1703994 (Refugee)

1703994 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 6812 (17 December 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1703994
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Iran
MEMBER:Rodger Shanahan
DATE:17 December 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.
Statement made on 17 December 2019 at 9:18am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Iran – particular social group – woman – religion – conversion to Christianity – fear of physical assault – primary applicant returned to Iran – tattoos – court documents – facilitating illegal entry – employment – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994, 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

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 applicants Protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicants who claim to be citizens of Iran, applied for the visas on 15 May 2013 and the delegate refused to grant the visas on 16 February 2017.
The third- and fourth-named applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 13 November 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Farsi (Persian) and English languages.
The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.
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.
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).
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.
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’).
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines and any country information assessment 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.
CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Protection Visa Application
The applicant’s father was a wealthy [businessman] in Tabriz. His father was religious and followed [a religious leader], and would travel to [a named country] to participate in activities with [that leader]. In [year] his father was to fly to [a named city] to take part in religious activities. He was stopped at the airport, detained and executed two days later and all of his business assets confiscated. Many of his father’s friends and relatives were also detained, including his [relative] who was executed a year later. His family was then taunted by the regime over the phone.
The applicant was traumatised (he was [age]) and stopped going to school and the family was in a financial bind. They moved to Tehran about two years later. He and his brothers left school and began working as labourers. He did two years of military service and married in [year]. He travelled to and from [Country 1] and in 1994 he got temporary residence [and] moved there with his wife and mother-in-law. He was in [Country 1] for three years while his brothers stayed in Iran. He continued to [work] through [Country 1] but used someone else’s name for customs because of the problems regarding his family.
His brothers were politically active and detained several times; [Brother A] was in prison 5 or 6 times and [Brother B] twice and threatened with execution because of publication of a book. He paid bribes to get them released – he was not politically active himself.
His wife was photographed dancing at a party at their house in Tehran in 2006 and was to be [punished] but he paid a bribe to avoid this. In 2001 there were demonstrations at Tehran University that his brothers were involved in and he went to watch. The regime attacked and beat people (he got [specified] injuries), arrested some and took photos of others and attended their houses after.
A month later some Basij attended their work but he was able to escape to the north of Tehran and stayed in his father-in-law’s holiday house. They left for [Country 1] after a month but on return his passport was taken and he was told he had to go to the passport office if he wanted it back. He had a contact there who told him what dates he could leave as the computers were undergoing updates and it was possible to leave Iran – his contact changed the [details] of his and his families’ names.
He stayed in Iran a few years then went to [Country 1] and [Country 2] in 2004 for business. His wife and daughter were stopped on the street for nt wearing the hijab properly and his daughter had a [prohibited item] at school and was suspended – he paid a bribe to solve these issues. His wife and daughter began to rail against the strictures of the Islamic Republic.
They went to [Country 2] for [an event] and friends warned him not to go back to Iran because of problems there so they decided to go to [Country 3], rented a place and when things had quietened in Iran he went back and arranged funds to take to [Country 3] and bought a place in [Country 3]. He set up a business with a woman he met ([Ms A]) importing goods from [Country 2] to [Country 3] – he was just a financial partner.
He heard from other Iranians that [Ms A’s] partner [Mr A] was [a] spy. [Ms A] and [Mr A] broke up and left the company to the applicant to manage – he also did some [business] with Iranians in [Country 3]. One day his wife was in a taxi and the driver defended the Iranian regime, they got into an argument and the driver hit the applicant’s daughter. The police became involved and they had to apologise.
His brother [Brother B] was a [specified occupation] and was arrested in Iran in October 2010; his brother [Brother A] visited the applicant and they were both arrested on [a date in] January 2011. [Mr A] visited them in jail and told them they had to return to Iran to resolve issues. [Brother A] was released on condition he return to directly to Iran, where he was arrested.
The applicant was told he had bene arrested on the ‘police suspicion law’ and that he could be detained in [Country 3] but that the problems were in Iran. He was detained for [number] days and released after paying USD [amount]. He had no lawyer and never went to court.
He returned to Iran to look after [Brother A] in March 2011 and arranged lawyers for his brothers and spoke to contacts. He was warned to keep his distance. He had a friend with a high post in [a named] prison and he arranged for the applicant to visit his brothers. His brother [Brother B] had been tortured. The second visit he became so angry he was detained and made to sign an undertaking that had several blank pages.
He sought help from an MP who lived in their building, and two weeks later he received a summons via his [relative] telling him to report to the Revolutionary Court at [a location], and a notice that his business had been closed. He contacted a friend about the summons who told him he was in trouble and to leave. They left for [Country 3] and arrived [in] February 2013. [Later in] February his [relative] received a notice at the shop that said he had been charged with insulting the regime and its officials and ‘other crimes’. He was given 20 days to appeal.
In [Country 3] he believed his phone was tapped and mysterious people called and asked to see him. A friend told him he had been reported to the embassy and advised him to leave [Country 3]. He had a valid visa for Australia and left, leaving everything behind.
AAT Hearing
Only the third- and fourth-named applicants attended the hearing. When asked where the first two applicants were, they said that the first-named applicant had returned to Iran in August 2018 and the second-named applicant in February 2019. The adviser was told that a letter had been sent prior to hearing to him regarding information that the first-named applicant had left and he had not replied because he wasn’t sure what to write.
The third-named applicant said she would take the lead and will be referred to as ‘the applicant’ unless referring to the fourth-named applicant. They were advised that the only claims to protection that had been advanced belonged to those of their father but he had left the country and if he was now voluntarily in Iran as was their mother this raised serious questions about the validity of their original claim.
They claimed that they had their own claims separate to those of their parents. She claimed that her parents had gone willingly – her father had disappeared and her mother went to find him. She claimed that she relied on her father’s claim and as well she would be executed for changing her religion to Christianity and that she was a woman and would not be allowed to work or maintain herself as she was an [occupation 1].
The fourth-named claimed that he was also Christian and had tattoos and the authorities would throw acid on his face. His father’s background would also place him in danger. He would be beaten or worse because of his tattoos. He also could not read or write Farsi so would not be able to be employed and become homeless.
Regarding their father’s claim, the applicant claimed that the whole family would be targeted. Nobody had ever gotten away with what her grandfather had done. He was against the government and was executed and weren’t told much to keep them safe. She had been in Iran in 2018 for a short time and had been there for only a couple of years (she stated 10 years), from the age of [number] until she was [age range]. Then they were in [Country 3] for around seven years and then came to Australia.
If they returned they would be disappeared like her parents. She was asked why her father returned of he had claimed protection and then appealed the adverse decision and still returned. She said that he mostly communicated with their family members and one who he contacted told him via email that he needed to return. She asked the adviser if he had this he said he didn’t. She was told she would be given time after to provide it.
She was asked why he didn’t seek permission from the government to leave if he felt he had to return given his visa status – she claimed he left within a day or two of receiving the email. She was asked why he didn’t speak to them and she said she didn’t know. Asked why her mother didn’t engage with the government, she claimed that her mother left quickly. It was put to her that she left six months later which wasn’t a hurry and she said she didn’t know why she left.
She was told about s 424AA and it was put to her that her father had submitted legal documents concerning a court case that were checked and found to have been fraudulent. He was advised of this, his claim was refused and he then returned to Iran and this raised questions as to whether his claim was ever truthful. She said that she didn’t know about this and the fourth-named applicant said that their father wasn’t the best person ever.
She was also told about s 424AA and an allegation made against them that they had helped facilitate the illegal entry of some Iranians from [Country 3] to Australia and then taken some of their money and possessions. There was another claim that his father had not been truthful on his application and had never been arrested or detained in Iran and that he had been arrested in [Country 3] on drug charges. She said this [Country 3] drug claims had been proven false and that anyone who was against them could make false allegations – everyone had people who liked and disliked them.
She claimed that her father had been in trouble since he was young because of his father’s execution. Asked if he travelled outside Iran much she claimed he did but only a little. It was put to her under s 424AA that since 2011 he had left and returned to Iran ten times which was more than ‘a few’. For someone who it was claimed was in trouble in Iran he travelled ten times in less than two years and had returned to Iran which was not in line with his alleged profile.
She claimed he didn’t travel for holidays and had contacts but she didn’t have his contacts and the Iranian intelligence could go after them in a way they couldn’t with him. It was also put to her that he had told DIBP that he was going to be a [part] owner of a [commercial] project in [Tabriz]. This was again quite a different profile than that which she was claiming. She claimed that having money and being safe were two different things and she didn’t have any money. She also claimed those people making false allegations here in Australia would do the same to them in Iran.
Asked about her own claims, she claimed that she wasn’t really into religion but she met a friend who spoke about religion about six months ago. She knew [name] as he was her boyfriend – he was Christian and his Christian name was [name]. Six months ago she was very stressed and wanted something to calm her and whenever she talked to [Pastor A], the pastor. She was asked the name of the church and didn’t know – the adviser began to write the name of it but was told to stop doing this. The name of the church was [Church 1].
She was asked about her spiritual journey and asked what that meant. It was put to her that the tribunal had to examine her claim to have converted; she had been denied a visa previously and there had been no mention of a religious attraction and yet this had come very ate in the piece. And she appears to have gone straight to a Pentecostalism church which may form the basis of a protection claim. Asked if she had done any research or explored other religions, she claimed that her boyfriend had introduced her and that everybody knew her there and they could make allegations against them.
The fourth-named applicant said that they had sat through a lot of classes with [Pastor A]. It was put to him that the tribunal was interested in what other religions or types of Christian faiths there were. What qualified religious people they had spoken to. They had not spoken to anybody other than [Pastor A] – he said he knew there were other types of Christian faiths but couldn’t explain what those differences were.
It was put to them that there didn’t appear to be much of a search and, under s 424AA it was put to them that [Pastor A] had by his own admission baptised [a large number of] Iranians and only refused one person – this didn’t indicate much of a faith journey. They hadn’t looked at Judaism, Buddhism or the like. She was asked what she knew of them and she said Buddhists worshipped statues and it was put to her that Christians also worshipped statues – she said that nobody had talked to the about it. They were told of s 91R(3) and it was put to them that they had shown no interest in religion and gravitated to [Church 1] and this occurred after their mother had left.
They were also told about country information that indicated Iranian authorities were not interested in failed asylum seekers who had converted so even if they knew they wouldn’t care. She claimed that they had a much better economic situation in Iran than here. She again said that people would tell them. The fourth-named applicant said that they would be hurt because his father had more enemies than friends and they would seek to harm the children.
She claimed she couldn’t work as [an occupation 1]. She finished high school in [Country 3] and came here to work for [Business 1] where she was trained in being a service adviser. This was in the workshop. Asked if she was [an occupation 1] she said that she was but hadn’t been [qualified]. She had been training for two years in this and had previously worked in sales for [Business 2] for two years. She was with [Business 1] as a service adviser, a position that involves [specified duties].
Asked if she had any post-school qualifications, she said she hadn’t. She said she would have less chance to work as a woman in Iran. It was put to her that she could go into sales in Iran but she claimed that she wasn’t good at it. Asked about getting re-qualifying in something else, given her father was wealthy. She claimed she couldn’t find her father and was providing for herself and she had no contacts in Iran. It was put to her that she said her father knew people, and owned a [specified] per cent stake in a Tabriz [commercial project].
The fourth-named applicant said the connections were [occupations] and the like and they couldn’t help them with anything. It was put to the third-named applicant that she was bilingual fluent and had overseas sales experience so should be well placed for a job. She claimed that she wouldn’t be safe there. She was advised this was just about her employability – the Tribunal understood the unemployment rate was high but she had advantages. Asked if her gender was a claim other than in relation to her employment, she said that there were too many females there.
They had some family members in Iran – her paternal side were in [another country] but her maternal ones needed help. An uncle was in prison and an aunt was divorced and trying to survive – they had grandparents also.
The fourth-named applicant about his tattoos and he said not to worry about it. He was told that he had made the claim and then said that Islamists said people were cursed who had tattoos. Asked why he chose tattoos if he knew they were bad in Iran. He said he didn’t think he would be returning. He had them in [month] when he turned [age] – he was asked why he did this given he didn’t have an Australian passport. It was put to him that the member had seen tattooed men traveling freely on the Tehran metro – the applicant said that after the metro they would be beaten with baseball bats and glass out in their face when the cameras weren’t there. It had happened to his uncle who had been beaten in a police van. Asked if he had evidence for that to support his claim such as writings, he said it was there about people having acid thrown in their face for having tattoos. He was asked to provide evidence of this post-hearing.

He was asked about Farsi and he said that he spoke Farsi but couldn’t read or write. He didn’t complete high school and had been doing [specified work]. Asked if he couldn’t do this in Iran – he spoke the language but could learn to read and write. He claimed that his problem wouldn’t be a job but they would be homeless. This was because of their grandfather being killed and everyone going after their father. It was put to him that there was doubt about those claims, including fraudulent documents and perhaps his grandfather wasn’t killed or if he was, that there was no interest in their father.
They claimed if it was okay to go back they would or they would live in [Country 1]. It was put to them that the Tribunal had to concern itself with the truthfulness of their entire claim, including their father’s actions. Neither of their parents had sought leave from the Australian government to get permission to return to Iran, and it is reasonable to believe that someone claiming protection from the Iranian authorities would seek to explain why they were going to return.
The fourth-named applicant said that if someone texted him to return because of trouble in Iran he would do so as his father did. It was put to him that his mother didn’t seek approval. The third-named applicant claimed that she had advised the Tribunal that her father had left – asked about her mother she claimed that she hadn’t talked to the Department about her. The adviser said that the first-named applicant attracted some people around him and that certain people would seek to make accusations against him. One person could have made all these claims – he couldn’t explain the false documents and it was normal to travel to Iran for business. He claimed that in 2011 the applicant wasn’t a focus of the Iranian authorities. He was given a week to provide a post-hearing submission.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Under s.65(1) a visa may be granted only if the decision maker is satisfied that the prescribed criteria for the visa have been satisfied. So far as is relevant to this matter, s.36(2) of the Act provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia. This means that a protection visa may only be granted if the applicant is in Australia.
Movement records indicated that the first-named (primary) applicant was not in Australia. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising that its records showed that he is not in Australia and therefore could not be granted a protection visa and inviting the applicant to comment on the information. No response was received.
The Tribunal is satisfied from the circumstances set out above that the applicant is not in Australia. Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy the requirements of s.36(2) and cannot be granted a protection visa.
Having reached this conclusion, it is not necessary to consider the applicant's substantive case for the grant of the visa. At the hearing, the Tribunal was advised by the third- and fourth-named applicants that the second-named applicant had also returned to Iran and was no longer in Australia. Therefore, the second-named applicant also does not satisfy the requirements of s.36(2) and cannot be granted a protection visa.
The third- and fourth-named applicants did present themselves to the Tribunal and said that they had their own claims separate to that of the primary applicant that they sought to advance. The applicants arrived in Australia with their parents (the first two named applicants) in 2012. The Tribunal accepts that the applicants are Iranian nationals and their applications will be assessed as such. The applicants are [an age] year-old woman and her [age] year-old brother.
The findings will be written as common for both applicants, but with individual sections for claims that relate solely to one of the claimants. In this case the third-named applicant has claimed that she would not be able to work in Iran because she was a woman, while the fourth-named applicant claimed that he would have acid thrown on his face because he had a tattoo and he would be unemployable because he could not read or write Farsi.
Their common claims were that they would be targeted because of their father’s history and because they had converted to Christianity.
In considering an applicant’s account, undue weight should not be placed on some degree of confusion or omission to conclude that a person is not telling the truth. Nor can significant inconsistencies or embellishments be lightly dismissed. The Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any and all claims made by an applicant(s).
I found the applicants’ evidence regarding their claims to lack credibility. For reasons set out below I did not find the applicants to be reliable, credible or truthful witnesses, and find that they fabricated the claims in order to be granted a protection visa.
Christian conversion
I do not accept that the applicants have, or would be imputed with having converted to Christianity. I note that the desire to become Christian only emerged well after they learnt of the adverse decision on their protection visa application. The third-named applicant claimed that a boyfriend had introduced her to the church about six months ago. They had evidenced no attempt to research various religions nor had they spoken to anybody religiously qualified in any other faith.
Whilst the Tribunal acknowledges there is no single path to religious conversion, it is reasonable to think that while searching for a sense of spirituality some evidence of a spiritual ‘journey’ may be in evidence. Not only was there no evidence of a journey, there was no apparent knowledge of what different forms of Christianity there were. I note that the fourth-named applicant claimed he knew there were different types of Christian faiths but was unable to articulate a single example of what those differences are – this doesn’t indicate much by the way of a researched approach to their faith journey.
I also note that the applicants went to [Church 1] whose pastor has baptised [a large number of] Iranians by his own admission and only refused to baptise one in all that time. This is not evidence of a church that takes much time to examine the motivations of those who seek baptism. Given the applicants’ apparent interest in Christianity has come about after their protection visa has been rejected previously and the lack of knowledge of other religions that would be indicative of some type of process of religious discernment or search for spiritual fulfilment, I am not satisfied that this recent attendance at [Church 1] indicates a true conversion to Christianity.
I also do not accept that everybody now knows her at [Church 1] and that allegations would be made against them. Not only does this rely on her oral evidence which I have found lacks credibility, country information also indicates that Iranian authorities have little interest in prosecuting failed asylum seekers for activities conducted outside Iran, including converting to Christianity.[1]
Impact of father’s claim
[1] DFAT Country Information Report – Iran, 7 June 2018, p 49..
I do not accept that the applicants would be targeted because their grandfather had been executed by the regime and their father’s family were politically active and had been arrested or that their had a summons against him. Both the father and later the mother voluntarily returned to Iran, despite having previously claimed that their lives were in danger if they were sent back to Iran.
I do not accept that the father had to leave at short notice and the mother had to try and find him months later. If there were such a pressing need for either to return it is reasonable to assume that they would have informed the Australian government and sought permission to return given the exigent circumstances. They made no contact with the Australian government seeking permission to return to Iran before they left.
I also note that the first-named applicant had submitted a court summons and court verdict in support of his claim that were both found to be counterfeit by the Document Examination Unit of DIBP. The third-named applicant claimed that she was not aware of this.
Inability to work
I do not accept that the third-named applicant would be unable to work if she returned to Iran. She described herself as [an occupation 1] however I do not accept this to be the case. She claimed variously that she worked in the workshop, that she worked in sales for [Business 2] and that she was with [Business 1] as a service adviser. When asked what this entailed she claimed that it required her to [perform specified] tasks.
Whilst I accept that the unemployment rate in Iran is high, I also note that the third-named applicant is bilingual fluent and has sales experience in Australia. She is young and her father allegedly owns a [specified] per cent stake in a Tabriz [commercial project]. This would indicate that her father has some significant financial assets and it is reasonable to believe that he would be able to assist his daughter gain a job through his connections with the [specified] sector given her experience in sales. I do not accept that their father’s connections could not help with anything as the fourth-named applicant claimed, given this relies solely on his oral evidence which I have found lacks credibility.
The fourth-named applicant initially claimed that he would not be able to be employed because he could not read or write Farsi but later said he was not concerned about being unable to access a job in Iran. I note that he is employed in Australia in jobs commensurate with his education level (he claims he did not complete high school), and it is reasonable to believe that he could find work commensurate with his qualifications in Iran.
I am also satisfied that the fourth-named applicant could learn to read and write Farsi once he returned to Iran, and that he would be able to be supported by his parents who appear to be financially secure. He would not be homeless given the support his parents would be able to give him.
Tattoos
I do not accept that there is a real chance the applicant would suffer serious harm because he has tattoos. I can find no independent country information to support such a claim and the member’s own experience of traveling on public transport in Iran with tattooed men apparent and unremarkable amongst the crowd supports my finding, as does general country information.[2]
[2] DFAT Country Information Report – Iran, 7 June 2018, p 34
The applicant claimed that he would be beaten or have acid thrown in his face because of his tattoos and that police beat people with baseball bats and put glass in their face. He was asked for country information to support these claims post-hearing, however none was provided.
Other Issues
I do not accept that the third-named applicant would face serious harm simply for being a woman. She was given the opportunity to make such a claim but she only offered that there were too many women in Iran. It is difficult to make out what was meant given the vagueness of such a claim but I also note that her parents had made a claim that the third-named applicant was stopped on the street for not wearing her hijab properly and was later suspended from school for having a [prohibited item].
I do not however accept that these incidents, even if they did occur, would represent serious harm for the purposes of s 5J(6). The third-named applicant is well past school age so concerns about being suspended from school are no longer relevant. And, while she will be required to wear a head covering in public and it is possible that she may in the future be stopped for wearing it ‘inappropriately’ and in some instances taken to a police station until an acceptable hijab is procured and then allowed to leave without sanction.[3] While this practice is discriminatory I do not accept that it represents a real chance of serious harm to the individual
[3] DFAT Country Information Report – Iran, 7 June 2018, p 35
Although they made no direct claim to fear serious harm as a failed asylum seeker on return to Iran, I have included it for completeness’ sake. To begin with I am not satisfied that the applicants will be involuntarily returned to Iran either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. 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.[4]
[4] >
Given that the Iranian government has indicated that it will not accept involuntary returnees, the only way that the applicants will return to Iran in the reasonably foreseeable future is as a voluntary returnee. If they do so I do not accept that the applicants will be harmed simply for being failed asylum seekers. Country information indicates that the Iranian authorities pay little attention to failed asylum seekers on their return to Iran and have little interest in prosecuting them.[5]
[5] DFAT Country Information Report – Iran, 7 June 2018, p 49
As the applicants haven’t raised any other claims to fear persecution and, having had regard to all the evidence, and the applicants’ claims both singularly and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds that the applicants do not have a well-founded fear of persecution for any Convention reason either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Complementary Protection
Because I do not accept that the applicants have genuinely converted to Christianity, would seek to practise or promote Christianity in Iran, or that the applicants will be imputed with being a Christian through their church attendance, targeted because of their father’s family’s anti-regime profile or that the third-named applicant would be unable to get a job or be persecuted for being a woman or being forced to wear a hijab, or the fourth-named applicant would be harmed for having tattoos or be unable to get a job, I am not satisfied that there are any substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm.
As a consequence I also do not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Iran, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm on the basis of these claims as outlined in the complementary protection criterion in s.36(2)(aa).
CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS
For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore the applicants do not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa. It follows that they are also unable to satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(b) or (c). As they do not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, they cannot be granted the visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.
Rodger Shanahan
Member

[2019] AATA 6812

17 December 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice