1617953 (Refugee)

[2020] AATA 354

1617953 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 354 (31 January 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1617953

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Iran

MEMBER:Denis Dragovic

DATE:31 January 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 31 January 2020 at 9:24am

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Iran – religion – questioning of Islam in Iran – conversion to Christianity in Australia – low-level church membership and activity – country information – status of Christians and failed asylum seekers – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36, 65, 91, 499

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Iran, applied for the visa on 28 August 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa on 4 October 2016.

3. Having viewed a copy of the applicant’s Iranian passport I am satisfied that the applicant is a citizen of Iran.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 22 November 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Pastor [A]. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Persian and English languages. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

5. The applicant claims to fear return to Iran because of his claimed conversion to Christianity and his intent to continue to practice his faith and the risks of doing so by a government that he believes will harm him.

6. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   RELEVANT LAW

7. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, the applicant is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

   Refugee criterion

8. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).

9. Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:

   owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

10. Sections 91R and 91S of the Act qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the Regulations to a particular person.

11. There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.

12. Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s.91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve ‘serious harm’ to the applicant (s.91R(1)(b)), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s.91R(1)(c)). Examples of ‘serious harm’ are set out in s.91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.

13. Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors.

14. Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition - race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase ‘for reasons of’ serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s.91R(1)(a) of the Act.

15. Fourth, an applicant’s fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a ‘well-founded’ fear. This adds an objective requirement to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution under the Convention if they have genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted for a Convention stipulated reason. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.

16. In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. The expression ‘the protection of that country’ in the second limb of Article 1A(2) is concerned with external or diplomatic protection extended to citizens abroad. Internal protection is nevertheless relevant to the first limb of the definition, in particular to whether a fear is well-founded and whether the conduct giving rise to the fear is persecution.

17. Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.

    Complementary protection criterion

18. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’).

19. ‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s.36(2A): s.5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s.5(1) of the Act.

20. There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s.36(2B) of the Act.

    Mandatory considerations

21. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

22. The applicant claimed to have been born and raised in a Muslim family. At the hearing he said that he didn’t have a choice in his faith while he lived in Iran. He claimed that he always had problems with Islam and how it governs society. He thought that Islam belittles God by, for example, being taught to worship God only at certain times and by following certain rules. He believes that the way Islam requires the application of some rules is wrong. He stated that he started to question these issues as he wanted to have a better understanding of religion. So he started to study other religions while in high school. But the information he was able to obtain about other religions was general. For example, he learned that there was little difference between religions on how one should behave. Islam was preaching the same rules. But to his disappointment in Iranian Islamic society those things that Islam was preaching were not taking place. Rather than seeing those codes of conduct that Islam was dictating the applicant claimed that he would see the violent elements.

23. The applicant stated that while living in Iran he didn’t know people from different religions and that’s why he couldn’t learn more about other religions. His studies of other religions in Iran didn’t give him much knowledge.

24. He added that at one stage he even lost his belief in God as he considered all religions as being man-made.

25. Then when he moved to Australia to study he started to have relationships with Christian people at university and more broadly in society. He claimed that the first thing that caught his attention was the kindness that people have towards each other. He said that when he was in Iran walking on the streets looking someone straight in the eye would lead to the other person being offended. But when this happens in Australia the person smiled. This, he claimed, made him realise the difference in cultures.

26. While in Australia he claims to have started to learn about Christianity. He claims to have begun to attend church on an irregular basis for the purpose of getting some information. He also claims to have undertaken some internet searches and gradually became attracted to the faith.

27. The applicant described his parents as not being devoted Muslims. During school in Iran he would attend religious ceremonies but outside of school he didn’t do any religious activities as he was already questioning Islam. Similarly, at university he wasn’t involved in religious activities. And when he did, he claimed that he would practice the obligations without knowing why he was doing them. He claimed that when he would ask his family questions they would try their best to answer them, but their answers were not good enough for him.

28. I asked about how he felt distancing himself from his culture. He said that he had a problem with the violent culture that was present in Islam but at the same time was trying to cope with the people. He said that he didn’t want to compare others’ opinion with his own. He didn’t encounter any problems as no one was aware of his opinion apart from a few of his close friends who knew, but they thought it would be a short phase of his life. They saw him as a ‘lazy Muslim’.

29. I asked him what led to him wanting to find answers to questions about God to which he responded that nothing special happened.

30. I asked if he looked into alternative interpretations of Islam regarding the violence he saw. He said that of course there are different views about Islam. The reality is that what is happening in society is that the culture being practiced is not what is written in the books.

31. I asked about other societies that are less violent. He responded that his problem with Islam wasn’t just the violence. There are other aspects of the religion which he believes aren’t right to follow in today’s world such as slavery and that a man can have multiple wives. The applicant stated that the violence isn’t something that you can close your eyes to as the government is promoting the violence. They are imposing Islamic sharia law. 

32. He said that Islamic government is a part of Islam. It is an obligation that every Muslim has to abide by, though; he accepts that in different cultures Islam is present in different forms. I asked why then didn’t he look at embracing other forms or interpretations of Islam. He responded that he did. As he was studying the issue further and thinking about these matters he realised that he had a problem with the whole of Islam. For example in Islam religion and government are one. He didn’t understand why God would ask for man to worship him for just ten minutes.

33. In response, I put to him the hadith that recalls the Prophet Muhammad negotiating with Allah on the instruction to pray 50 times a day. The Prophet thought it too onerous an obligation upon his people. The outcome of the negotiations was that it was reduced to 5 times a day (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 345)[1]. I questioned the applicant on how deeply he had investigated his faith before turning his back on it if he hadn’t heard of this hadith which comes from the most trusted source? He said that he was taught that prayer was required to be done five times a day and in those books that he studied it was stated that it was always five times. His concern was not whether it should 5 or 50, but rather why shouldn’t he have a direct connection with God whenever he wants. Another of his concerns is the language in which one prays and why it should be only Arabic.

    [1] >

    The applicant stated that when he did the entry exams for university he claims that they investigated his level of devotion and how active he was in practising Islam. They asked the imam at the mosque in his neighbourhood to find out if he had been attending the mosque. Despite having good marks, because he never attended mosque, he lost the chance to get into his first preference university. They had a quota for people who went to mosques and so he couldn’t access a public university. Similarly, he explained that he applied for a government job and was asked about Islamic rules rather than being tested on his technical skills. He answered those questions well but when they did the background check he didn’t get the job.

34. At the hearing the applicant stated that in 2013, having arrived to Australia, the applicant claims to have started to regularly (once a month) attend church. Yet, in his application statement he claimed that he began to regularly attend church in August 2012. I asked him to explain the difference, he said that it was not the case that he started in 2012 and suggested that it could have been an issue with the interpretation. I accept that it was an issue with the interpretation and give the discrepancy no weight.

35. While in Australia the applicant was staying with his aunt who passed away in February 2014. He didn’t finish his course because he was the only child and had a close relationship with his parents and so with the passing of his aunt he was feeling emptiness. He claims that he tried to fill this hole through, in part, religion. 

36. The applicant stated that his parents are generally not worried about his application for protection and to remain in Australia, though they would like him to have some relationship with Islam.

37. The applicant claims that he converted to Christianity in June 2014 after he had a revelation reading the Bible. He applied for a protection visa following his claimed conversion in August 2014. He was baptised in February 2015 at Church [1]. I give this series of events some weight in favour of the applicant’s credibility for the reason that it is a plausible sequence of events.

38. The applicant has shown an interest in Christianity such that he has committed time to participate in services and community including that he was baptised. I accept that the applicant has converted to Christianity, has been baptised and participates in church activities as claimed. But to be able to undertake an assessment of the level of risk the applicant faces a clearer picture needs to be determined regarding how his commitment to Christianity shapes his thoughts and actions such that his actions would place him in a situation where he would face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm.

39. As such I asked the applicant a series of questions regarding his faith.

40. I asked if it matters to him what denomination he practices his faith in. He said that he is currently with Church [2]. He joined it because a friend of his talked to him about it a year ago. He told him that this church has a Persian service. This way he thought he could learn more about Jesus. Initially, he thought that there would be a problem joining [Church 2] but then he started attending and gained more information and understood that all of the denominations of Christianity are simply different parts of the same body. I asked what concerns he had when he joined [Church 2]. He said that he was concerned whether there would be a lot of differences but realised that the base is the same. According to his evidence, prior to being with [Church 2] he was attending [Church 1] and prior to that he was affiliated with [Church 3].

41. I asked how he believed a good Christian should behave. The applicant responded by saying with kindness. To love God with the body and heart and to attend to duties such as to attend church, Holy Communion and prayers.

42. I asked how his life had changed since he had become a Christian? The applicant responded that he is calmer and that all of his worries are gone. He said that when you follow Jesus Christ, the darkness doesn’t exist anymore. Jesus, according to the applicant, has said that he is the light and ‘if you follow me the darkness doesn’t exist for you’. The applicant stated that this calmness helps.

43. What type of activities have you been involved in with the church? The applicant described a common service including singing songs, restating the Apostle’s Creed, listening as parts of the Bible are read and then listening to the sermon. He said that he then talks with others in the congregation. He claims to also try to attend bible study classes. He claims that he tries to spread what he has learned to other people. He talks with others about the calmness he has and how the worrying and stress are gone. He claims to have talked about this with his boss and few other friends and roommates. I asked which religion they were and he answered that some were Muslims. He explained that he does this because of his following of Jesus.

1. I asked what type of Christian does he aspire to become. He said that he would like to learn more about Christianity. He said that he wants to use these learnings in his life. He claims that he wants to spread the word to other people and encourage other people to be kind. I asked why he doesn’t do it now, to which he responded that he does as much as he can. I asked what is limiting him. He said that he is still learning. He said that he sometimes talks about Christianity to other people but that he can’t articulate in English what he has gained from his learning and that is why he needs more time.

2. I asked him to tell me about the message of Christ. He responded that the most important messages are love God with your mind and heart and love your neighbour as you love yourself.

3. I asked him why he couldn’t do what he has described as his practices of Christianity in Iran. He responded that he would be able to attend churches but if it was discovered that he had converted to Christianity he would face very harsh consequences. Just attending church is not the only obligation of a Christian he added. A real Christian has to spread or preach Christianity. I put to him that he isn’t doing that at the moment. He responded that he does do it but it is limited.

4. The applicant claimed that he faces execution for his conversion based upon Sharia Law. I noted that he had submitted an article about Ms Rostampour (Tribunal file f.48) which states that she and a friend were sentenced to death in 2009 for promoting Christianity but due to international pressure they were released a year later and cleared of all charges. He said that her instance is just one instance that was able to garner international attention but it is possible that there are other instances that haven’t been the focus of international attention.

5. The applicant said that when the authorities sentence someone to execution for religion, the community may take matters into their own hands and kill the person.  He referenced a story about having a conversation with his friend about why Islam doesn’t allow people to leave Islam and join another religion. His friend told him that he doesn’t care and that if someone converts then his friend said that he would kill him.  

6. I put to him that there are a lot of Christian missionaries in Iran who see it as their mission to risk their life to spread the word of Christ in Iran. I asked him how he saw his mission differently. He said that if he wouldn’t be able to get his visa here, he would follow that also in Iran. He repeated that he has found his life in Jesus and he is ready to lose his life for this.

7. The applicant stated that Christianity is a path that he has found and will follow through to the end of his life.

8. A witness provided evidence to the tribunal. The witness claims to have known the applicant for close to one year. He is an Iranian pastor who last lived in Iran in 2012 and now preaches at the church to which the applicant attends. The witness said that he doesn’t judge those who attend. He said that the church is a holy place, the door is open to everyone and that they are very happy when people attend the church. The witness said that the applicant is a very calm person and that when he came to the church he established a good relationship with the congregation. The witness teaches members of the church that they have to be good hosts. The witness stated that since the first time the applicant attended he comes every week. He added that when he preaches he pays attention to the sermon and can tell from the faces if they are grasping the message of the Bible. He thinks that the applicant follows the sermons.

9. The witness stated that he is from a Muslim background. He said that he knows a lot of about Islam as his family were devoted Muslims and would teach Islam. He referenced the Koran saying that Muslims are encouraged to kill People of the Book. He said that ISIS did what they did based upon the Koran. The applicant claimed that in Iran since 2011 there are rules that people who convert should be killed, not through the court system, but simply being injected and killed. I asked him where he got such information from as I had not seen it. He said that the international community is not aware of it as the Iranian government is very skilled at keeping it under wraps. He noted how the Iranian government during these recent protests cut the internet to limit the distribution of information. He said that he got the information from people who live in Iran. I asked for sources but he said that they were provided to them only because they were trusted. The witness mentioned the circumstances of Bishop Heykar who was slaughtered at the airport upon return to Iran about twenty years ago. He mentioned another who was imprisoned for eleven years and upon release was slaughtered by the people.  

10. I place little weight on the witness’ claims of the Iranian government having rules to kill converts through lethal injections as he was unable to provide any supporting evidence and I have not found any references to such claims from various sources including in country missionary groups, scholars, human rights organisations and foreign government bodies.[2]

    [2] I searched Refworld, Google, CISNET and reviewed books on Iran in the AAT library including ‘Too Many to Jail: The Story of Iran’s New Christians’ by Mark Bradley.

11. I put to the witness that the past executions of Christians were all high profile preachers. Pentecostal pastor Hossein Sudmand was charged with apostasy and executed in 1990. Mehdi Dibaj was arrested and imprisoned for several years before he was sentenced to death in 1993, but after international pressure, he was freed in 1994, although the death sentenced was not lifted. He was murdered the next year. I put to him that the applicant has no aspiration to be a pastor or leader of the church. I asked him what information he had that average believers would suffer persecution. The response was that the applicant would not be able to follow Christianity. He wouldn’t be able to worship his god. He would get arrested. How would he find a church without being detected by the intelligence apparatus the witness said? He said that the applicant in Australia attends Holy Communion once a month. What would he be able to do in Iran if he can’t attend such ceremonies? How could he follow his belief?

    Discussion of Country Information

12. I asked the witness how the several hundred thousand Muslim converts in Iran survived. The witness said that even when people apply for work they are asked their religion and Christians can’t deny their faith. He referenced the Bible: ‘but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.’ (Matthew 10:33) The witness said that anyone who denies Christ is not a Christian. He further referenced Matthew 10:37 and discussed Jesus’ discussion of loving him above all else.

13. I read to the applicant country information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade country report on Iran from 7 June 2018:

    3.31 The secrecy surrounding the house churches makes it impossible to provide an exact number of unrecognised Christians in Iran. Some international Christian advocacy groups estimate that between 800,000 and one million people worship in underground churches. While these numbers likely overstate considerably the true number, Iran nevertheless has a significant and growing unrecognised Christian population.

    The applicant responded that they are all at risk he responded.

14. I put to him further country information:

    3.34 International observers advise that Iranians who convert to Christianity outside the country are unlikely to face adverse attention from authorities upon return to Iran, provided they have not previously come to the attention of authorities for political activities conducted in Iran, maintain a low profile and do not engage in proselytization or political activities within the country.

    In response he said that he thinks that for a person to hide his belief or opinion would not be fair. He said, Jesus said whoever denies me does not belong to me. What would the chance be that no one would ask me about my faith? I put to him the apparent contradiction of his application of his faith in that he was adhering strongly to Matthew 10:33 and the need not to deny Jesus but earlier he had stated that he didn’t proselytise because it was hard for him due to his limited knowledge and language barriers and yet I put to him Jesus said to go out and make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19-20).

15. The applicant responded that he acts on his abilities. I put to him that people go to [Suburb] market and preach to Persians, why wouldn’t he. He said that he would do that if he reached that level of confidence and knowledge. I put to him that those are ifs and I’m looking at the situation now. He said that he is worried that he will disappear as an accident.

16. I put to him other country information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade country information report of 7 June 2018:

    3.35 DFAT assesses that small, self-contained house church congregations that maintain a low profile and do not seek to recruit new members are unlikely to attract adverse attention from authorities beyond monitoring and, possibly, low-level harassment.

    The applicant said that the house churches are small comprising 3-6 people who are members of a family and there is a risk that the government would ambush these places.

17. I put to the applicant information from the World Values Survey which found that nearly a quarter of Iranians never attend religious services and another 23% only attend on holy days suggesting that his lack of adherence to Islam would not be noticed. He responded that it would be possible. But if you don’t practice Islam, they would see you as a lazy Muslim. But when you convert to another religion you deny Islam.

18. The applicant also provided some country information including an advocacy group’s ranking of Iran as #9 in the world for the persecution of Christians. Another was about the earlier discussed Ms Rostampour. A third was a Guardian article discussing a report prepared by the UK Foreign Office on the persecution of Christians in the Middle East. The report is purported to state that the persecution at times amounts to genocide, it notes that the overwhelming majority of persecuted religious believers are Christian. Relevant to Iran the latter article states:

    ·The report says: “The rise of hate speech against Christians in state media and by religious leaders, especially in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, has compromised the safety of Christians and created social intolerance.”

    ·“Arrest, detention and imprisonment are common in Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. For example in the course of six days before Christmas 2018, 114 Christians were arrested in Iran with court cases left pending as a form of intimidation. Though most cases in Iran involve converts, indigenous Christians such as Pastor Victor, an Assyrian Christian, with his wife, Shamiram Issavi, have also been targeted and imprisoned.”

    ·It also highlights how states, and state-sponsored social media, sometimes incite hatred and publish propaganda against Christians, especially in Iran, Iraq and Turkey.

    The final article the applicant submitted described a meeting in Washington, DC, involving human rights experts, religious freedom advocates, and politicians who gathered to speak out about Iran's escalating war against non-Muslims.

19. In submissions to the Department the applicant provided country information including an Amnesty International appeal for support for Ms Rostampour and her friend dated 2009 and a Refugee Review Tribunal from 2008. Both of these country information reports are very dated relative to the changed circumstances over the past ten years as such I place little weight on the information contained.

20. In a post hearing submission the applicant provided a news article dated 3 July 2019 about an Iranian woman who had sought asylum in Germany but was refused and deported back to Iran. Upon arrival authorities immediately arrested her.[3] As the details of this case are unknown it is difficult to place any weight on the evidence that a returnee from Germany was arrested. She was denied protection but we don’t know upon what basis she had claimed it and what other aspects of the case were relevant. It may be, for example, that she was excluded for reasons of character grounds. For this reason I place little weight on this information.

    [3] The article the applicant provided was truncated in its original submission due to a paywall. I found a fuller article here: – Christian conversion

21. I have accepted that the applicant has converted to Christianity. In considering whether he faces a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm I now turn my mind to consider how the applicant would practice his faith and what actions are being driven by his Christianity.

22. The applicant has admitted that he does not have aspirations to become a pastor or a church leader. He could be described as an average congregant within the social outward practices context of Christianity. He attends church, participates in the liturgy and when he can joins Bible study groups. Would that put him at risk? DFAT assesses that small, self-contained house church congregations that maintain a low profile and do not seek to recruit new members are unlikely to attract adverse attention from authorities beyond monitoring and, possibly, low-level harassment. I find that a small house church would be sufficient to fulfil the applicant’s spiritual needs.

23. Considering that the country information states that those found to be participating in such house churches face monitoring and low level harassment I find that the applicant’s journey to finding one would similarly potentially lead to low level harassment.

24. I find that low level harassment and monitoring of the applicant does not amount to serious harm or significant harm and as such I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm.

25. The witness raised the issue of denying Christ in circumstances such as applying for a job and having to state that one is a Muslim. The applicant stated that he would not want to deny Jesus. Whether it is applying for a job, attending a hospital or seeking to renew identity documents the applicant may be required to state his religion. In such circumstances I find that the applicant would be identified by authorities. In such circumstances DFAT reports that ‘Iranians who convert to Christianity outside the country are unlikely to face adverse attention from authorities upon return to Iran, provided they…maintain a low profile and do not engage in proselytization or political activities within the country.’[4]

    [4] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, ‘Country Information Report: Iran’, 7 June 2018 at [3.34]

26. The applicant disagreed with this assessment claiming that while the government did not care what was done abroad they expected returnees to conform to the norms of society once back to Iran.

27. I find that this country information aligns with the earlier country information that suggests that there is some tolerance for converts as long as they maintain a low profile. I find that acknowledging on official documents that the applicant is Christian would not amount to rising above a low profile.

28. Based upon the applicant’s practice of his faith in Australia I find that free from fear he would continue to maintain a low profile. He is not a Christian leader or an advocate. The applicant has claimed that he proselytises and would want to do so even more in the future, but I doubt these claims. His examples of proselytising, including discussing how he is now calmer to his friends and work colleagues, was driven by reasons other than a sense of obligation based upon the words of Jesus. He mentioned that only some of the people he spoke to were non-Christian. Identifying non-Christians to proselytise to would be a fundamental first step. To group them together as he had when he identified those he spoke to about his conversion suggests to me that he wasn’t seeking to fulfil his obligations as a Christian. Nor did his evidence suggest that he has undertaken any form of structured proselytising such that would suggest he is committed to it. Instead, his discussions with friends and work colleagues, I find, arise from his interest to share aspects of his life. These are two very different motivations. One is driven and justified by faith; the other is a social interaction. With his language skills he would be able to play a larger role in his church or go to ethnic communities that speak Farsi. He has not. While I acknowledge the applicant’s claims that he doesn’t have the skills and knowledge at this stage I note that as he has been a Christian since 2014, looking into the reasonably foreseeable future, I find that his situation will not change. For this reason I find that the applicant, were he free from fear and in Iran, would not into the reasonably foreseeable future proselytise.

29. I find that the applicant faces a remote chance of serious or significant harm for reasons of religion and/or imputed political opinion (I note that the Iranian government has treated some religious crimes as crimes of national security.[5])  

    [5] United States Department of State, 2016 Report on International Religious Freedom - Iran, 15 August 2017, available at: [accessed 28 January 2020]

    Consideration - Having sought asylum

30. The Iranian Foreign Minister during his March 2016 visit to Australia stated that Iran would only accept failed asylum seekers from Australia who returned voluntarily.[6] On 19 March 2018 Iran and Australia signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Consular Matters that includes an agreement by Iran to facilitate the return of Iranians who arrived after this date and who have no legal right to stay in Australia.

    [6] ‘Iran would welcome back asylum seekers “with pride”, Iranian Foreign Minister says’, 2016, ABC News, 16 March, < accessed 25 January 2019.

31. I asked the applicant if he would voluntarily return to Iran. He responded that he would but fears that the Iranian government would harm him. He thought that they would ask him what visa he had in Australia. This would make it clear that he remained in Australia for the reason of seeking asylum. In addition, the members of his church that he attends are aware that he has sought asylum.

32. I put to the applicant country information about the risks of having sought asylum and being returned to Iran:

    5.25 According to international observers, Iranian authorities pay little attention to failed asylum seekers on their return to Iran. Authorities accept that many will seek to live and work overseas for economic reasons. International observers report that Iranian authorities have little interest in prosecuting failed asylum seekers for activities conducted outside Iran, including in relation to protection claims. This includes posting social media comments critical of the government – heavy internet filtering means most Iranians will never see them – converting to Christianity, or engaging in LGBTI activities.

33. The applicant responded that the authors may have missed a part of the reality that happens in Iran. He said that when someone who has sought asylum goes back to Iran the authorities may not care about what happened in Australia, but from then on you shouldn’t do these activities. So when someone has converted from one religion to another and has changed his lifestyle, that person can’t say that they won’t continue to do the same things. Maybe at the beginning they wouldn’t harass that person but later that person would be on their radar. They would just follow him to make sure that he has reconverted to Islam. If not, they will easily make a case against him.

1. In considering the entirety of the country information provided and the applicant’s responses at the hearing including his evidence through statutory declarations I find that the applicant was not a person of interest and remains not a person of interest to the Iranian authorities. Based upon country information the Iranian authorities will pay little attention to him. Was he to return voluntarily as noted above he would not be questioned at the airport. He will not be asked whether he has converted. No one will surveil him after he departs from the airport. As such I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm for reasons of being a failed asylum seeker returning to Iran.

   Cumulative

2. I have also considered the circumstances the applicant faces cumulatively as a Christian convert who has sought asylum. In considering this I find that the only instance where the two may overlap is at the applicant’s point of entry and specifically if he is stopped. Considering that the applicant is willing to return voluntarily there is no reason to suspect that the applicant would be stopped or interviewed. As noted by country information referenced above, ‘Iranian authorities pay little attention to failed asylum seekers on their return to Iran.’ I have also considered circumstances whether the low level harassment the applicant may face as a Christian would be amplified if it was found that he was also a failed asylum seeker and find that it would not be such that it rises to a level of a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm. For this reason I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm in the reasonably foreseeable future or a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant’s removal to Iran.

3. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).

4. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

5. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).

   DECISION

6. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

   Denis Dragovic
   Senior Member