2012487 (Refugee)

2012487 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 4157 (8 September 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  2012487
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Iraq
MEMBER:David James
DATE:8 September 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.

Statement made on 08 September 2023 at 2:55pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Iraq – particular social group – women – academic high achievers – religion – Sunni Muslim – conversion from Shi’a to Sunni – secular views – fear of kidnapping – Shi’a militia – sectarian violence – delay in applying for protection – vague evidence – Ministerial intervention requested – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5AAA, 5H, 5J, 5K, 5L, 5LA, 36, 65, 351, 411, 417, 499, 501J
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510
ABT16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 836
AVQ15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 133
Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
SZLVZ v MIAC [2008] FCA 1816
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 dependant.
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 12 July 2020 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicants who claim to be citizens of Iraq, applied for the visas on 22 November 2018. The delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied that the applicants were refugees as defined by s 5H of the Act and was therefore not satisfied that the applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as outlined in s 36(2)(a) of the Act. The delegate was also not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicants being removed to Iraq, there is a real risk they will suffer significant harm as defined in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. Therefore the delegate was not satisfied that the applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as provided for in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
The applicants filed an application for review of the delegate’s decision with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) on 5 August 2020. The applicants provided a copy of the delegate’s decision with their application for review.
As noted above, the applicants provided a copy of the delegate’s decision with their application for review. The Tribunal has read that decision and notes the decision records the delegate’s decision to refuse the applicants’ protection visas having considered the material before the delegate. The Tribunal is satisfied that decision of the delegate is reviewable under s 411(1)(c) of the Act.
The first applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 18 July 2023 to give oral evidence and present arguments. After the first applicant sought to rely upon documents and evidence that was not before the Tribunal, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing so as to provide the applicants an opportunity to obtain and present any further relevant evidence that they sought to rely upon. The applicants were later invited to a further hearing date of 28 August 2023 to give further evidence and present arguments.
The first applicant then appeared before the Tribunal alone on 28 August 2023, where he gave further oral evidence, produced documents and presented arguments.
The Tribunal hearings were conducted in the English language.
The applicants were not represented in relation to the review.
CRITERIA FOR A 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 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.
The criterion in s 5J(1)(a) contains a subjective requirement, that an applicant must in fact hold a fear of being persecuted, while s 5J(1)(b) imposes an objective standard, that there be a real chance the person would be persecuted. A ‘real chance is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even when the possibility of persecution is below 50 per cent: Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379.
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.
Section 36(2)(aa) refers to a ‘real risk’ of an applicant suffering significant harm. The ‘real risk’ test imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in the refugee Convention definition: MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505.
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 (Department), and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Country of reference
According to the protection visa applications, the applicants claim to be citizens of Iraq and the first and second applicants provided copies of their Iraqi passports, nationality certificates and their Iraqi marriage certificate. As to the third dependent child applicant, the applicants provided a copy of the child’s Australian birth certificate to the Department. Based on this material the Tribunal finds that the applicants are who they say they are, and nationals of Iraq. Iraq is therefore the receiving country for the purpose of assessing the applicants’ claims for protection.
Issues
The issues in this review are whether the applicants have a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five reasons set out in s 5J(1) of the Act, and there is a real chance that if the applicants were returned to Iraq they would be persecuted for one of those reasons and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Iraq, there is a real risk that the applicants will suffer significant harm as defined in s 36(2A) of the Act.
Documentary evidence before the Tribunal
The Tribunal has before it documents submitted by the applicants to the Department and the Tribunal relating to the applicants’ claims for protection which includes (but is not limited to) the following documents which have been considered by the Tribunal:
·the applicants’ protection visa application form submitted on 22 November 2018 and the attached supporting evidence to the application provided to the Department including identification documents, marriage certificate and the 3^rd applicant’s birth certificate, work references, the primary applicant’s academic record, academic references and papers and the additional protection claims and personal history from both the first and second applicants;
·the applicants’ application for review (5 August 2020) and attached protection visas decision record of 12 July 2020;
·a copy of an automated email response in relation to an Australian Provisional Patent Application [No.] in the name of [Business 1] (provided by the first applicant to the Tribunal during the hearing of 18 July 2023);
·a copy of the [social media] profile of [Dr A], adjunct Healthcare Professor, [University 1] (provided by the first applicant to the Tribunal during the hearing of 18 July 2023);
·a copy of letter of support for the first applicant’s Global Talent Visa addressed to the Department of Home Affairs from [Professor B], Head of [School 1], [University 1], dated 14 October 2022 (provided by the first applicant to the Tribunal during the hearing of 18 July 2023);
·a copy of undated email and correspondence as to an invitation to the applicant to apply for a Global Talent Visa and acknowledgement of such application from the Department (provided by the first applicant to the Tribunal during the hearing of 18 July 2023);
·a series of undated electronic copies of photos depicting demonstrations purported by the applicant to show violence in Iraq and sourced by the applicant from unknown social media sites (provided by the first applicant to the Tribunal during the hearing of 18 July 2023);
·a letter from [University 1] offering the applicant employment as a Postdoctoral Research [Fellow], dated 22 November 2021(provided by the first applicant to the Tribunal during the hearing of 18 July 2023);
·a letter from [University 2] offering the applicant employment as a Research [Officer], dated 30 June 2021(provided by the first applicant to the Tribunal during the hearing of 18 July 2023);
·a copy of an email offer of employment addressed to the first applicant for a position with [Business 1] as a Senior [Field 1 worker] commencing 03 July 2023 (provided by the first applicant to the Tribunal during the hearing of 18 July 2023);
·a series of documents and emails as to the first applicant’s application for a Global Talent Visa including information relating to patents held by the applicant, the applicants ‘Response to resumption of adjourned hearing notice’ in which the first applicant confirmed his anticipated attendance and intention to give further oral evidence and that of the secondary applicant who would also be giving oral evidence at the adjourned hearing of 28 August 2023; further identification documents and emails relating to the applicant’s ongoing application to renew his passport with the Australian Iraqi Consulate; copies of UK Government Foreign travel advice – Iraq; copy of article by AlJazeera, titled ‘Iraq: ’Series of assassinations’ feared after professor killed, 17 December 2020; copy of the Australian Government’s smartraveller – Iraq, accessed 8/2/23; copy of article by Humanium – Children of Iraq, accessed 8/2/23; copy of the Canadian Government’s Iraq travel advice, accessed 8/2/23, copy of the Wilson Centre’s internet posting titled ‘Violence against Women permeates all aspects of Life in Iraq’, 29 November 2022 (received by the Tribunal on 21 August 2023);
·a copy of a letter addressed ‘To Whom It May Concern” under the hand of [Prof. A] (Adj) of [a named] Clinic, dated 18 August 2023 (received by the Tribunal on 22 August 2023);
·a copy of a letter addressed ‘To Whom It May Concern” under the hand of [Professor B], Head of [School 1], [University 1], dated 22 August 2023; and
·the administrative and movement records of the Department relating to the applicants.
Claims for protection
The applicants in their visa application claim that:
·the primary applicant is a Sunni Muslim and is from [City 1], Wasit Province;
·the applicant holds secular views as an academic;
·the primary applicant fears returning to Iraq as he will be targeted by Shi’a Militants because of his Sunni faith and likely kidnapped by the Shi’a Militants and accused of being a US spy because of his time in the US studying;
·the primary applicant’s family have previously been harmed on account of their Sunni faith;
·applicant two (first applicant’s wife) has converted to the Sunni faith from her Shi’a faith and as a result was dismissed from her employment in Iraq at [Employer 1];
·the applicants fear returning to Iraq due to the second and dependant third applicants being women;
·the applicants fear returning to Iraq due to the general security situation and the sectarian violence between various Islamic groups in Iraq; and
·the applicants fear the Iraqi authorities due to the infiltration of the Shi’a militias and that they cannot hide anywhere and live safely in Iraq.
Department interview
The first and second applicants were interviewed by the Department on 20 March 2019.
Delegate’s decision
The delegate’s decision of 12 July 2020 to refuse the protection visas was made on the information before the delegate. The delegate found that the applicants primary fear of returning to Iraq was due to the general security situation in Iraq from Islamist groups and what the future may hold for their child, the third dependant applicant. The delegate found that the applicants had not come to any personal harm and that they were not ever adversely known to the Iraqi government and/or its affiliated non-state actors for any reasons prior to coming to Australia. Therefore, the delegate was not satisfied that the applicants met the criteria in s 5H(1) of the Act, and therefore they were not refugees. The delegate for the same reasons was also not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicants being removed to Iraq, that there is a real risk that the applicants will suffer significant harm as defined in s 36(2A) of the Act.
Invitation to attend hearing
On 14 June 2023 the Tribunal invited the applicants to attend a review hearing at the Brisbane Registry on 18 July 2023 at 9:30 am. This correspondence advised the applicants that the Tribunal had considered all the material before it relating to their application but that it was unable to make a favourable decision on that information alone. The Tribunal invited the applicants to give oral evidence and present arguments at a hearing. The invitation stated that if the applicants did not attend the hearing, the Tribunal may make a decision on the case without further notice.
On 17 June 2023 the applicants replied to the Tribunal’s invitation to attend a hearing in a ‘Response to hearing’ form in which they indicated that only the first applicant would be participating in the hearing and that there would be no other witnesses giving oral evidence before the Tribunal.
Review hearing – 18 July 2023
The Tribunal hearing was conducted at the Brisbane Registry in the English language. The first applicant appeared alone confirming that he would be the only witness to give oral evidence and present arguments at the hearing.
In response to the Tribunal the first applicant agreed that the applicants relied upon the second applicant’s ‘additional protection claims and personal history document’ which has been referred to above at paragraph 18, as to her evidence in support of her claims and that of the 3^rd dependant applicant of being members of a particular social group (PSG) of women.
The Tribunal explained to the first applicant that the hearing would consider the applicants’ application for a protection visa afresh. The first applicant, when questioned by the Tribunal as to his understanding of the relevant statutory framework and concepts as to the refugee and complementary protection criteria, explained that he understood the criteria as it had earlier been explained to him by others.
Given the first applicant appeared unrepresented at the hearing the Tribunal queried the first applicant as to whether he would like the criteria explained to him by the Tribunal. Upon his request the Tribunal provided an outline of the refugee and complementary protection criteria to the first applicant, who then acknowledged that he understood the criteria.
The first applicant told the Tribunal that he had lived with his family in [City 1] which was several hours drive outside of Baghdad. He confirmed that this area had not been under the control of ISIS in the past. He said that he had lived in Baghdad for eight years in which time he had obtained his [Discipline 1] Tertiary qualification with honours, before obtaining a government sponsored scholarship to complete his Master of [Discipline 1] at [University 3] in [Country 1]. This scholarship provided for his tuition fees and his accommodation for the three years of study in [Country 1] on a contractual basis with the Iraqi government, which required the applicant upon the completion of his studies to work for the Iraqi government for a three-year period.
He explained to the Tribunal that upon his return to Iraq, he had sought to obtain employment with the Iraqi government at a university in his field of study, [Field 1]. However, he explained that notwithstanding his qualifications in [Field 1] studies he was assigned to [University 4] to teach English.
The applicant claims that he had been so assigned to teach English as he was being discriminated against because he was a high achiever and an academic who had studied in [Country 1]. He explained his contract with the Iraqi government was for three years and that 18 months into the contract he had applied online and was successful in obtaining a scholarship with Australia’s [University 1]. He said that he only informed the University (in Baghdad) and the Iraqi government that he had obtained this scholarship once he had been accepted and was ready to travel to Australia. After entering into negotiations with his employer ([University 4]) he was provided with an exit permit by the government upon him agreeing to return and work for a further three years on contract for the Iraqi government at [University 4].

The first applicant told the Tribunal that he and the second applicant, arrived in Australia in 2018 through his PHD scholarship in [Discipline 1] in [Field 1] with [University 1]. He explained that his scholarship included wages and accommodation for three years. He stated that after completing his studies he obtained six months employment with [University 2] on a contract basis working on [a Field 1 project]. He then obtained further employment with [University 1] for 18 months where he worked on [a Field 1] project. In 2023 he started his current contract of employment where he works part-time at [employer] working with [Professor A] and part-time as a Research Officer with [University 1] on [a Field 1] project.
The applicant provided the Tribunal with a series of documents relating to his employment and his current application through his employers for an Australian Global Talent Visa: see paragraph 18 above.
In reply to the Tribunal, the first applicant explained that he had, through his employers, been invited to apply for an Australian Global Talent Visa, but that it had been held up by the Department. He explained that the Department had requested he renew his Iraqi passport, and that he also obtain and provide to the Department passports for his two Australian born daughters. He said he had attended the Iraqi embassy in Canberra and made application for his passport renewal but had recently received a telephone call from the embassy in which they told him his file had been lost and that he would need to again attend the embassy and make a fresh application. In that regard, he stated he had booked a flight for the next week to travel to Canberra where he will again try and have his Iraqi passport renewed. As to his daughters’ passports he had been told by the Iraqi embassy that his daughters’ Australian birth certificates were not sufficient and that he would have to return to Iraq with his daughters where Iraqi birth certificates could be issued and from these documents Iraqi passports could then be issued to his daughters.
The first applicant then told the Tribunal that after three years in Australia, he was told by his family in Iraq that they had received correspondence for him from [University 4]. He explained that he was told that this correspondence indicated that if he did not return to Iraq and complete his work contract with the University, he would have to repay his wages for the 18 months employment he had completed and the remainder of his three-year contract together with a penalty of the same value. He said that another letter had also been received by his family demanding the repayment of the cost of his [Country 1] Scholarship in which it provided that if he was not going to return and complete his employment obligations under the contract for this scholarship and studies in [Country 1], he would be required to repay double the cost of the scholarship to the Iraqi government for his breach of his employment contract.
The first applicant told the Tribunal that recently his family had sold a property (unit) in [Country 2] together with his father’s car and that they had used the proceeds of these sales to partially payout his employment contracts with [University 4]. He said that his family had paid about AUD $100,000.00 to the government in response to the letters of demand.
The applicant, upon being asked why he feared returning to Iraq, told the Tribunal that he could not return to Iraq as he feared being killed or kidnapped by the Shi’a militia because he was a high achieving academic who had studied in [Country 1] and Australia. He explained that if he returned to Iraq he would return to work as an Academic and would likely be targeted by the Shi’a militia because he was a high achiever from the west. He referred to documents and media reports that he had provided to the Department and the Tribunal and stated that these reports of violence in Iraq supported his assertion that high achieving academics have and are being targeted for killing or kidnapping because the Shi’a militia do not want academic high achievers in Iraq.
Under questioning with reference to the DFAT country information as outlined below, the first applicant claimed to have recent CNN and BBC media reports supporting this assertion that there were targeted killings of academics in Iraq. He explained that he could provide this material to the Tribunal if given time to locate and present this material to the Tribunal, together with evidence from his family in support of his claims. (In that regard, the Tribunal notes that the first applicant has not provided any such reports or any additional evidence from his family to the Tribunal prior to the Tribunal making its decision).
Under further questioning, the applicant also told the Tribunal that he could obtain correspondence from his employers and the Department that outlined his Global Talent Visa eligibility and further material from his family in Iraq as to why he cannot return to Iraq. He explained that his brother, [Mr C], a retired police officer who had been injured in a bomb [attack] in which he (his brother) [was maimed], had been recently contacted by a former colleague. This former colleague was a serving Iraqi police [officer] and had told his brother that the applicant was on a watch list that would preclude him from being able to depart Iraq.
In discussions with the applicant as to his claims the applicant explained that he wanted to stay in Australia for a better life and to provide his daughters with a better future. He also said that his work was significant to the Australian [Industry 1] Sector and was worth many millions of dollars to the universities and the commercial [Industry 1] sector of Australia.
The Tribunal explained to the first applicant that although it was satisfied that the first applicant was making positive contributions to the Australian [Industry 1] Sector and that the he held subjective fears of harm it was not presently satisfied on the evidence before it, that the applicants faced a real chance of persecution because of their religion (Sunni) or his (first applicant’s) membership of a particular social group (PSG) of being a ‘Academic in Iraq’.
The first applicant, in further discussions with the Tribunal, then requested an adjournment of the hearing so as to enable him to obtain further material from his family and other sources as to his claims and to present further information as to his ongoing contributions to the Australian [Industry 1] Sector so as the Tribunal could be properly informed.
The Tribunal, after careful consideration, granted the applicant’s request for an adjournment of the hearing.
Continuation of Review hearing - 28 August 2023
At the reconvening of the hearing the first applicant again appeared alone and informed the Tribunal that the second applicant would not be appearing to give oral evidence as their children were unwell and it was not their practice to utilise other people to care for their children. He again explained that the second applicant relied upon his claims and those of her own as had been outlined in her earlier statement.
The Tribunal was then provided with a series of documents that had earlier been forwarded to the Tribunal and related to the first applicant’s Global Talent Visa and his recent Australian [Field 1] research.
Under questioning the applicant agreed that he and his family had not been the subject of any actual violence and/or threats of actual violence by any Shi’a militia and/or government authorities whilst he had been living and working in Iraq. However, he did again, highlight his purported discrimination whereby he had been directed to teach English instead of [Field 1].
The first applicant also agreed that he had entered into contractual agreements with his former employers and the Iraqi government that required him to repay the cost of his [Country 1] studies by working as directed in the Universities of Iraq, and to further work as directed for an extended period because he had not completed his first term of employment, and had been granted leave from his employment to further complete studies in Australia. However, the first applicant told the Tribunal that if he returned to Iraq he would be banned from employment with the Iraqi universities as he had been dismissed for failing to return and complete his contracts of employment.
The Tribunal in this regard queried the applicant as to why and how he would be identified and then targeted for harm by the militias in Iraq as a western trained high achieving academic if he was unlikely to be teaching and/or working in academia in Iraq. Equally, the Tribunal discussed the DFAT country information relating to returnees which indicated many dual nationals often return to Iraq. The applicant in reply, again, referred to his beliefs that high achievers have and continue to be targeted by the Shi’a militia groups in Iraq.
The first applicant under questioning as to the second applicant’s claims told the Tribunal that his wife is a religious woman, and has, and continues to wear traditional Islamic women’s religious dress, including the hijab. Under further questioning he agreed that his wife’s employment at [Employer 1] had been terminated only after it had become known to the [employer] that she had converted from Shi’a to Sunni. It was further conceded by the first applicant that his wife, the second applicant, had also not been the subject of any actual violence and/or threats of violence or other harm by any members of any of the Shi’a militia groups and/or any Iraqi government authorities while they had been living in Iraq.
In this regard, the first applicant also under questioning was unable to provide any examples of harm that his wife had suffered or been threatened with, arising from her religion or from being a woman in Iraq.
The first applicant under questioning as to the delay in making their application for protection after having arrived in Australia four months earlier, explained that they (first and second applicants) had first stayed in a hotel then at a rented apartment for three weeks before they were able to secure university accommodation. He said that he started writing his application for the protection visa after two months and it had then taken him almost two months to finalise it before he submitted same.
In his final submission to the Tribunal the first applicant said that he had worked very hard to get this opportunity to study in Australia and to get away from Iraq. He stated that he wished to stay in Australia as there was no way he was going back to Iraq. He explained that he does not feel 100 per cent safe in Iraq, and he has since made significant sacrifices including having left his family for six years and having not been able to see his family. He explained that while he has been in Australia his father had passed away in Iraq, and he had remembered that his father had told him to stay away from Iraq.
The first applicant also told the Tribunal that he has received three patents and that there is no way he could implement these projects in Iraq, and he would not be able to make the millions of dollars that these patents will generate if he was to return to Iraq.
In conclusion, he told the Tribunal that if he returned to Iraq, he would face the danger that many other Iraq’s face every day.
Country information
The Tribunal has taken into account the DFAT Country Information Report Iraq, 16 July 2023, as relevant, including ‘Political System’ at 2.16 to 2.17 where at 2.16 it provides that:
Iraq is a federal parliamentary republic divided into 18 governorates, each governed by an elected council. Governors are appointed by the President on advice of the Federal Government. Under an informal agreement between political parties, known as the ‘muhasasa’ system, the (mostly ceremonial) presidency is reserved for Kurds, the premiership for Shi’a, and the Speaker of Parliament for Sunnis. Iraq has a 329-seat Council of Representatives, with a minimum of 25 per cent of seats reserved for women and smaller numbers for minorities. In practice, many groups besides elected authorities also exercise power in Iraq, including militias, sectarian organisations, tribes, criminal gangs, and foreign powers (see also Security situation, Political opinion (actual or imputed)).
Under the heading of ‘Security Situation’ at 2.24 to 2.29 where at 2.24 and 2.26 it provides that:
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.
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.
Under the heading of ‘Religion’ it is reported at 3.30 that:
An estimated 97 per cent of the population is Muslim. Shi’a Muslims make up 55 to 60 per cent of the overall population, while Sunni Muslims constitute about 40 per cent. Around 60 per cent of Sunnis are Arab, 37.5 per cent Kurdish, and the remainder Turkmen.
In relation to the sub heading of ‘Religious conversion and intermarriage’ at 3.34 to 3.36 it is reported at 3.35 and 3.36 that:
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.
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.
Under the further sub heading of ‘Atheists, non-practising Muslims and religiously unaffiliated persons’ at 3.68 to 3.70 it is reported at 3.68 and 3.70 that:
Sources told DFAT increasing numbers of young Muslims had become disillusioned with their faith, including because of atrocities carried out by Da’esh in the name of Islamic extremism. Some choose to retain their Muslim identity but abandon practices such as attending prayers and wearing hijab. Others choose to convert to religions such as Christianity or Zoroastrianism. Some become atheists. There is no official recognition of atheism in Iraq, but since atheists are generally registered as Muslim on their identity documents they are able to access the same rights and public services as other Iraqis. Atheists can reportedly often be identified by the non-Islamic names they adopt, such as ‘William’ or ‘Adam’.
DFAT assesses that atheists in Iraq generally face a low risk of societal discrimination or violence, but this varies with individual circumstances. Atheists from highly religious or conservative families or communities face higher risks.
Under the heading of ‘Political Opinion (actual or Imputed)’ at 3.71 it is reported that
Following the US-led military action in 2003, Iraq experienced a sharp deterioration in its security situation, along with a rapid increase in the number of political parties and armed groups operating within the country. The current political situation is highly complex, with multiple actors vying for power, territory, resources, and control of legal and illegal markets. As a result, individuals expressing contrary political views can find themselves at odds with a diverse range of groups, including central and regional governments, state security forces (including state-sponsored militia), fringe militia groups, tribal groups, conservative religious elements and Islamic militant groups. What constitutes safe political expression in one part of Iraq is sometimes dangerous in another. The degree of risk faced by an individual on the basis of their political opinion (real or perceived) therefore varies depending on their prominence, persistence and location, the group or groups they oppose, and the degree to which they enjoy the protection of other powerful groups.
As to the heading of ‘Groups of Interest’ and the sub headings of ‘Women’ and ‘Violence against women’ at 3.109 to 3.120 it is reported at 3.111 and 3.120 that:
Violence and insecurity often constrain Iraqi women to traditional family roles and limit their access to employment and education. Illiteracy is twice as common among women as men. Only 14 per cent of women are working or actively seeking work compared to 73 per cent of men (see Economic Overview). Women are guaranteed 25 per cent of seats in parliament but are rarely appointed to influential roles and rarely participate in the leadership of their parties. As of 2022, there were three women ministers in the 21-person cabinet. About one in 10 Iraqi households is female-headed, including by widows, divorcees and women caring for sick or disabled spouses. These women are highly vulnerable to poverty, food insecurity, displacement, eviction and sexual harassment and abuse. Single mothers and women who live alone face stigma.
DFAT assesses that the majority of Iraqi women, regardless of ethnicity or socio-economic status, face a high risk of official discrimination and a high risk of societal discrimination. Iraqi women and girls face a high risk of gender-based violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence, while Iraqi girls face a high risk of being forced into early or involuntary marriage. Iraqi women working to advocate for women’s rights face a high risk of violence, including targeted killings (see Civil Society).
Under the heading of ‘State Protection’ at 5.1 it is reported that:
The ability of authorities to provide state protection varies by location. Several parts of the country are not under the effective control of the state. Impunity for abuses committed by security forces and other officials remains the norm. All state institutions are significantly affected by corruption, particularly the police. State protection bodies are heavily politicised and subject to sectarian and tribal influences. Territorial and jurisdictional disputes between central authorities and the KRG often impair their ability to provide state protection. Security forces are sometimes reluctant to intervene in violent protests, either through fear of escalation or sympathy with the protesters’ cause, for instance during the 2022 protests and seizure of Parliament by groups loyal to Shi’a cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
Under the heading of ‘Exit and entry procedures’ at 5.22 to 5.24 it is reported that:
Most entry and exit into and out of Iraq is by air through one of the six international airports operating regular commercial services, located in Baghdad, Basra, Erbil, Kirkuk, Najaf and Sulaymaniyah. Iraq also has official land crossings with Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey and Iran. Upon arrival at an international airport or official land crossing, all passengers have their identity information recorded, irrespective of nationality. Unofficial crossing points exist, particularly between Iraq and Iran, and Iraq and Syria. The KRI’s international borders are highly porous, and a large percentage of entries and exits occur across irregular checkpoints there.
Valid documentation (usually a passport) and appropriate approval (such as a visa) for entry to the intended destination is required to exit Iraq. Irregular exit from Iraq (including through use of fraudulent documentation) is unlawful. DFAT understands that an individual caught exiting illegally may be detained and charged. Penalties include fines of USD 100-5,000 and up to three years in prison. DFAT is aware of individuals being prosecuted and imprisoned for irregular exit.
Returning Iraqis who are not in possession of an Iraqi passport must apply for a laissez passer at an Iraqi embassy or consulate abroad. To issue a laissez passer, an Iraqi diplomatic mission verifies the identity and nationality of the returnee against source documents in Iraq; confirms the person is returning to Iraq voluntarily; and checks for outstanding criminal actions against Ministry of Interior records in Iraq. Upon arrival in Iraq, border officials check the details of the laissez passer and re‑confirm that the individual is entering voluntarily. Officials record the details of the laissez passer along with the name and date of birth of the bearer. The border officer will then inform the bearer that the laissez passer is not valid for further travel. Border officials can issue a letter at Baghdad Airport in order to facilitate movement to an individual’s place of origin or elsewhere within Iraq. Laissez passers are common and individuals who enter on laissez passers are not questioned about how they exited Iraq, nor asked to explain why they do not have other forms of documentation.
And under the heading of ‘Conditions for returnees’ at 5.25 it is reported that:
The practice of seeking asylum and then returning to Iraq once conditions permit is well accepted among Iraqis, as evidenced by the large numbers of dual nationals from the US, Western Europe and Australia who return to Iraq. There is considerable evidence that Iraqis who are granted protection by Western countries often return to Iraq, sometimes only months after securing residency abroad, to reunite with families, establish and manage businesses or take up or resume employment. Based on discussion with multiple sources, DFAT assesses it is highly unlikely a failed asylum seeker would face mistreatment on return to Iraq solely on the basis of his or her having sought asylum overseas.

The Tribunal has also taken into account the United Kingdom’s Home Office, Country and Information Iraq: Sunni Arabs, Note of January 2021, as relevant, including ‘Consideration of Issues’ and the sub heading of ‘Risk’ where at 2.4.4 it is reported that:
However, unless the particular activities of a person have brought them to the government’s adverse attention or that they regard them as having supported or had Daesh affiliation, in general the treatment of Sunnis by the state is not sufficiently serious by its nature and repetition that it will reach the high threshold to constitute persecution or inhuman or degrading treatment.
Under the heading of ‘Sunni demography’ where at 3.1.3 it is reported that:
In February 2019 the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) published a report citing various sources entitled ‘Iraq: Key socio-economic indicators’ and stated:
‘…Baghdad is “one of the few areas” with a mixed Sunni and Shia Muslim population, next to a number of smaller Christian communities…IOM [International Organization for Migration] explains that many families left Baghdad due to previous sectarian violence which peaked in 2006-2008. Families resettled along sectarian lines in Sunni and Shia neighbourhoods, which continue to divide the city, especially after the predominantly Sunni neighbourhoods of Al Adhamia had a wall built around it to “isolate it” from Shia areas. However, in some neighbourhoods Shi’a and Sunni families peacefully coexist, “and there are cases of isolated Sunni families in strongly Shi’a neighbourhoods such as Sadr City where they have managed to gain the protection of neighbours and militias”.’
And under the heading of ‘State treatment’ at 6.1.1 and 6.1.5 it is reported that:
Human Rights Watch (HRW) stated in its World Report 2019 for events in 2018 that: ‘Under the guise of fighting terror, Iraqi forces arbitrarily detained, ill-treated and tortured, and disappeared mostly Sunni men from areas where ISIS was active and failed to respect their due process and fair trial rights. The years of fighting across the country left at least 1.8 million Iraqis still displaced in 2018. Iraqi authorities imposed security measures against individuals and families perceived as having relatives who supported ISIS in the past in what amounted to collective punishment. ‘…Iraqi forces arbitrarily detained some ISIS suspects, predominately Sunni men, many of them for months. According to witnesses and family members, security forces regularly detained suspects without any court order, arrest warrant, or other document justifying arrest and often did not provide a reason for the arrest. ‘…Iraqi military and security forces have forcibly disappeared predominately Sunni Arab males in the context of counterterrorism operations, as well as in other cases. A range of military and security actors are responsible for the enforced disappearances, many of which took place at checkpoints or the homes of suspects. Despite requests from the families of the disappeared for information, Iraqi authorities have given none.’[1]
The USSD report on religious freedom in Iraq published in June 2020 stated: ‘Some Sunni Muslims continued to speak about what they perceived as anti[1]Sunni discrimination by Shia government officials in retribution for the Sunnis’ favored status and abuses against Shia during the Saddam Hussein regime. Sunnis said they continued to face discrimination in public sector employment as a result of de-Baathification, a process originally intended to target loyalists of the former regime. Sunnis and local NGOs said the government continued the selective use of the de-Baathification provisions of the law to render many Sunnis ineligible for choice government positions, but it did not do so to render former Shia Baathists ineligible. Some Sunnis said they were often passed over for choice government jobs or lucrative contracts by the Shia-dominated government because the Sunnis were allegedly accused of being Baathists who sympathized with ISIS ideology.’[2]
[1] HRW, ‘World Report 2019: Iraq – Events of 2018’, January 2019
[2] USSD ‘2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Iraq’, (Section 2), 10 June 2019
FINDINGS AND REASONS
The Tribunal notes that it is conducting a ‘de novo’ review and has considered the material afresh and made its own assessment and determination as to whether the applicant meets the criteria for the grant of a protection visa.
The Tribunal is inquisitorial and can seek out evidence it requires in order to reach a determination, but the Tribunal is not required to actively seek out evidence to support an applicant’s claim: see ABT16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 836.
The Tribunal notes that the Act places certain obligations on protection visa applicants in presenting their case. It is the responsibility of an applicant to specify all the particulars of his or her claim to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and to provide sufficient evidence to establish such a claim.[3] The Tribunal on review does not have a responsibility or an obligation to specify or assist in specifying any particulars of the claim, or to establish or assist in establishing the claim.[4] This is consistent with the established proposition that it is for the applicant to make his or her own case.[5]
[3] Section 5AAA of the Act.
[4] Ibid (with effect from 14 April 2015).
[5] Abebe v Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR 510 at [187].
The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason or reasons does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is ‘well-founded’. 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. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant’s case for him or her. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically all the allegations made by the applicant: see MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596; Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70.
The Tribunal notes that assessment of credibility is an inherently difficult process and can be based on imperfect perceptions of truth.[6] In this regard the Tribunal has taken into consideration the comments of both the High Court and Federal Court of Australia,[7]and notes that in AVQ15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 133, the court observed that it is well-established that assessment of reliability and credibility of evidence of asylum seekers should be careful and thoughtful, and processes should be conducted fairly and reasonably, considering assessment is not an exact science.
[6] Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
[7] For example, Minister for Immigration andEthnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang & Ors (1996) 185 CLR 259, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559, Abebe v The Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510, Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437, Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and McIllhatton v Guo Wei Rong and Pan Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445, Chand v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1997] FCA 1198, Kopalapillai v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 86 FCR 547 and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220.
In this regard, courts have also suggested that the benefit of the doubt should be given to those who are generally credible but unable to substantiate all claims.[8] A similar approach is taken in the Department’s Refugee Law Guidelines[9] and in the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status and Guidelines on International Protection (UNHCR Handbook),[10] which provides useful guidance for this Tribunal.
[8] SZLVZ v MIAC [2008] FCA 1816 at [25].
[9] Department of Home Affairs, ‘Policy – Refugee and humanitarian – Refugee Law Guidelines’, section 15.4, as re-issued 1 July 2017 (Refugee Law Guidelines)
[10] UNHCR, re-issued February 2019 at [203]–[204].
The Tribunal found the first applicant the only applicant to give oral evidence to be a responsive witness although a witness who often exaggerated and embellished his claims of harm arising from his membership of the particular social group (PSG) of an ‘academic in Iraq’ and sought throughout the two days of the hearing to rely upon his research and employment in Australia as a ground for the issue of a protection visa.
However, the Tribunal, is satisfied on the evidence before it that:
·    The applicants’ home region is Baghdad and that is the area to which they would return as although the first applicant is originally from [City 1] he lived in Baghdad where he worked for the Iraqi government and also studied at university. The second applicant lived with her family in Baghdad where her family continue to reside;
·    The applicants are Sunni Muslims, and the first applicant holds secular views;
·    The first applicant is an academic who has also studied in the west, [Country 1] and Australia;
·    The first applicant is in breach of contractual agreements with [University 4] and/or the Iraqi Ministry of Education arising from his failure to repay either through working as directed at the University or by the payment of moneys for his university studies in [Country 1] which was paid for by [University 4] and his release from his work commitments with [University 4] to complete further additional studies (PHD) in Australia;
·    That the first applicant’s family have paid part of his outstanding contractual educational and employment fees and fines arising from his ongoing failure to repay either through working as directed at the University or by funds for his overseas studies and/or leave of absence to complete such studies;
·    The second and third applicants are women; and
·    That the second applicant converted to the Sunnis faith from her Shi’a faith whilst she was employed at [Employer 1] and when that became known to the [employer] she was dismissed from her position of [employment].
Religion
The first applicant claims to a be a moderate Sunni and the second applicant was reported by the first applicant as being a religious woman who adheres to Islamic dress and practices. In her claims, she states that she converted to the Sunni faith from Shi’a in about 2015, when she was working for [Employer 1].
The applicants claim that they will be persecuted and face serious harm because of their religious faith (Sunni). In this regard they fear being targeted for harm by the Shi’a militias in Iraq who have infiltrated the Iraqi government. The applicants rely in part upon the second applicant’s dismissal from her employment at [Employer 1] upon the [employer] becoming aware of her conversion from her Shi’a faith to the Sunni faith.
However, the Tribunal notes that the second applicant converted to the Sunni faith three years before she came to Australia with the first applicant. It is also noted that she has not claimed, nor did the first applicant claim or give evidence, that she had been subject to any persecution and/or any harm by the Iraqi government, any Shi’s militia groups and/or [Employer 1] during that time, but for the loss of her employment after she had converted and same beacme known.
The first applicant also relied upon the attack upon his brother, [Mr C], a former serving police officer, who whilst on duty as a police [officer] in 2009 was the victim of a bomb attack upon his police vehicle. In that attack he (the applicant’s brother) [was maimed]. His brother is now retired from the Police force and lives in the first applicant’s family town of [City 1].
Given no other family members have been targeted including the first applicant, and that this attack upon his brother seems most likely to have been a targeted attack upon the police and not a religious motivated attack against his family for their Sunni religious identity, together with the passage of time during which as identified above the first applicant and his family have not been further targeted or attacked. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the bomb attack upon his brother supports the first applicant claims of being persecuted for his Sunni religious identity and profile.
The Tribunal has considered the relevant and available country information as outlined above at paragraphs 55 and 56. And noting that at paragraph 55 the DFAT report provides under the headings of ‘Religion’ and ‘Religious conversion and intermarriage’ that as to Iraq’s population; ‘Sunni Muslims constitute about 40 per cent‘; and that; ‘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’. Together with the United Kingdom’s Home Office Country Information Iraq report which is discussed above at paragraph 56 and provides under the heading of ‘Sunni demography’ that; ‘Baghdad is “one of the few areas” with a mixed Sunni and Shi’a Muslim population, next to a number of smaller Christian communities…However, in some neighbourhoods Shi’a and Sunni families peacefully coexist, “and there are cases of isolated Sunni families in strongly Shi’a neighbourhoods such as Sadr City where they have managed to gain the protection of neighbours and militias.” ’
Given the country information discussed above, and that the applicants have not reported any incidents of targeted violence against them while they lived in Iraq arising from their religious profile; and that the applicants will if returned to Iraq likely reside and seek work in Baghdad (as was the first applicant’s oral evidence) the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants face a real chance of persecution involving serious harm if they were to return to Iraq in the reasonably foreseeable future on account of their Sunni Muslim faith and profile.
The applicants’ fears in this regard (their Sunni faith) are not well-founded.
Particular Social Group (PSG) of being an ‘Academic in Iraq’
The first applicant claims that as a high achieving academic who holds secular views and who has studied in [Country 1] and more recently in Australia, that he will likely be kidnapped and/or otherwise harmed by the Shi’a militias it the applicants return to Iraq because he will be viewed as [a Country 1] spy as he studied in [Country 1] or because he is a high achieving academic.
The Tribunal has considered the provisions of s 5L of the Act, which provides that a person is to be treated a member of a PSG other than that person’s family if a characteristic, other than a fear of persecution, is shared by each member of the group, and the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, that characteristic. And that characteristic is innate or immutable or must be so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience that the member should not be forced to renounce it, or it must distinguish the group from society. In its consideration the Tribunal finds that the first applicant is a member of a PSG being an ‘Academic in Iraq’.
As to the first applicant’s claims of fear of harm arising from his membership of this PSG his claims were vague and without any specific examples and/or details but for his reliance upon his own personal assertions that he faced being targeted if he returned to Iraq, and that he had been so targeted by [University 4]. In this regard he relied upon him having been employed to teach English rather than teach and conduct research in his specialised and preferred area of [Field 1].
It was his evidence that after being granted and sponsored to study in [Country 1] by the Iraqi government he had returned after completing his three years of overseas study to [University 4], where he was to complete a three-year contract of employment to repay the costs of his overseas studies. He was assigned to the language school at the University where he taught English and in evidence conceded that there were at that time no vacancies at the University in his preferred field of [Field 1].
The first applicant told the Tribunal at the hearing that after only completing 18 months of his contract of employment he applied for and was successful in obtaining a scholarship with [University 1] in a PHD of [Discipline 1] in [Field 1]. He explained that he had not told the government or the University that he had intended to, and had applied for, or that he had been accepted to this Australia scholarship. However, in later negotiations with the University and the Iraqi Ministry of Education, he had agreed to return to Iraq after completing his PHD studies in Australia and complete the remainder of his 18 months employment contract with [University 4]. Something that he did not do.
The first applicant stated at the hearing, that although his family had since paid part of his outstanding debt relating to the breach of his employment contract with the University, he would likely be unable to find alternate employment as an academic as he had since been dismissed by the University and would be also forced to repay any outstanding debt arising from his breach of contract with the University.
It was further claimed by the first applicant that as a high achieving academic who now owns several [Field 1] patents in Australia, he would be targeted for harm and killing by the Shi’a militias who have in the past killed academics.
As to these claims the Tribunal notes that the first applicant has on his own evidence breached his employment contract with the University, and it does not appear unusual, in all the circumstances of this matter, that the University and the Iraqi Education Ministry would seek to recoup their contractual losses from the first applicant. The first applicant in this regard, has through his family in Iraq, conceded his liability to the University and the Government through the part payment of his contractual liability to the Government by his family.
The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence before it, and for the reasons outlined above, that the first applicant’s financial liability that awaits him in Iraq, arising from the breach of his employment contract, amounts to persecution involving serious harm.
As to the first applicant’s generalised claim that he faces being targeted by Shi’a militias because he will be viewed as [a Country 1] spy having studied in [Country 1] and more generally because he is a high achiever. The Tribunal notes that the first applicant returned to Iraq after studying in [Country 1] where he worked at the University as an English teacher for 18 months without incident and/or any threats of violence having been made against him and/or his family by any government agents or associates or any members of any Shi’a militias.
It is further noted by the Tribunal that after only completing 18 months of his contract of employment with the University after returning from his sponsored [Country 1] studies he was granted a government exit visa to travel to Australia for further studies on the agreement that he would return and complete his contract of employment with [University 4].
Notwithstanding the accepted influence of the Shi’a militias upon the Iraqi government as outlined in the DFAT country information above at paragraph 55 under the heading of ‘Political System’; the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants face a real chance of persecution involving serious harm because of the first applicant’s membership of this PSG.
Additionally, noting as has been outlined above that the first applicant after returning from [Country 1] resided and worked in Baghdad at [University 4]. And that he was not so targeted and/or subject to any violence and/or threats of violence from the militias for being a suspected [Country 1] spy and/or a high achieving academic who had studied overseas, it is not accepted by the Tribunal, that the first applicant and/or the applicants face a real chance of persecution involving serious harm if they were to return to Iraq in the reasonably foreseeable future on account of the first applicant’s membership of this PSG.

In this regard the Tribunal notes that the DFAT country information as outlined above at paragraph 55 under the heading of ‘Conditions for returnees’ provides that; ‘The practice of seeking asylum and then returning to Iraq once conditions permit is well accepted among Iraqis, as evidenced by the large number of dual nationals from the US, Western Europe and Australia who return to Iraq.’ Additionally, the Tribunal notes that DFAT stated in October 2018, that it was not aware of any specific examples of academics or students being targeted, and assessed that students or academics do not risk official or societal discrimination on the basis of their employment or education either in Iraq or abroad[11]. Additionally, given the applicants have not raised or provided any evidence of them having obtained an adverse actual and/or imputed political profile with the Iraqi government or any of the Shi’a militias but for the first applicant being an academic. And that the DFAT country information as outlined above at paragraph 55 provides under the heading of ‘Political Opinion’ that; ‘The degree of risk faced by an individual on the basis of their political opinion (real or perceived) therefore varies depending on their prominence, persistence and location, the group or groups they oppose, and the degree to which they enjoy the protection of other powerful groups’, does not accept that the applicants are at risk of harm on the basis of membership of this PSG.
[11] ‘DFAT Country Information Report Iraq‘, Department of Foreign Affairs and trade (DFAT), 9 October 2018, at 3.61-3.62, page 20.
In this regard, the Tribunal notes that the first applicant in his evidence did not raise that he had been involved in anti-government movements, actions and/or anti-government, anti-Ministry of Education and/or University public expressions or social media postings. Further the first applicant did not state that he had at any time in his employment at the University teach any subjects or express any views to his students that were not in accordance with the University’s approved curriculum. The Tribunal having not been made aware of, or having been able to locate any recent reporting of academics having been targeted for violence by either government related organisations and/or groups or any Shi’a militias and noting that Freedom House in their 2019 ‘Freedom in the World Report for Iraq’ reported that:
Educators have long faced the threat of violence or other repercussions for teaching subjects or discussing topics that powerful state and non-state actors find objectionable. The Country’s official curriculum is often augmented in the classroom by religious or sectarian viewpoints.
Finds there is no evidence before the Tribunal that suggests and/or supports that the first applicant has or did seek to express views on topics that would have been objectionable to the Iraqi government and/or the Shi’a militias. Therefore teh Tribunal is again not satisfied that the applicants face a real chance of persecution in Iraq because the first applicant is an academic.
The applicant’s fears in this regard as to the first applicant’s membership of the PSG of being an ‘Academic in Iraq’ are not well-founded.
Women
The applicants claim to fear returning to Iraq due to the second applicant and the third dependant applicant being women. However, the first applicant did not give any oral evidence in support of this claim and the second applicant did not attend either of the two hearings to give oral evidence and make arguments. On 18 July 2023, the first day of the Review hearing the first applicant under questioning told the Tribunal that his wife the second applicant would not be giving any oral evidence or making any arguments and that the applicants were relying upon the second applicant’s unsigned statement that had been submitted with the visa application to the Department.
In the second applicant’s statement, she recounted her childhood and the difficulties faced by her family throughout the former Iraqi regime. She also claimed that:
As a girl, it was so hard to go out because I was afraid of kidnapping. Even though I continued my school with so many difficulties. My life was like someone in jail. At age 16 and continue, I have witnessed much sexual harassment and happened to me as well which was another challenge for women in Iraq. In 2014, I graduated from the university having a bachelor [degree]. I was hoping to have a job but there is no equality between women and men in Iraq. There was always the priority for men with jobs and everything else. Also in order to get a job, need to pay a bribe to people in the government to have a job but I was against that at all. In 2015, I got as conditional job at [Employer 1] that I should serve for two years for a very little amount of money then after 2 years, I will have a permanent job. In that time, I converted from Muslim Shia to Muslim Sunni but I kept it secret and just a few friends knew about it. After 9 months that I started my job, I got fired from work just because they found out I’m Sunni and they told me that clearly…
I lost hope in everything and with no equality, respect and future. Even it is not allowed to say your opinion…In 2018, we got married and I found the respect and care with him then I knew that my life changed for better…
Since we moved to Australia, I found what I missed for the whole of my life. I found the freedom, respect, safety, equality and as a human. I can now go out and walk alone with no fear. I feel that I was born again since I moved to Australia…
Now, I’m pregnant with our baby and please I don’t want the same life which I lived for my baby. Please give our baby the hope to live as a human with no fear and disrespect. I want for our baby good education and life. Please let us live as humans for the rest of our life.
The second applicant’s claims are vague and do not describe the details of any supposed ‘much sexual harassment and happened to me’ as claimed in her statement. Given it was the evidence of the first applicant that his wife is a married-religious women who in Iraq and in Australia continues to adhere to the Islamic dress code for women, and that she has not in the past in Iraq or since in Australia publicly or privately criticised, demonstrated or otherwise expressed any anti-regime or religious sentiments about the treatment of women in Iraq. The Tribunal finds that the second applicant has not acquired an anti-Iraqi regime and/or anti-religious profile with the Iraqi government, its Institutions and/or the Shi’a militias.
The Tribunal has also taken into consideration that the second applicant has not provided any specific details of being subjected to harm and/or persecution in Iraq because of her being a woman, but for the termination of her employment by [Employer 1]. Such termination arising from her having converted to the Sunni Muslim faith while being employed by the [employer] in the circumstances of that employment does not seem to be remarkable or an example of systematic persecution given the nature of that employment and the employer.
The Tribunal has also considered the DFAT country information as outlined above at paragraph 55, where under the heading of ‘Women’ it is reported that; ‘Violence and insecurity often constrain Iraqi women to traditional roles and limit their access to employment and education, and ‘About one in 10 Iraqi households is female headed, including by widows, divorcees and women caring for sick or disables spouses. These women are highly vulnerable to poverty, food insecurity, displacement, eviction and sexual harassment and abuse. Single mothers and women who live alone face stigma’. Given this information before the Tribunal and on the evidence before it. The Tribunal does not accept that the second applicant being a married, religious women, who would enjoy the protection of her husband, the first applicant, and her family in Iraq, would be a highly vulnerable women in Iraq if she returned to Iraq.
The Tribunal has also taken into consideration that: ‘DFAT assessed that the majority of Iraqi women, regardless of their ethnicity or socio-economic status, face a high risk of official discrimination and a high risk of societal discrimination. Iraqi women and girls face a high risk of gender-based violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence, while Iraqi girls face a high risk of being forced into early or involuntary marriage’. Given the first applicant’s secular views on religion and given that the third applicant like the second applicant can rely upon the protection of the first applicant as the male protector of their family, together with the support from the first and second applicant’s respective families in Iraq, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicants face a real chance of persecution involving serious harm on account of the second and third applicants being women.
Although the Tribunal accepts that the second and third applicants may face some level of official and societal discrimination in Iraq on account of being women, it is noted that the second applicant did obtain tertiary qualifications in Iraq and was able to secure employment in Iraq, and that they both enjoy the protection of the first applicant and their respective extended families if they returned to Iraq. Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, and given that the second applicant has not advanced a well-founded fear of persecution on account of her and the third applicant being women, the Tribunal finds that the applicants do not face a real chance of persecution involving serious harm on account of the second and third applicants being women if they were to return to Iraq in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The Tribunal finds that the applicants’ fears in this regard (as to the second and third applicant being women) are not well-founded.
General security situation
The applicants have also claimed to fear returning to Iraq due to the general security situation and the sectarian violence between various Islamic groups in Iraq.
The Tribunal has considered the DFAT country information as outlined above at paragraph 55 as to the information under the heading of ‘Security Situation’ which provides that: ‘Security incidents occur often and without warning, including rocket attacks, mortar attacks, attacks with improvised explosive devices (IED’s), grenade attacks, small arms fire and assassinations. Targets have included security forces, government offices, diplomatic missions, US-led coalition forces, Iraq 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’. However, the European Asylum Support Centre (EASO) in their 2019 Country Guidance Iraq report stated that; ‘Overall, violent incidents in Baghdad city and the belts have declined since 2017. In 2018, Baghdad became a lower priority for ISIS attacks, with their activity declining in Baghdad city and the belts’. The EASO report stated that; ‘The majority of violence in 2018 in Baghdad was political violence, generally involving political intimidation, armed skirmishes, and targeted assassinations between Shi’a in the context of the 2018 elections’. The report also provided that; ‘Baghdad city and the suburbs are generally under the control of the authorities; however, in practice, authorities share, defence and law enforcement roles with the Shi’a dominated Popular Mobilisation Unit (PMU), leading to ‘incomplete’ or overlapping control with these militias’.[12]
[12] ‘Country Guidance: Iraq – Guidance note and common analysis’, European Asylum Support Office (EASO), 30 June 2019, p 106-108
Additionally, the Tribunal has also taken into consideration the 2019 UNHCR Report, International Protection considerations as to people fleeing Iraq which in which it is stated that; ‘Along with the general security improvements in 2018 and into 2019, security in Baghdad is reported to have largely stabilized’.

100. The Tribunal having noted that the applicants have not previously been politically active, as they have not participated in public demonstrations against the government and/or the militias nor have they posted and/or publicly criticised the government and/or the militias and as such did not, nor do they have an adverse political profile in Iraq. And additionally, noting that there was no evidence placed before the Tribunal that suggested that the applicants if they were to return to Iraq would involve themselves in the politics of Iraq. Therefore, as there is no information to suggest that members of the Iraqi community who have not so involved themselves in civil unrest and/or open and public criticisms of the government and/or the militias have been targeted for violence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants would be so targeted for violence in Iraq.
101. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that although Baghdad has and continues to experience criminal and politically motivated violence, the country information indicates that the security situation has improved over recent years in Baghdad. Further noting that criminal violence is something that the population as a whole experience, whilst political and religious violence is generally targeted often as a reprisal for political and/or religious activism which is something that the applicants have not, nor intend to, involve themselves in if they returned to Iraq. A such, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants face a risk of being specifically targeted for violence in Baghdad if they were to return to Iraq.
102. As such the Tribunal finds, that the applicants do not face a real chance of persecution involving serious harm if they were to return to Iraq in the reasonably foreseeable future on account of the security situation in Iraq and more specifically in Baghdad.
103. The applicants’ fears in this regard (security situation) are not well-founded.
Returnees – failed Asylum seekers
104. Although the applicants have not made any specific claims as to fearing harm on account of being failed asylum seekers the Tribunal has considered this claim.
105. In this regard, the Tribunal has reviewed the relevant DFAT country information which is outlined above at paragraph 55, where under the heading of ‘Conditions for returnees’ it is reported that; ‘The practice of seeking asylum and then returning to Iraq once conditions permit is well accepted amongst Iraqis, as evidenced by the large number of dual nationals from the US, Western Europe and Australia who return to Iraq. There is considerable evidence that Iraqis who are granted protection by Western countries often return to Iraq, sometimes only months after securing residency abroad, to reunite with families, establish and manage businesses or take up or resume employment. Based on discussion with multiple sources, DFAT assesses it is highly unlikely a failed asylum seeker would face mistreatment on return to Iraq solely on the basis of his or her having sought asylum overseas.’
106. Therefore, given this country information and noting that the Tribunal has not found the applicants to have gained an adverse profile with the Iraqi government and/or the militias because of any other claims which have been addressed above, the Tribunal has found that the applicants do not face a real chance of persecution involving serious harm if they were in the reasonably foreseeable future to return to Iraq on account of them being failed asylum seekers.
107. The Tribunal finds that the applicants’ fears in this regard as to being failed asylum seekers are not well-founded.
Refugee criterion
108. Based on the information before it, the Tribunal rejects the applicants’ claims of fear of persecution in their entirety. Having considered all of the applicants’ claims both individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds that the applicants do not face a real chance of persecution involving serious harm in the reasonably foreseeable future for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. The Tribunal finds that the applicants’ fears of persecution are not well-founded as required by s 5J of the Act and therefore, the applicants are not refugees within the definition of s 5H of the Act.
109. For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
Complementary protection
110. Having concluded the applicants do not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal has also considered whether the applicants are eligible for complementary protection as outlined in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
111. As noted above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants’ claims of harm meet the refugee criterion. The Tribunal for the same reasons, is also not satisfied that the applicants meet the complementary protection criterion. Given the evidence before it the Tribunal does not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicants being removed from Australia to Iraq, that there is a real risk that the applicants will suffer significant harm as defined in s 36(2A) of the Act.
112. The Tribunal finds that the applicants are not persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Additional findings

Additionally, there is no suggestion that the applicants satisfy 36(2) of the Act on the basis of being members of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act and who holds a protection visa.

114. As the Tribunal has found that the applicants do not meet the refugee and complimentary criteria and do not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2) of the Act the Tribunal has not found it necessary to assess s 36(3) of the Act as to whether the applicants have a right to enter and reside in a country other than Iraq.
MINISTERIAL INTERVENTION
115. The Minister has issued guidelines explaining the circumstances in which the Minister may wish to consider exercising his or her public interest powers under s.417 of the Act. The guidelines indicate that the Minister will generally only consider exercising their public interest powers in cases which exhibit one or more unique or exceptional circumstances. Departmental policy (PAM3) concerning ministerial intervention provides as a relevant factor, ‘exceptional economic, scientific, cultural or other benefit would result from the person being permitted to remain in Australia’.
116. In this regard, the Tribunal acknowledges the scientific research of the first applicant in [Field 1]. The Tribunal notes that the first applicant is an educated man with tertiary qualifications and a positive work history in Australia including post graduate qualifications (PGD) in [Field 1] and his current employment in [Field 1] research and the development of practical [programs] in this field.
117. When considering all of the applicant’s circumstances the Tribunal considers it appropriate to support the applicant’s request to remain in Australia on a permanent basis so as he may continue in his employment and contribute to Australia’s [Industry 1] and Research Sector. In considering the applicant’s case and the Ministerial guidelines relating to the discretionary power set out in PAM 3 ‘Ministers guidelines on Ministerial powers: ss 351, 417, 501J of the Act, and noting that s 417 of the Act gives the Minister a discretion to substitute a decision of the Tribunal with another decision that is more favourable to the applicant, if the minister thinks that it is in the public interest to do so. The Tribunal considers that the circumstances of the applicants’ case raise ‘unique or exceptional circumstances’ that justify possible intervention by the Minister. Such circumstances are:

·Exceptional, economic, scientific, cultural or other benefit that would result from the person being permitted to remain in Australia. That being that the first applicant has a work history and has obtained specialist post graduate qualifications (PHD) and work and research experience in [Field 1 in] Queensland and more broadly Australia. These services are critically important to the Australian community through the advancement and development of Australia’s commercial and public [Field 1] Services.

DECISION
118. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.
David James
Senior 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.
…

[2023] AATA 4157

8 September 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Standing

Statutory Construction

Appeal