2304670 (Refugee)

[2024] AATA 4346

2304670 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 4346 (26 August 2024)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Fardin Nikjoo

CASE NUMBER:  2304670

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Jordan

MEMBER:Shahyar Roushan

DATE:26 August 2024

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the following directions:

(i)that the first and the fourth named applicants satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act; and

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

Statement made on 26 August 2024 at 6:05pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Jordan – ethnicity – first applicant wife formerly refugee of foreign ethnicity, now Jordanian citizen – harassed, insulted, threatened and abused by husband’s traditional, rural family, and conservative, violent uncle – pressure on husband to divorce wife, and on teenaged daughter to marry cousin – physical and mental health – detailed and credible oral evidence – country information – gender-based violence – regarded as divorced under Islamic law, and living adulterously – member of family unit husband and sons – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (b)(i), 56, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 1

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

BACKGROUND

1. The applicants are wife, husband and their three children. They are nationals of Jordan.

2. The second named applicant (the applicant husband) is [Age] years old. He arrived in Australia [in] November 2013 on a Higher Education Sector (Subclass 573) visa and returned to Jordan on two occasions in November 2014 and June 2016.

3. The first named applicant (the applicant) and her children arrived in Australia [in] August 2017 on Visitor visas (Subclass 600).

4. On 21 October 2017, the applicant applied for a Protection visa. At the time of the application, her husband and children did not make their own claims for protection and relied on their membership of her family unit.

5. On 30 March 2023, a delegate for the Minister of Home Affairs refused to grant the applicants a Protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). This is a review of that decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal).

   PROTECTION CLAIMS

   Protection visa application

6. According to the Protection visa application, the applicant is [Age] years old and of Palestinian ethnicity. Her father is deceased and her mother, sister and [brothers] continue to reside in Jordan. She graduated from [University] in Amman with a degree in [subject] in [Year] and married her husband in 2007.

7. In her Protection visa application form, the applicant made the following claims in response to questions in relation to her reasons for claiming protection.

8. She moved in with her in-laws after her husband left Jordan to study in Australia. She found this experience difficult, as she was ‘harassed’ by her in-laws. They interfered in her life, ‘intervened badly’ and ‘taught [her] children to be under their control’. They ‘deprived [her] of taking care’ of her children and told them that ‘their mother is no good’. When she asked her sister-in-law to stop ‘intervening’ in her parenting, her sister‑in‑law ‘screamed’ at her, ‘called her names’ and ‘threatened to report [her] behaviour to [the applicant husband]’ to divorce her, because the ‘children belong to the family and not [the applicant].’ She was not able to ‘look constructively after’ her children, but only to clean the house and cook. She was deprived of the opportunity to work in her field of studies and they ‘wanted [the applicant] to be under their dominance’, not to be financially independent to ‘remain under their instructions’ and to ‘punish’ her.

9. The applicant was ‘insulted not only verbally but physically’, as her in-laws believed that they are entitled to her money and belongings. At one stage, her in-laws told her that she is not their brother’s wife, but a maid to look after their children. She claimed that there were ‘too many terrible incidents’ of ill treatment from her sisters-in-law. She was not allowed to use her husband’s car, make any decisions or have a key for the house. Her role as a mother was reduced to cooking, washing and cleaning.

10. Her sisters-in-law have a ‘history of violence against another sister-in-law’, who eventually left her how. She (the applicant) had nowhere to go and could not run away or go to the police in Jordan. Even if the police in Jordan became aware of the situation, they would not have been able to help. She was unable to tell her husband what had happened over the phone, as her sisters-in-law threatened to tell her husband that she was having an affair with a [Country 1] refugee, which would ‘expose’ her ‘to death’. 

11. Another reason that led her to claim protection in Australia was her father’s brother. He is a ‘Salafi’ and created many problems for her family, threatening ‘to take [her] parents out of their home’ and creating ‘false accusations’ to scare the family. She was ‘badly threatened’, ‘badly harassed’ and ‘badly treated’ by her uncle. She had no choice but to visit her husband in Australia. In Jordan, there is no one who can protect her. Her husband is now aware of how her uncle and his sisters treated her. If she returns to Jordan she will be alone as her husband continues to study and she would be killed in an act of honour killing.

12. She would be unable to seek assistance from the police in Jordan as she does not ‘have the power to approach’ them. She is very scared and vulnerable. On one occasion, when she was taking her daughter to school, a [Country 1 person] approached her and tried to hold her hand. She cried and he threatened her, stating that he knew her, her house and that her husband was away. If she ever mentioned the incident, he threatened that his wife would go to the applicant’s parents‑in‑law’s house, claiming that she is a ‘bad woman’ who approached the [Country 1 person] man. If she were to return to Jordan with her husband, his family would accuse her of interrupting her husband’s studies.

13. The applicant offered to provide further information in relation to her claims at an interview.

    Supporting evidence

14. On 13 January 2023, the Department wrote to the applicant under s 56 of the Act, inviting her to provide additional information about her claims. In response, the applicant submitted a ‘further statement of claims’, dated 11 February 2023. The applicant provided the following information in that statement.

15. As a female, she has been ‘subjected to various harassment and sexual abuse.’ She was taught from a young age that men are the masters within a family dynamic, and they have full control over women. Women must ‘respect and adhere’ to this structure, particularly with older men. Growing up she saw that women were the ‘weakest ring in the family chain.’ Being a woman was considered a disgrace and she understood that women were killed for wrongdoing in honour killings. As a child, she was sexually abused by her grandfather, her maternal uncle and a paternal uncle. She would not have been supported by her family if she had reported these incidents.

16. She is of Palestinian ethnicity and her family members are registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). Her own name is not listed on UNRWA’s Family Registration Card as her status changed following her marriage to her husband. Although she now holds Jordanian nationality, she has always been ‘looked at and dealt with as a Palestinian person’ and discrimination against Palestinians is prevalent. She was subjected to discrimination due to her Palestinian ethnicity. She was seen merely ‘as a babysitter’ for her kid and whenever she fought with her in-laws, they took her kids away from her. Her first-born child was taken away from her on a number of occasions, leading her to attempt suicide. She was subsequently accused of having an affair, which led her husband to divorce her in 2009. They reunited, however, after he learnt that the allegations were false. Their kids were also subjected to physical harm from the in-laws and teased for being ethnically Palestinian.

17. Following her marriage, the applicant developed a heart condition and was denied treatment when she became unwell in her husband’s absence. She was unable to access appropriate treatment until after she arrived in Australia.

18. One of her husband’s brothers, [Mr A], was married to a [Country 2] national of [Country 3] descent. She escaped after being mistreated by her in-laws after contacting a lawyer and obtaining consular assistance. It was [Mr A] who supported the applicant and helped her to leave Jordan by signing the travel consent with ‘the excuse’ that the applicant and her children were visiting her husband and would return.

19. The applicant also fears her paternal uncle, [Mr B], who had refused to give permission for her to travel to Australia. He is an extremist and would harm her if she were to return to Jordan as he believes that she ‘became an apostate’. He has physically abused her in the past and tried to take control of her life after her father had a stroke in 2003. 

20. Her husband’s family have complained to her uncle and have made threats and allegations against her, particularly after her mother-in-law’s visit to Australia in 2017 when the applicant told her that she would not return to Jordan and her mother-in-law was not permitted to take the applicant’s children back to Jordan with her.

21. Her husband has ‘no control’ over his life when he is ‘among his family’. Even if his family do not harm her, they would force her husband to divorce her and would take her children away from her. She is particularly fearful for her daughter and would like to protect her from the same fate as her own.

22. In response to the Department’s s 56 invitation, the applicant also submitted the following documents:

    ·Copy of a family registration document issued by the [UN Agency], issued in the name of the applicant’s mother and three of her siblings.

    ·A letter dated 12 February 2023 from [Ms C], social worker. In her letter, [Ms C] explained the circumstances in which she met the applicant and reiterated the applicant’s account of her experiences in Jordan as recounted to her by the applicant.

    ·A letter from [a] Medical Centre dated 3 February 2023, reporting that the applicant has experienced anxiety and depression related to domestic violence at home.

    ·A discharge summary issued by [a] Hospital on 24 September 2022, stating that the applicant had a diagnosis of myopericarditis and cardiomyopathy.

    ·Copy and translation of a ‘consent’ letter from [Mr A] addressed to the Jordanian authorities and dated 31 July 2017, giving consent to the applicant and her children to travel to Australia.

23. Departmental records indicate that the applicant was not invited to attend an interview.

    The delegate’s decision

24. The delegate accepted that the applicant is a Jordanian national of Palestinian ethnicity. While he found that the applicant ‘has consistently claimed that she suffered harassment and bullying by her husband’s family’, he formed the view that, due to the lack of substantiating material in support of the claims, they ‘amount to no more than mere assertions’. He did not accept these claims. Relying on ‘lack of detail’, the delegate also expressed concern about and rejected the applicant’s claim that she was harmed by her uncle, a follower of Salafism. He found that the applicant would not face a real chance of serious harm in Jordan for the reason of her Palestinian ethnicity. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant is a refugee as defined under s 5H(1) of the Act and found that she was not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a). The delegate was also not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as provided for in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The delegate found none of the applicants was owed protection obligations.

    REVIEW APPLICATION

25. On 1 April 2023, the applicant applied for a review of the delegate’s decision to the Tribunal.

26. On 20 February 2024, the applicant appointed Mr Fardin Nikjoo as her representative.

    Pre-hearing submissions

27. On 29 April 2024, Mr Nikjoo submitted separate Statutory Declarations, declared by the applicant, the applicant husband, the third named applicant (the applicant son) and the fourth named applicant (the applicant daughter).

    The applicant

28. In her Statutory Declaration dated 15 April 2024, the applicant provided the following additional information.

29. Her husband’s family is continuously pressuring him to send their children back to Jordan. She fears that her children would be separated from her if they were to return to Jordan. There have been ‘serious and relentless problems’. Her in-laws have been critical in relation to how her daughter dresses and her use of social media. They believe it to be unacceptable for her daughter ‘to live in a society far from them because they want her to adhere to their traditions’ and they have decided ‘to marry her off’ to her [Age]-year-old cousin. Although the applicant husband has refused these demands, his extended family are ‘pressuring him heavily’ and blaming the applicant for his stance. They ‘strenuously believe in arranged marriage’ and ‘it’s impossible for them to allow a girl carrying their name to marry in a way or to someone they don’t approve of.’

30. When she heard her husband discussing the matter with his family over the phone, she became distressed, she took the receiver from him and started shouting at the caller, stating that she would never agree to such an arrangement. She was told, however, that they did not require her approval to marry her daughter off and that they did not want her daughter to become like her mother.

31. Her husband’s family have tried to force him to ‘verbally’ divorce her under Sharia law, which would necessitate her marrying another person and divorcing that person before she can be reunited with her husband again. She finds ‘the prospect of returning and confronting such a distressing and preposterous situation’ terrifying. The relevant authorities would be unable to protect her from such an outcome.

32. Her in-laws also informed her uncle that she is now divorced ‘for the third time’ but she continues to reside with her husband and that ‘anything that happens between us is considered adultery’. This prompted her uncle, who is a Salafi, to visit her family in Jordan and threaten them to ‘force’ her to return to Jordan to be held ‘accountable for adultery’. He has accused her family of ‘religious negligence and disbelief due to our non-adherence to his extreme beliefs and practices, including his preferred dress code, behaviours, education, and employment.’ He has visited her siblings in Jordan, ‘attacking’ them, ‘assaulting’ her brother and ‘damaging’ their property. He has also incited others to attack and threaten them. He has created ‘trouble in multiple places to intimidate them’ and has informed them that ‘even if they file complaints or resort to any means of self-defence, he will continue to intimidate them until they send [her] back to Jordan and hand [her] over to him.’ In addition, he has visited the workplace of one of her sympathetic brothers-in-law, ‘threatening and assaulting him’, demanding that he should force the applicant husband to send her back to Jordan as soon as possible. She fears being killed by her uncle. She is fearful of ‘being forced to divorce [her] husband and [her] children [being] taken away from [her] permanently’. The situation makes her think of killing herself.

    The applicant husband

33. In his Statutory Declaration, the applicant husband stated that he married the applicant in 2007, despite his family’s ‘intense disapproval’ due to her Palestinian heritage. This opposition, combined with his family’s rural area of residence in contrast to his wife’s urban origins, ‘made a chaotic atmosphere right away’.

34. In 2013, he made the difficult decision to leave his job and move to Australia to study. He faced additional pressure to move his wife and children to reside with his family, resulting in them ‘living under terrible neglect from [his] extended family in Jordan.’ They were confined to a room, threatened and ‘ordered around’. He worked hard to enable them to come to Australia.

35. In 2017, his wife applied for a Protection visa ‘in an effort to save our family from oppression and losing our family.’ The refusal of the Protection visa application in 2023, coupled with mounting pressure from his family to send his children back to Jordan, resulted in increasing tensions at home. At one point, during a heated argument with his family over the phone, he turned to his wife and uttered the phrase ‘I divorce you’. This happened after his family demanded that he should send his daughter back to Jordan in order ‘not to miss the “marriage train,” as they see it.’ When he expressed his refusal, he was ‘accused of living under [his] wife’s rule and unable to manage [his] household without her consent. [The applicant] also started arguing with [him], which angered [him] greatly and led to divorce religiously.’ This created further tensions and ‘the belief’ that he and his wife were divorced. His family told the applicant’s uncle that they were divorced, and her uncle demanded the applicant’s return to Jordan to hold her ‘accountable’. Subsequently, his brother, who had assisted the applicant with her departure from Jordan, told him that her uncle and a group confronted him and threatened him with a knife, resulting in his brother filing a complaint against the applicant’s uncle. However, the applicant’s uncle had already filed a complaint against him (the applicant husband). He has been told by her uncle ‘I only want my niece from you to punish her for the sin she committed. As for you and your children, leave’. The ‘disinformation and outside interference’ have only deepened the divide and made it more difficult for them to heal the relationship. They live in a ‘tribal rural community where one cannot go against their tribe.’

36. The applicant husband stated that his family also want him to send his daughter to Jordan as she is of marriable age. According to ‘customs’, girls are required to be married between the ages of 14 and 17. His sisters were married at a young age. One of his sisters was married at the age of 15 to a 33-year-old man. They were divorced after she gave birth to three children, but her husband took the children to the US, where he was residing at that time. This led to the deterioration of his sister’s mental and physical health and her eventual death when she was 25 years old. He does not wish the same fate for his daughter. He ‘would not have any control to stop it in Jordan, it stems from the family’s past history and the pressures exerted [and he] cannot bear the immense pressure exerted on [him]…’

37. He also fears getting involved in a ‘tribal fight’ with his wife’s family ‘over our divorce issue where Jordanian authorities including Police cannot protect me.’

    The applicant daughter

38. In her Statutory Declaration, the applicant daughter stated she will turn [Age] soon. She lived with her father’s family between the ages of four and 10. During this period, her grandparents and other family members caused her ‘trauma and distress’ as the environment was ‘emotionally toxic’ and ‘dangerous physically’. She was physically abused and psychologically tormented. She was regularly beaten and mistreated for no reason. She was subjected to ‘unfair’ rules, such as wearing different clothes at school to other children. She was taken away from her mother on multiple occasions and locked in her uncle’s house, as they believed that her mum was planning on running away. The treatment she was subjected to was ‘motivated by racism and prejudice’ as her mother is of Palestinian ethnicity. She also witnessed her mother being mistreated. On one occasion, her mother became very ill and required immediate medical attention, but her father’s family would not let her see a doctor. As a result of these experiences, she started having suicidal ideations.

1. Her father’s family has kept ‘an eye on everything’ she does on social media, questioning her about connections, examining interactions with boys and making threats and accusations. They have also pressured her father to return her to Jordan, where they can control ‘every decision’ she makes, including who she marries. Her father’s family is also attempting to separate her parents and force her into an arranged marriage. She stated:

   Their old­fashioned views on gender roles would force me to give up my own goals and aspirations in favour of a life where my only function is to be reliant on a husband. Relocating back to Jordan would be similar to being sentenced to a life of oppression and slavery, continuing the same destructive cycle of forced marriages that has ruined the lives of two of my aunts.

   The applicant son

2. The applicant son stated in his Statutory Declaration that he became aware at a young age that his father’s family had adopted a ‘strategy’ to separate him from his mother and younger sister. He heard ‘derogatory comments’ about his mother and his younger sister was physically abused and forced to do ‘unjust chores’. His father’s family recently announced their intention to arrange the marriage of his sister to a cousin. When he told them that his sister would not agree with the decision, they ‘emphasised’ his role ‘as a man in the household’, implying that he ‘should use force to make her to comply’. Seeing his mother’s current constant distress due to the uncertainty of their situation causes him great pain. He fears that he will be ‘coerced, degraded and threatened to become someone else’ if he returns to Jordan.

3. Mr Nikjoo also submitted the following additional documents in support of the review application:

   ·Copy and translation of a complaint lodged by the applicant’s paternal uncle, [Mr B], with the [Police Directorate 1] [in] February 2024, stating that the applicant husband had divorced his niece (the applicant) with ‘a third confirmation of divorce’ and that he continues to live with her in Australia, committing ‘adultery’. He has attempted to get the applicant to return to Jordan and has requested that her husband be arrested.

   ·Copy and translation of a complaint lodged by the applicant’s brother-in-law, [Mr A], with the [Police Directorate 2] [in] March 2024, stating that the applicant’s uncle had come to his place of business and threatened him with a knife. The reason behind the incident was [Mr B]’s belief that his niece is divorced ‘through the third confirmation of divorce’, that she must return to Jordan and that she should be held accountable for continuing to live with her ex-husband.

   ·A number of news articles and reports concerning honour killings and related crimes against women in Jordan.

   The hearing

4. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 7 May 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages. Where relevant, the evidence presented at the hearing is referred to in the Tribunal’s analysis below.

   Post-hearing submissions

5. On 8 May 2024, Mr Nikjoo made further submissions, providing the following information.

6. The applicant has experienced ongoing ‘systematic, degrading, inhuman, and discriminatory treatment’, which has persisted despite her marriage and her husband’s presence in Jordan. Evidence presented suggests that the reason for this treatment was her Palestinian ethnicity. An incident at a hospital, where the applicant’s in-laws treated her inhumanely in her husband’s presence, led to her husband declaring in front of his family ‘I divorce her; are you happy now?’

7. The applicant now faces accusations of adultery, which increase her vulnerability and may lead to separation from her husband and children, ‘endangering her social and familial support system’. This potential separation is not mere speculation based on the available evidence.

8. Despite being married, the applicant lacks control over her own life and the lives of her children. Her autonomy is ‘systematically undermined’ by her husband’s family, even in his presence. This lack of autonomy and degrading treatment continues in Australia. While the applicant previously suggested that her husband’s presence somewhat mitigated the treatment, this is insufficient considering the severe impact on her mental and physical well‑being. Medical records and psychological evaluations presented demonstrate that this ongoing situation prevents the applicant from acting as ‘an autonomous individual and protective mother’.

9. Regarding the applicant daughter, evidence has been presented from both the applicant and her husband that she is at risk of forced marriage. The applicant daughter has expressed fear and unwillingness to enter into an arranged marriage with someone twice her age. The applicant’s husband has expressed despair and described a futile attempt to stop a similar arranged marriage for his sister’s child. Now, he faces the same situation for his own daughter, with the decision being made by his family without input from him, his wife or his child.

10. When questioned about written evidence concerning the arranged marriage, both the applicant and her husband testified that all communications have been conducted via video calls. The Tribunal should recognise the cultural and customary traditions of the country, where girls are often married at a young age, sometimes under the age of 15. This practice means that the applicant and her husband would have no effective control over stopping her being forced into marriage, regardless of whether they remain together.

11. The cases of the applicant and her daughter exemplify broader issues of ‘systemic discrimination, degrading and inhuman treatment of women, and forced child marriage.’ The applicant’s situation is further complicated by accusations of adultery, which could lead to severe personal consequences and further isolation from any form of support.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

    The relevant law

12. The criteria for a Protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). 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.

13. 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.

14. 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) of the Act. 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).

15. Under s 5J(1) of the Act, 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–‍5LA of the Act, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

16. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

    Mandatory considerations

17. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

    Analysis, reasons and findings

18. For the following reasons, I have concluded that the decision under review should be remitted for reconsideration.

    The applicant

19. Having considered the applicant’s evidence throughout the process, including her detailed oral evidence at the hearing, which was supported by the evidence of her husband and children, I do not share any of the delegate’s credibility concerns. To the contrary, I found her claims to be credible and her evidence entirely reliable. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in accepting the following.

20. The applicant is of Palestinian ethnicity. She married her husband in 2007, despite his family’s disapproval and unfavourable attitude towards her due to her Palestinian ethnicity. They resided together in Amman until 2013, when her husband decided to travel to Australia to study. She then moved in with her in-laws in [Village], a traditional tribal and rural area, as cultural customs required. In her husband’s absence, the applicant experienced relentless interference, frequent verbal and physical harassment and ongoing emotional and psychological abuse by her in-laws, particularly her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law, as well as continuous attempts to control every aspect of her life, including her movements, general conduct, childrearing access to her children and receiving medical care when needed. While the intensity of the harassment was reduced during her husband’s visits to Jordan, the interference and criticism continued. The pressure placed on her husband to discipline and control his wife in response to false accusations or complaints made by the applicant’s in‑laws resulted in him verbally divorcing her on two separate occasions in Jordan. However, they subsequently reconciled due to the strong emotional bond binding them together.

21. The applicant was eventually able to depart Jordan through assistance rendered by one of her brothers-in-law, when he signed a consent letter permitting her to travel to Australia with her children. Nevertheless, the interference and emotional abuse by the applicant’s in‑laws continued from afar. More recently intense pressure was put on the applicant husband to return the applicant daughter to Jordan to marry an older cousin. This pressure and interference exacerbated conflict and tension between the applicant and her husband, culminating in the applicant husband divorcing the applicant verbally during a heated argument with his family over the applicant daughter’s proposed arranged marriage.  

22. In accepting the above claims, I have considered and given weight to information obtained from other sources, which lend credence to the applicant’s evidence. According to these sources, the societal landscape in Jordan is characterised by conservative attitudes towards gender roles deeply ingrained in the social fabric. Traditional gender roles and patriarchal norms dictate strict behavioural expectations for both men and women, shaped by the fundamental principles of the social system. Within this framework, the achievements or missteps of an individual family member are not viewed as isolated incidents. Rather, they reflect upon the entire family unit, with the potential to bring either pride or shame. Consequently, family members often feel a sense of collective responsibility for each other’s conduct, needs and overall living conditions.[1]

    [1] Diab Al-Badayneh, ‘Violence Against Women in Jordan’, Journal of Family Violence vol 27(5), July 2012, >

    In recent times, the traditional family structure has undergone significant changes, particularly in how the extended family relates to its nucleus. Diab Al-Badayneh has noted that this shift has had far-reaching implications for the patriarchal system, altering the dynamics between men and women within the family and reshaping the distribution of authority. Notably, the husband’s standing within the extended family has diminished, including his ability to exert control over other family members residing in the household.[2]

    [2] Ibid.

23. In this cultural context, a man’s honour is intricately tied to his wife’s loyalty and conduct. When a wife’s behaviour strays from established ethical and social norms, the task of restoring the family’s reputation extends beyond the husband alone. Instead, it becomes a shared responsibility that involves the wider family network and even the tribe.[3] According to Alawaisheh and Alrefai, nucleus families in general are subjected to many external influences and pressures, especially the husband, who is usually under threats and compulsion to forcibly divorce his wife.[4]

    [3] Ibid.

    [4] Ahmad Youseef Tumah Alawaisheh & Rudina Ibraheem Alrefai, Violation of the Jordanian Personal Status Law No. 15 of 2019 of the opinion of the Hanafis in the ruling on forced divorce, pursuant to Sharia policy (a comparative jurisprudence study), Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 10(3), July 2021.

24. Sources consulted also indicate that gender-based violence (GBV) against married women in Jordan by family members other than their husbands is a significant issue, though it is less frequently reported compared to intimate partner violence. While the majority of domestic violence cases involve husbands as perpetrators, other family members, such as fathers, brothers and in-laws, also contribute to and are common perpetrators of GBV against married women.[5] The 2021 Gender-Based Violence Information Management System report notes that 86.2% of perpetrators are intimate partners (husbands in this context), caregivers or family members (fathers, brothers, extended family members or in‑laws).[6]

    [5] Rula Odeh Alsawalqa et al, Exploring Jordanian women’s resistance strategies to domestic violence: A scoping review, Frontiers in Sociology vol. 7, November 2022,

    [6] Jordan GBV IMS Task Force, Annual Report 2021, UNFPA,

25. Physical abuse by extended family members can include hitting, slapping or other forms of physical assault. Such violence is often justified by cultural norms that prioritise family honour and discipline.[7] Extended family members may also perpetrate psychological or emotional abuse, which can include verbal insults, threats and intimidation, as well as exercising control over a woman’s movements, decisions and social interactions.[8] This type of abuse aims to control or demean the woman, reinforcing her subordinate status within the family.[9] In addition, cultural norms related to family honour can exacerbate violence against women. Violence is sometimes justified by the need to maintain family honour, which can lead to severe consequences, including honour killings. In 2021, there were reports of 16 women being murdered by male family members, with some of these crimes motivated by so‑called ‘honour-related’ reasons.[10] Widowed, divorced and separated women reported mostly domestic violence perpetrated by family members in the context of physical abuse, psychological abuse, denial of resources and even forced marriage.[11]  

    [7] Diab Al-Badayneh, Violence Against Women in Jordan, Journal of Family Violence, Vol 27(5), July 2012,

    [8] Rula Odeh Alsawalqa et al, Exploring Jordanian women’s resistance strategies to domestic violence: A scoping review, Frontiers in Sociology vol. 7, November 2022,

    [9] Gender-Based Violence and Harmful Practices: Jordan, UNFPA, UNFPA Jordan | Gender-Based Violence and Harmful Practices.

    [10] Jordan GBV IMS Task Force, Annual Report 2021, UNFPA,

    [11] Ibid.

26. Notably, a 2009 study highlighted the significant role that in-laws, particularly mothers‑in‑law, play in perpetrating violence and creating conflict within marital relationships in Jordan. The study demonstrated that in many cases, in-laws are directly involved in acts of violence against women, either by instigating their sons to commit violence or by engaging in abusive behaviour themselves.[12] The study also found that while the natal family (the woman’s family of origin) can sometimes be a source of protection and support against violence, this support is not always guaranteed. The natal family’s ability to assist is often constrained by factors such as financial difficulties, physical distance or cultural pressures to maintain family honour, which can lead to women being advised to ‘bear’ the abuse to avoid bringing shame to the family.[13]

    [12] Cari Jo Clark et al, The role of the extended family in women’s risk of intimate

    [13] Ibid.

27. In view of the above information, it is entirely plausible that the applicant was subjected to mistreatment at the hands of her husband’s family in Jordan. I am also satisfied that the applicant’s Palestinian ethnicity had contributed to abuse directed towards her. Palestinian Jordanians view themselves ‘first and foremost’ as Palestinian and ‘their identity has little to do with their citizenship, but rather more to do with their heritage.’[14] In turn, there is a perceived threat among native Jordanians regarding Palestinians as ‘outsiders’ and pressure on Palestinians to fully assimilate into Jordanian culture.[15]

    [14] Caitlin Attal, Identity in Flux: Palestinian Refugees in Jordan, Berkley Centre for Religion, Peace and World Affairs, 3 November 2011,

    [15] Marwan Muasher, Jordan’s Redline on Admitting Palestinians Is Unlikely to Change, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 21 November 2023, Erin Hahn, Distinctions in Diaspora: A Comparative Study of Palestinian Identity in Jordan and Saudi Arabia, Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the College of Literature, Science, & Arts, University of Michigan, 2020,

28. The evidence before me indicates that the mistreatment the applicant was subjected to had peaked during her period of residence with her in-laws during her husband’s absence from Jordan. This may give rise to the contention that the applicant husband would be able to protect and shield her from any mistreatment at the hands of his family should they return to Jordan together. Questions may also arise in relation to the applicant husband’s perceived lack of courage in standing up to his own family. These behavioural assumptions, however, must be tested in the appropriate cultural context. At the hearing, I questioned the applicant husband in detail in relation to these matters. I accept his evidence that it would be ‘impossible’ for him to stand up to or withstand pressure from his family and tribe. I accept that familial and tribal ties are deeply ingrained in the social fabric and play a significant role in shaping individual behaviour and societal expectations and are central to social life in Jordan. The consequences for an individual who decides to go against these deeply ingrained cultural and tribal expectations can be substantial, affecting both their personal and social lives, including estrangement from critical support networks and lack of social support, which is crucial in a society where personal connections often play a significant role in accessing opportunities, economic support and resources. This is particularly important in a society where trust and loyalty within these networks are highly valued.[16]

    [16] Thomas M. Landy, Family rules in Jordanians’ social and business matters, Catholics and Culture, undated, Varun Gauri, Tasmia Rahman, and Iman Sen, Measuring Social Norms About Female Labor Force Participation in Jordan, World Bank, Development Economics, Development Research Group, Policy Research Working Paper 8916, June 2019, and, Naomi Johnstone, Tribal Dispute Resolution and Women’s Access to Justice in Jordan, WANA Institute 22 June 2015,

1. In light of this evidence, I am satisfied that the sustained psychological and emotional abuse, degradation and humiliation directed at the applicant by her in-laws amounted to serious harm. In reaching this view, I have had regard to the applicant’s particular vulnerability associated with her mental and physical health. I am further satisfied that the feelings of anger and hostility towards the applicant have only increased over the past seven years that the applicant has remained in Australia with her husband and children. I am satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant would face treatment similar to what she has faced in the past if she were to return to Jordan, regardless of whether she resides with her in-laws in the same house. Therefore, I find that there is a real chance that the applicant would be subjected to serious harm at the hands of her in-laws in Jordan if she were to return in the reasonably foreseeable future.

2. Furthermore, I have accepted the applicant’s evidence that she has been verbally divorced by her husband on three separate occasions, primarily due to the pressure inflicted and continuous interference by his family. After each verbal divorce, the couple reconciled and continued to live together.

3. Islamic law provides a structured framework for divorce. The rules and processes for divorce under Islamic law vary depending on the form of divorce and the circumstances surrounding it. The most common form of divorce is talaq, which is initiated by the husband. Talaq is the process by which a marriage is dissolved and involves a unilateral declaration of divorce and does not require the wife’s consent. The husband pronounces the divorce, and a waiting period known as iddah follows, during which reconciliation is possible. If reconciliation occurs within this period, the marriage remains intact without the need for a new contract. However, if the iddah period lapses without reconciliation, the divorce becomes final. If a husband pronounces talaq once or twice, the divorce is revocable during the iddah period. The couple can reconcile without a new marriage contract if they choose to do so within this period. However, if a husband pronounces talaq three times, whether in one sitting or over separate occasions, the divorce becomes irrevocable. The couple cannot remarry unless the wife marries another man, and that marriage is subsequently dissolved through divorce or death.[17]

   [17] See Sahih Muslim, Kitab Al-Talaq (The Book of Divorce), Islam Questions and Answers, Types of Divorce in Islam, Abdulwasiu Oladele Salaudeen, AN Assessment of Talaq And Its Consequences In Islamic Law: Kano State as A Case Study, Thesis Submitted to The School of Post Graduate Studies, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, in Partial Fulfillment of the Award of a Master of Laws Degree, February 2015,

4. In Jordan, divorce is governed by both religious and civil laws. Divorce for Muslims is primarily regulated by Sharia law and is adjudicated in religious courts. Jordan’s personal status laws provide for three different mechanisms for divorce: (i) unilateral repudiation by the husband (talaq); (ii) judicial divorce; and (iii) redemptive divorce (khul or iftida).[18] A husband can repudiate his wife, either verbally or in writing, without any reason and without the need for court permission: ‘marriage comes to an end when a divorce is uttered three times by the husband “at his own will”’.[19]

   [18] Global Repository of Muslim Family Laws: Jordan, Musawah, ZE Jwaideh and Library of Congress, Marriage and divorce in Jordan, Near Eastern and African Law Division, Law Library, Library of Congress, 1976,

   [19] Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Jordan and United Arab Emirates: Information on divorce, including requirements and procedures for husbands to initiate and complete the divorce; whether the third divorce is considered final (2015-August 2017), ZZZ105954.E,

5. I accept on this basis that by verbally divorcing the applicant on the third occasion, the divorce became irrevocable under Islamic law. The applicant and her husband cannot live together as husband and wife or remarry unless the applicant marries another man, and that marriage is subsequently dissolved. I accept that by continuing to live together in Australia after the third divorce, the applicant is perceived to have committed adultery.  

6. I accept that the applicant’s uncle, a conservative Muslim with a history of violence, has been informed of these circumstances by the applicant’s in-laws. As the applicant is now considered to be divorced, I accept that her uncle sees himself has her guardian. Under Jordanian laws and customs, a male guardian is required for an unmarried woman under the age of 40 (whether divorced, widowed or single). A guardian is required to supervise unmarried females up to the age of 40 in relation to their needs, including for physical, psychological or mental well-being, and women under guardianship are considered to be economically dependent.[20]

   [20] Jordan Gender Justice: Assessment of laws affecting gender equality and protection against gender-based violence, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for West Asia (ESCWA), 2018, Huda Al Zoubi, Gender-Based Violence in Jordan: A Pandemic of its Own, The Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, 15 May 2020,

7. Adultery is an offence under Articles 282–284 of the Penal Code (Misdemeanours Relating to Family Norms and Morals), with a penalty of one to three years’ imprisonment. The law penalises the crime of adultery if the complaint is made by the husband or wife if they are married or by a woman’s guardian if she is unmarried. The right to pursue a claim ends three months after the date of the complainant’s knowledge. The penalty is severe (mushadad) if adultery is committed in the marital home.[21]

   [21] Ibid.

8. While it appears that the right of the applicant’s uncle or her in-laws to pursue a claim under Jordan’s Penal Code has arguably ended, I am satisfied that the divorces and her construed marital status place the applicant at risk of serious harm at the hands of her uncle, regardless of the effect of any applicable law. I find that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm, including physical violence, by her uncle if she were to return to Jordan.

9. For the above reasons, I find that if the applicant were to be return to Jordan now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, there is a real chance that she would face threats to her life or liberty, significant and sustained harassment and significant ill-treatment at the hands of members of her extended family. I am satisfied that such treatment amounts to serious harm under s 5J(4)(b) of the Act. I am satisfied that the harm the applicant fears involves systematic and discriminatory conduct as required by s 5J(4)(c).

10. Under s 5J(1)(c) of the Act, the real chance of persecution must relate to all areas of the relevant receiving country. I find the applicant is vulnerable and entirely dependent on her husband. I am not satisfied that she would be able to place herself beyond the reach of her in-laws and her uncle if she were to relocate within Jordan. I find that the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of Jordan.

11. As it was correctly noted by Member Murphy in 1931275 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 2662 (30 June 2022),[22] family violence is a complex pattern of violent and abusive behaviours that seek to isolate, degrade, exploit and control victims. Whilst family violence often takes place between intimate partners, it may also occur between immediate and extended families and other communal or extended kinship relationships of mutual obligation or support. It is also widely acknowledged that women are significantly more likely than men to experience family violence.[23] On the basis of the specific factual findings made in that case, which also dealt with claims of family violence, albeit in a different country, Member Murphy found that the nature of the violence directed at the applicant before her was gendered and that gender was the essential and significant reason for the harm.

    [22] 1931275 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 2662 (30 June 2022)

    [23] Ibid, citing Australian Government Attorney General’s Department, Australian Institute of Judicial Administration, University of Queensland & University of Melbourne National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book June 2021 at 3.1 Contents - National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book (aija.org.au).

12. The circumstances of the applicant before me are not dissimilar. I find that the nature of the harm that will be inflicted on the applicant by members of her extended family in Jordan and the violent, abusive and degrading behaviour that she has experienced from and will be subjected to by her in-laws, as well as her uncle, fall within the definition of family violence and the harm is gender-based.

13. As clearly illustrated in the country information and academic literature set out above, violence against women in Jordanian society can be understood in light of the social and cultural context of a patriarchal ideology and system, where violence against women is one way of maintaining power, control and dominance of husband over wife. Gender inequality can be partially attributed to the gender status.[24] These cultural attitudes present significant obstacles to addressing and preventing GBV in Jordan. Considering the evidence before me, I find that the essential and significant reason for the harm that will be directed at the applicant is her gender and her membership of the particular social group of women in Jordan.

    [24] Diab Al-Badayneh, Violence Against Women in Jordan, Journal of Family Violence vol 27(5), July 2012,

14. I have considered whether effective protection measures are available to the applicant in Jordan under s 5LA. The country information before me clearly indicates that, despite some progress over the years, the existing laws in Jordan do not provide adequate protection for victims of GBV. Jordan enacted the Protection from Domestic Violence Law in 2008, which aimed to prevent domestic violence, protect victims and hold perpetrators accountable. The law allows victims to obtain protective orders and requires the establishment of a specialised police force, the Family Protection Department (FPD), to handle domestic violence cases. However, the law has proved to be ineffective due to major gaps, including not criminalising all forms of domestic violence and not providing sufficient protection for women at risk of violence.[25] Many women are reluctant to report abuse due to social stigma, fear of retaliation and lack of trust in the legal system.[26]

    [25] Human Rights Watch, Submission to the CEDAW Committee of Jordan’s Periodic Report, 66th Session, January 2017, MENA Rights Group, Jordan Universal Periodic Review: Report submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Council in the context of the fourth cycle of the Universal Periodic Review, July 2023,

    [26] Human Rights Watch, Ibid.

15. In 2017, the Jordanian government enacted a bill on protection against domestic violence (the Family Protection Law, also known as the Domestic Violence Protection Act of 2017). However, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) Committee stated its concern that cases of GBV remain largely underreported and undocumented. This further results in low prosecution and conviction rates and lenient penalties imposed on perpetrators of GBV.[27] The Committee also noted the absence of ‘clear and well-defined provisions on prevention of violence, protection of victims and the prosecution and punishment of perpetrators in the Family Protection Act (2008).’[28] In 2022, the Economic & Social Council of Jordan and UN Women reported:

    More than four years have passed since the adoption of the Family Protection Law; however, the system for protecting those who report a crime and witnesses has not yet been enacted, leaving an urgent need to protect victims and witnesses to encourage them to come forward, as victims and those around them are often afraid to report for fear of retaliation.[29]

    [27] MENA Rights Group, Jordan Universal Periodic Review: Report submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Council in the context of the fourth cycle of the Universal Periodic Review, July 2023, Cited in MENA Rights Group, ibid.

    [29] General Framework for Gender Equality in Jordan, Economic & Social Council of Jordan and

16. Jordan’s penal code and personal status code remain discriminatory, including in their application, despite amendments in 2017 and 2019 respectively.[30] HRW has noted that ‘such discriminatory laws leave women exposed to violence.’[31] The three shelters and limited support services established by the Jordanian government are inadequate in scope and capacity, and many women, particularly in rural areas, have difficulty accessing them.[32] In addition, the FPD has faced challenges in responding effectively to GBV cases, including inadequate resources, training and coordination with other agencies. Women’s rights organisations have criticised the FPD for often prioritising reconciliation over protection and failing to hold perpetrators accountable.[33]

    [30] HRW, World Report 2023: Jordan – Even of 2022,

    [31] Ibid.

    [32] Huda Al Zoubi, Gender-Based Violence in Jordan: A Pandemic of its Own, The Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, 15 May 2020,

    [33] General Framework for Gender Equality in Jordan, Economic & Social Council of Jordan and

17. Based on the available evidence, I am not satisfied that effective protection measures are available to the applicant in Jordan by the State. I am not satisfied that the State or any party or organisation in Jordan is able to offer accessible and durable protection against the persecution feared by the applicant, consisting of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system. I also find that the applicant cannot take reasonable steps to modify her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in Jordan.

18. I find that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Jordan. I further find that the applicant has no presently existing right, however expressed, to enter and reside in any other country and s 36(3) therefore does not apply. I am satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).

    The applicant daughter

19. The applicant daughter is [Age] years old. I accept the evidence presented that her father’s family have made demands for her return to Jordan in order to force her into marrying a relative twice her age.

20. Child marriage in Jordan is a significant issue, with various social, economic and cultural factors contributing to its prevalence. Approximately 10% of girls in Jordan are married before the age of 18.[34] While child marriage rates vary across different regions in Jordan, the highest numbers have been reported in Amman, followed by Irbid and Zarqa.[35] Jordan’s personal status code sets the legal age of marriage for girls at 18 years, but allows judges to authorise the marriage of a minor who is at least 15 years of age.[36]

    [34] Jordan Department of Statistics and ICF, Jordan Population and Family Health Survey 2017–18, 2019, See also UN Women’s General Framework for Gender Equality in Jordan, above, reporting that the rate of child marriage was 11.8% in 2020, and 93,025 marriages of minors were registered in the 10-year period between 2011–2020.

    [35] A Qualitative Study on the Underlying Social Norms and Economic Causes that

    [36] Child Marriage in the Middle East and North Africa – Jordan Country Brief’, UNICEF in collaboration with the International Center for Research on Women (IRCW), 2017, >

    Sources consulted suggest that child marriage in Jordan is driven by deeply rooted gender inequalities and cultural traditions that view girls as having a lower status compared to boys and that marriage provides protection and stability for girls.[37] According to UNICEF, some Jordanian parents marry off their daughters because they are concerned that media, including the internet, will expose them to practices seen as undesirable that may ‘negatively impact their marriage prospects.’[38] UNICEF has also identified the influence of and interference by extended family members as a significant driving force behind child marriages in Jordan.[39] Importantly, the same report noted that girls who married under the age of 18 years ‘were more likely to suffer injuries as a result of violence from their husband.’[40]

    [37] Ibid.

    [38] A study on early marriage in Jordan 2014, UNICEF, 16 Jul 2014,

    [39] A Qualitative Study on the Underlying Social Norms and Economic Causes that

    [40] Ibid.

21. Despite several initiatives undertaken in Jordan to combat child marriage, involving government sponsored plans, international collaborations, and efforts by non‑governmental organisations, factors such as poverty, cultural approval and allocation of resources by the government remain impediments to overcoming early marriages.[41]

    [41] Rayya Al Muheisen, Despite downtrend, root causes of child marriage remain, say experts, 27 March 2023, and General Framework for Gender Equality in Jordan, Economic & Social Council of Jordan and

22. I find that there is a real chance that the applicant daughter would be forced into marriage by members of her extended family if she were to return to Jordan. I find that her parents would be unable to prevent this outcome. I find that this arrangement would expose the applicant daughter to physical and sexual violence, including child rape, and that this amounts to serious harm under s 5J(4)(b) of the Act. I find that, as a [Age]-year-old girl, the applicant daughter has no alternative but to reside with her family in Jordan. I am satisfied that the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of Jordan.

23. I am satisfied that the essential and significant reason for the applicant daughter’s fear of persecution is her membership of the particular social group of ‘female children under the age 18’ in Jordan.

24. I further find that effective protection measures are not available to the applicant daughter in Jordan under s 5LA. I am also satisfied that the applicant daughter could not take reasonable steps to modify her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution. I find that the applicant daughter has a well-founded fear of persecution in Jordan. I am satisfied that she has no presently existing right, however expressed, to enter and reside in any other country and s 36(3) does not apply. I am satisfied that the applicant daughter is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).

    The other applicants

1. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the first and the fourth named applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a).

2. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the other applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations for the purposes of s 36(2)(a) or (aa). However, the Tribunal is satisfied that they are members of the same family unit as the first named applicant for the purposes of s 36(2)(b)(i). As such, the fate of their application depends on the outcome of the first named applicant’s application. It follows that the other applicants will be entitled to a protection visa provided the criterion in s 36(2)(b)(ii) and the remaining criteria for the visa are met.

   DECISION

3. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the following directions:

   (i)that the first and the fourth named applicants satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act; and

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

   Shahyar Roushan
   Deputy President

   
   

   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.

   …

   
   

partner violence in Jordan, Social Science & Medicine, Vol 70(1), January 2010,

the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women), 2022,

the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women), 2022,

Lead to Child Marriage in Jordan, UNICEF, 2019, to Child Marriage in Jordan, UNICEF, 2019, United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women), 2022,