Rahaf Mohammed is very lucky. Not to be a refugee, but to have been granted residence by Canada so quickly. In my nearly 30 years of working with refugees in various capacities, I have never heard of anyone being granted residence as quickly. The speed of the process is significant, and also the way she conducted her case on social media.
Canada, like Australia, has a long history of being generous and welcoming for refugees. The Canadian process can be quick, as seen for Mohammed. This speed would be unlikely for someone who has applied for resettlement from Australia.
The process for assessment of refugee cases offshore by Australia is quite technical. There are five types of visas available in Australia — the subclasses 200-204. The most common ones are the 200 — refugee, 202 —special humanitarian and 204 —women at risk category. The subclass 201 is entitled 'in country special humanitarian' and the 203 is 'emergency rescue'. The 201 category is really only for those who worked for the Australian Defence Forces in Afghanistan or Iraq such as interpreters. The 203 is extremely rare and I have only ever heard of one case. Only a very small number (maybe less than ten) would be granted in a year.
The forms are long and detailed and the offshore form 842 is 36 pages in length, including five pages of notes and guidance for completion. I am not aware of the comparative Canadian forms, or how long they might be.
The processing times vary considerably. Some cases with UNHCR referral can be done in months, but I am aware of cases where refugees have been waiting three or more years for a decision on their application to Australia. Issues such as type of case, whether the case is seen as a priority or not, maybe gender and other factors can play into this. These and other factors put a lie to the 'waiting patiently in an orderly queue' myth commonly trotted out about refugees arriving onshore and then making a claim. Whereas Canada can issue a refugee visa in an emergency within 24-48 hours if necessary. I am not aware of anything like that in Australia.
Requests for an update from Australian officials on the case or information about what is happening are routinely ignored, or met with Yes Minister style responses that basically say 'The government is still assessing your case.' Not much detail there.
The other very interesting point form this case was how Mohammed effectively conducted her case publicly through social media. My experience is it is better not to conduct a case in a public manner, either through the media or through social media. By all means use whatever 'quiet' lobbying you can, but do not do it publicly. However Mohammed did it differently, and more importantly she was successful.
"Mohammed was lucky — maybe the next refugee who tries this will not be so lucky."
It is common now for Immigration case officers to discuss an applicant's social media posts, what they have liked or shared, and why. I have seen cases refused in part because of negative interpretations of social media posts on Facebook for example.
Also there is a section in the Migration Act (s5J(6)) which states that if someone does something in Australia which could be seen as self-serving or trying to improve their case, then a case officer can ignore it. This is one reason why I think avoiding social media is a good idea for asylum applicants. That provision does not apply for offshore cases, but it is easier to refuse a case from offshore than onshore so it may influence an officer one way or the other. You are unlikely to ever know.
Mohammed's case on the known facts was one of the easier for refugee applicants. This was because of her gender, age and nationality. Discrimination against women and harsh treatment of anyone perceived to have abandoned the state religion of Wahhabi Islam are very well documented. Most cases are not this straightforward, in my experience. On its face, such a case is an easy one to approve.
A country that is prepared to kill one of its own citizens inside a consulate, dispose of the remains and then deny everything is unlikely to be gentle with a young woman who is seen to have challenged social and religious norms so strongly and publicly. The Instagram picture of the glass of red wine on the flight had political significance for the case as well.
Maybe Mohammed's case and strategic use of social media will not be a one-off for refugee cases. While long processing times have long been a point of criticism for those dealing with Australian officials, I think it is unlikely that Australia would expedite a process just because someone was using social media. However a strategic or even tactical use of social media may not be totally out of the question. It all depends on the case, and the individual. As I said, Mohammed was lucky — maybe the next refugee who tries this will not be so lucky.
Kerry Murphy is an immigration and refugee lawyer and part-time lecturer on immigration and refugee law at ACU.