1701319 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an appeal by a visa applicant against the cancellation of his protection visa under section 109 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The cancellation was based on the applicant's return to Iran using a legitimate Iranian passport, which the delegate considered undermined his claims of fearing harm from Iranian authorities. The applicant had previously been granted a protection visa based on his fear of persecution as a supporter of the Green Movement and an atheist, and his alleged status as a person of interest to the Basij.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had established a real chance of suffering serious harm or a real risk of significant harm if returned to Iran, on the grounds of imputed political opinion, membership of a social group (atheists), or a combination of factors including his past involvement in protests, embrace of Western cultural characteristics, and status as a failed asylum seeker. The court also considered the credibility of the applicant's explanation for his return to Iran, specifically his mother's health condition, and whether his public and private lifestyles in Iran would expose him to harm.

The court found that the applicant's public lifestyle in Iran, which did not involve the public practice of his faith, would not lead him to face a real chance of serious harm. Similarly, concerns about a friend reporting his atheism were deemed speculative. Considering the totality of circumstances, including his past involvement in the Green Movement, his atheism, and his embrace of Western cultural traits, the court concluded that the chance of serious harm was remote. The court also found the applicant's explanation for returning to Iran due to his mother's health to be inconsistent and not indicative of a life-threatening condition.

Ultimately, the court found that the applicant's cumulative profile did not establish a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Iran, even when considering complementary protection grounds. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the cancellation of the protection visa.