2305331 (Refugee)

The applicant, a widowed Shia Muslim woman and retired teacher from Baghdad, Iraq, sought a protection visa. She claimed to face persecution due to her refusal to comply with demands from both Shiite and Sunni militia groups to convert her secular private school to teach their respective religious curricula. These groups had allegedly threatened her, extorted money, and were responsible for the deaths of her husband and son, and the severe beating of another son. The applicant had previously lived in Australia on a visitor visa, departed, and returned, leading to the current review of a decision concerning her protection visa application.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically considering the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This involved assessing whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her removal from Australia to Iraq, she would suffer significant harm. The court also had to consider the meaning of "significant harm" as defined in the Act and the circumstances under which a person would not be taken to face a real risk of such harm.

The court reasoned that the applicant's detailed account of threats, extortion, and violence from both Shiite and Sunni militia groups, coupled with the lack of effective protection from Iraqi authorities, established a well-founded fear of significant harm. The applicant's refusal to compromise her secular educational principles by teaching sectarian curricula, her status as a woman without male protection, and the documented history of violence against her family by these groups were central to this assessment. The court found that the applicant's claims were credible and that the risks she faced in Iraq were real and substantial, particularly given the pervasive influence of militia groups and the inability of the state to offer protection.

The Federal Court remitted the decision under review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for reconsideration. This was to allow the Tribunal to properly assess the applicant's claims under the complementary protection criterion, taking into account all the evidence presented, including the applicant's statutory declaration and the court's findings on the credibility and substance of her fear of persecution.