DQJ20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

The applicant, DQJ20, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which found that she did not satisfy the primary criterion for protection under s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), nor that there was a real risk of significant harm giving rise to a complementary protection obligation upon removal to Iraq under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs was the respondent.

The applicant raised four grounds of review. These included allegations that the Tribunal erred by failing to consider the possibility of being wrong, by drawing an unreasonable link between her polygamous relationship and her claims of activism, by failing to accept evidence of threats to her parents due to a lack of corroboration, and by failing to consider the real chance of persecution in Dhi Qar province and the assessment of complementary protection.

Egan J found no merit in the first ground of review, concluding that the Tribunal had thoroughly examined all relevant evidence. The Court noted that the Tribunal had found a lack of corroborative material, that the applicant's claimed activism was not of a significant profile, and that she had not been physically harmed in Iraq. Furthermore, the Tribunal had recorded the applicant's own admissions that she was not a speaker at a conference but had answered a question, that her family in Iraq had received no further threats, and that she had not been an activist for women's rights or attended rallies in Australia. The Court also addressed the second ground, finding no logical link between polygamy and women's rights activism, and the third ground, noting the Tribunal's reliance on a lack of evidence for threats. The fourth ground concerning the assessment of persecution in Dhi Qar and complementary protection was also considered.

The application for review was dismissed.