2304670 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse a protection visa. The applicant, a woman of Palestinian ethnicity now holding Jordanian nationality, claimed she faced persecution in Jordan due to her ethnicity and gender-based violence from her husband's traditional, rural family and a conservative, violent uncle. She alleged harassment, insults, threats, abuse, and pressure on her husband to divorce her and on their teenage daughter to marry her cousin. The applicant also claimed her children were subjected to harm and discrimination.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) (the Act) as a refugee, or under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act (the complementary protection criterion) due to a real risk of significant harm if removed from Australia. The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of the applicant's claims and consider relevant country information and guidelines.

The Tribunal found the applicant's oral evidence, supported by her husband and children, to be credible and reliable, differing from the delegate's assessment which had dismissed her claims as mere assertions due to a perceived lack of substantiating material. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant, despite holding Jordanian nationality, was consistently treated as a Palestinian and faced discrimination. It also accepted her account of relentless interference, harassment, and abuse from her in-laws, particularly in her husband's absence, and the pressure placed on her husband which led to two divorces, though they later reconciled. The Tribunal also accepted her fear of her uncle, who had previously abused her and opposed her travel to Australia, believing her to be an apostate.

The Tribunal concluded that the delegate's decision should be remitted for reconsideration. This was based on the Tribunal's finding that the applicant's claims were credible and that she faced a real risk of significant harm in Jordan, both due to her ethnicity and gender, and the specific threats to her daughter. The delegate had not been satisfied that the applicant met the criteria for protection under either section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Act.