1711023 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant, who had previously claimed to be a stateless Faili Kurd from Iran, later admitted to providing false information about his identity and nationality. He stated he was an Iranian citizen and that his claim of statelessness was false, attributing this deception to fear of negatively impacting his visa application. The applicant also disposed of his identity documents.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically considering the impact of his provision of false information and the disposal of his identity documents on his claims. This also involved determining if he was entitled to complementary protection. The court was required to assess whether the applicant could obtain protection from an authority in Iran such that there would not be a real risk of him suffering significant harm, as stipulated by s 36(2B)(b) of the Act.

The court affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa. It found that the applicant had attempted to deceive the department regarding his actual name and identity. While the applicant eventually provided an Iranian Birth Certificate supporting his claim to be an Iranian citizen, the court considered that his earlier provision of false information and disposal of identity documents prevented him from meeting the requirements for a protection visa under s 91WA of the Act. The court applied the principle that the level of protection available must be sufficient to reduce the risk of significant harm to less than a "real risk," referencing *MIAC v MZYYL* [2012] FCAFC 147.