1702305 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of Iran. The applicant claimed to have developed a strong aversion to Islam from a young age, which intensified after reading critical texts and led to her expulsion from her family home. She subsequently converted to Christianity in Iran, a fact she concealed due to the potential consequences. The dispute before the court was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either under the refugee convention or complementary protection.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of her imputed political opinion or membership of a particular social group, and alternatively, whether she would face a real risk of suffering significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia. The court was required to assess the applicant's credibility, considering inconsistencies in her evidence, and to apply relevant policy guidelines and country information in determining the risk she would face upon return to Iran.

The court affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. While acknowledging her conversion to Christianity and the potential risks associated with such a conversion in Iran, the court noted inconsistencies in her evidence, including her travel with her family for Islamic observances and her ability to obtain new passports and leave the country. The court also considered that her baptism occurred after her protection visa application was refused. The court applied the principles of Ministerial Direction No. 84, considering relevant policy guidelines and country information, and ultimately concluded that the applicant had not met the threshold for protection.