2319900 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of a visa applicant who claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution in Jordan. The applicant alleged that he had spoken out against the Jordanian government and the King, participated in protests concerning corruption and mismanagement of foreign aid, and was subsequently arrested, detained, and tortured by intelligence services. He believed he was reported by a friend with connections to the intelligence services. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion or membership of a particular social group, and whether there was a real chance he would suffer serious harm upon return to Jordan. Alternatively, the Tribunal had to assess if the applicant met the complementary protection criteria under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, which requires substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal.

The Tribunal applied the principles outlined in the Migration Act 1958, including the definitions of "refugee" and "well-founded fear of persecution" as set out in sections 5H and 5J. It also had regard to Ministerial Direction No. 84 and associated guidelines concerning refugee and complementary protection. The applicant's claims of speaking out against the government, participating in protests, and subsequent arrest, detention, and torture were central to the assessment of his fear of persecution. The Tribunal considered the applicant's allegations of being accused of terrorism and working against the state, and the offer to be recruited into the intelligence services to annul his blacklist status.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act. The decision directed that the applicant satisfies this criterion.