of the person within the meaning of the Family Law Act 1975(other than someone who is an adopted child of the person within the meaning of that Act);

    (b)  someone who is an adopted child of the person within the meaning of this Act.

    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.

    ATTACHMENT  B -  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 Applicant 1 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.

    …

    
    

US Department of State, 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2023 - Jordan', 20 April 2024, 20240423130836
 Freedom House, ‘Freedom on the Net 2024 - Jordan' 16 October 2024, 20241017112431

IRB Canada, JOR201736.E - Jordan: Treatment of individuals of Palestinian descent, including stateless Palestinians, by society and state authorities; access to employment, education, health care, and housing; state protection (2021-May 2024)’ 8 October 2024, 20250103115733; Minority Rights Group International, ‘Jordan – Current Issues’ , accessed 26 March 2025