1712068 (Refugee)

1712068 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 223 (25 January 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1712068
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Iran
MEMBER:Denis Dragovic
DATE:25 January 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Statement made on 25 January 2019 at 4:21pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Iran – Federal Court remittal – religion – Christian convert – family connection to the Baha-i-faith – Bahai relative executed – Green movement supporter – lack of evidence – status as a failed asylum seeker – westernised Iranian – Christian convert – mental condition – PTSD – adequate health care – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5H, 5J, 5K-5LA, 36, 65, 91R, 91S, 424AA, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

CASES
CLS15 v Federal Circuit Court of Australia [2017] FCA 577
MILGEA v Che Guang Xiang Unreported, Federal Court of Australia, Jenkinson, Spender and Lee JJ, 12 August 1994
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 applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Iran, applied for the visa on 5 August 2013 and the delegate refused to grant the visa on 4 December 2014. A differently constituted Tribunal heard the applicant’s appeal and decided the case against the applicant on 12 August 2016. The applicant appealed to the Federal Circuit Court. The application was remitted by the consent of the Department which identified jurisdictional error for failing to consider an integer of the applicant’s claim, namely, that he feared harm from the Iranian authorities as a failed asylum seeker.
Based upon the submission of the applicant’s Iranian military service card and driver’s licence I accept that the applicant is a citizen of Iran.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 30 August and 13 September 2018 and 22 January 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. 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 hearings.
RELEVANT LAW
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
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.
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.
There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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’).
‘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.
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.
Section 499 Ministerial Direction
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.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Summary of claims: The applicant claims that he and his family were discriminated against in Iran due to their association with, and assistance provided to, the applicant’s [relative] who was executed for being a follower of the Baha’i faith. He claims that he was subjected to abuse while serving in the military because he openly supported Mousavi and the Green Movement and due to his Baha’i association. He claims that he has been caught breaking strict morality codes including for transporting alcohol, not complying with Islamic dress codes, and walking with a girlfriend in public. He claims that he was wrongly accused in Iran of [a crime]. For these reasons he claims that he has an adverse profile and the Basij have a file on him. He claims that he and his mother were beaten by the authorities during Iranian New Year festivities. He claims that while living in Australia he has converted to the Christian faith and has attended four to five events in support of refugees and one protest opposing the Iranian government. He claims to drink beer and wine. The applicant claims to have a well-founded fear of harm on the basis of his Christian beliefs and being an apostate and infidel, his family connection to the Baha’i faith, returning to Iran as a failed asylum seeker, being a returnee from Australia, being a Westernised Iranian, being a suspected spy for Western governments, being against the Iranian moral codes and anti-Sharia law, being a supporter of Mousavi and the Green Movement, and because he has an adverse political profile with the Iranian government.
The Department refused the applicant a protection visa on 4 December 2014. The delegate accepted that he and his family were beaten by the Basij while celebrating the Iranian New Year, but the delegate considered the attack to be random. The delegate accepted that the applicant was targeted by authorities due to his attire and wrongly accused [for committing a crime] as well as being stopped by the Basij at a checkpoint while in the possession of alcohol resulting in a fine and confiscation of his motorbike, and detained for being in public with a non-family member of the opposite sex resulting in a fine. His claim that he would continue to be persecuted for these reasons was found not to be well-founded. The delegate considered that he does not face a higher risk of being stopped by the Basij than any other person, and if he were found in breach of morality laws, the consequences would not amount to persecution. Noting the alcohol was for a friend and the applicant was stopped at a checkpoint rather than being targeted, it was found that the alcohol ban is a law of general application and as long as the applicant obeys there is not a real chance he will be punished by lashing or the death penalty. The delegate concluded he has not been involved in political activities and his claim of being a Mousavi supporter punished after being found with Green Movement paraphernalia whilst serving at [a particular location] to be contrived. It was not accepted that as a conscript and a [occupation] in the Sepah he would be privy to high-level confidential information or that he would be persecuted for giving confidential information to a foreign country or for seeking refuge in a Western country. The delegate concluded that the applicant departed on his own Iranian passport, his claim to have paid a bribe at the airport should be dismissed because there was no logical reason for it and found that he was not questioned at the airport. The delegate also found that he is not of adverse interest to the authorities, and he will not be harmed for departing illegally.
The previously constituted Tribunal’s decision affirmed the Departmental delegate’s decision on 12 August 2016. The then member did not accept the applicant’s evidence that his family were targeted by the authorities because of their association with the Baha’i faith. The member did not accept the applicant’s claims of having been detained and tortured while in the military. The member accepted that he was a supporter of the Green Movement but found that he did not come to the attention of the authorities. The member accepted that the applicant and his mother were beaten during New Year’s Eve celebrations but found that they were not targeted. The member dismissed the applicant’s claims of having being caught with alcohol for the reason that country information detailed the circumstances faced by alcohol merchants. The claims of being detained for being found with his girlfriend were accepted by the member as country information indicates low-level harassment occurs. The applicant at the time did not claim to be Christian but rather an apostate and the member considered this but found that he would not face a well-founded fear of persecution for this reason. The member found that the applicant would not face a real chance of serious harm for being a failed asylum seeker.
Memory and mental health of the applicant
The representative acknowledged that at times the applicant has been confused about dates or issues have been misunderstood, such as his attendance at church or how many times his brother has been in prison. The Tribunal considered a report submitted by the applicant from [Dr A] (Tribunal folder f.59) in relation to how trauma is processed, especially among asylum seekers.
The report states:
[T]rauma victims often have great difficulty in recalling events and incidents from their past, even if they are not related to the trauma. They easily confuse dates and sequences of events. They are also extremely forgetful of everyday things (short term memory disturbance). It is often extremely difficult to obtain a consistent narrative of past events, as memories are often incomplete or incorrect.
The applicant’s representative submitted that there is a high probability that the trauma the applicant experienced has affected his autobiographical recall of events and given the applicant’s symptoms, the psychologist’s report and observations of friends, the applicant has not manufactured his claims.
The representative submitted considerable information from various reports on the impact of torture and trauma upon memory which I have read and taken into consideration.
The applicant also submitted a psychologist’s assessment of his mental health. The report by [Dr B], states that the applicant presented with symptoms of extreme anxiety and severe depression and loneliness associated with complex post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The psychologist states that the applicant ‘seemed to develop PTSD symptoms whilst living in Iran. His family was marginalised and persecuted as a religious minority’.
A second report by [Dr B] was submitted prior to the third hearing. The report stated that during the prior hearings the applicant had reported to him that he had become ‘confused at times and was literally unable to think.’ Furthermore, he reported to [Dr B] that he was suicidal.
At the third hearing we discussed this report and the inference that the applicant may not have had a full opportunity to express himself. I asked him whether he remembered when he was confused in the past hearings. The applicant explained that he had been confused because he hadn’t been in touch with his family for such a long time. The representative stated that the applicant hadn’t raised with her that he hadn’t had a fair hearing. Instead, she said that he had expressed to her that he was anxious and worried and wasn’t sure that he had answered the questions clearly. The representative stated that she believed he had a fair hearing. She stated that they had been through the hearing notes and nothing was raised. I asked the applicant having gone through the hearing notes in an environment that was calmer than in a Tribunal whether he had realised that there were any issues that needed to be revisited. He confirmed that he was satisfied that in the past two hearings he had an opportunity to say everything that he wanted to say.
I reiterated at the third hearing that he should express to me any need he has to reduce the level of stress he is experiencing.
I accept that the applicant is facing high levels of anxiety, distress and stress and that they are symptoms associated with PTSD. I give little weight to the psychologist’s inferences that they are related to living in Iran and past persecution as these are self-reported and received in an environment that is not purpose built or conducive to fact finding.
I accept the report of [Dr A] as provided and have taken into my considerations at each stage of the decision-making process its medical findings including referring to the Tribunal’s Vulnerability Guidelines in assessing how to manage hearings.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Evidence and findings of fact
The applicant, who arrived in Australia as an Irregular Maritime Arrival in April 2013, was born in Shiraz, is of Persian ethnicity, and moved to Tehran in 2004 when he was [age] years old. He has [several siblings]. The applicant’s sister and [one] brother live in Shiraz, while his other brothers and parents live in Tehran. The applicant’s brother and sister in Shiraz stayed in Shiraz because they were married at that stage.
The applicant claimed that his sister in Shiraz is a [occupation] and his brother in Shiraz is a [occupation]. The applicant’s father and brothers in Tehran work in a [business] that belongs to his father’s friend. The applicant finished his education up to Year 9 and then worked with his brothers and father in their [business].
The applicant has been in a relationship with an Australian citizen [since] May 2014 and the couple live together in [Australia].
I accept the above biographical information as fact and find that the applicant is a citizen of Iran. I also find that the applicant is unable to seek protection from a third country.
Applicant’s military service

According to the statutory declaration accompanying his protection visa application, the applicant completed his compulsory army service working with the Sepah in Tehran and his main duty was [details deleted]. In support of his claim the applicant provided a photograph displaying items labelled as his army ID cards, his military discharge card, a statement about days left in army service, and his application for the army. Also submitted was a letter from the Deputy Director of Supreme Leader Security certifying his membership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Force. He had claimed at the hearing and through submissions that he had been originally posted to [a particular location].
At the Tribunal hearing the applicant stated that he commenced his military service in 2008 and served through to 2010. He said that standard service is 21 months, but he did three months extra because he delayed beginning his military service as he was working. The applicant acknowledged that there is no reason that he will have to do military service again was he to return to Iran.
I read to him from his statutory declaration dated 1 August 2013 in which he claimed to have completed seven months of additional military service for reasons of an incident in [a particular location] (Department file f.19). I put to him that there is a difference in evidence as he had claimed at the hearing that he deferred for reasons of his work and as a result served an extra three months. In response, the applicant claimed that he told the migration agent at that time that he had completed three months extra service, but that the agent told him that’s nothing and changed it to seven. Then the applicant corrected himself and said that the agent didn’t say anything, but just changed it. I read to him that the statutory declaration is signed by an interpreter confirming that the content of the applicant’s claims were read to the applicant. In response he claimed nobody read the statement to him in Persian.
The applicant had submitted for the first time to the previously constituted Tribunal a document showing his military service with the words, ‘The holder has an extra 90 days of extra service’.
I find the applicant’s evolving and at times contradictory testimony concerning. It is either that he was penalised for an incident by having to serve an additional seven months or that he chose to defer the service and served an additional three months. These are not inconsistencies that arise from a loss of memory, they are not a confusion of dates or sequence of events, possibly explained by his mental health, rather they are starkly different claims.
On the evidence available I find that the applicant has completed his military service and that he completed an additional three months for reasons of having deferred the beginning of his service. I do not accept that an incident occurred such that his service was extended by seven months. His contradictory evidence leads me to question his overall credibility.
[Relative]’s association with the Baha’i faith and/or that his [relative] and his family were being accused by the authorities of following the Baha’i faith and being anti-regime
The applicant claims to fear harm because his [relative] was a Baha’i. The representative’s pre-hearing submission presented information about the treatment of the Baha’i which is claimed to demonstrate that those who associate with the Baha’i are discriminated against, are considered guilty by association and can be threatened with legal action for associating with the Baha’i. It stated that harm suffered by the applicant’s family in Shiraz, where posters were put in the windows of their business instructing people not to deal with them, is consistent with the treatment of the Baha’i.
At the hearing the applicant was asked about the identity of his [relative] and how his [relative] became Baha’i. The applicant claimed that his [relative], specifically [a relative of his father], was socialising with Baha’is. His family later realised that his [relative] had converted to the Baha’i faith. He said that his [relative] was arrested and then imprisoned for six years. The applicant’s father tried to have him released from prison, doing paperwork and pursuing ways to get him out, however his [relative] was executed in 2001.
In support of these claims the applicant provided a witness statement by his father, brother and three of his father’s friends, advising that his [relative] was sentenced to death because of his involvement with the Baha’i faith and their family has been targeted as a result. The syntax of the witness statement (Tribunal f.51) is as if the applicant had written it. For example it refers to ‘my mother’s’ or ‘older brother’ and ‘father’. The applicant in his statutory declaration and the representative acknowledged this issue and explained it by saying the signatories had written it but it was ‘unfortunately’ prepared by them in that manner.
The applicant declared in his pre-hearing submission that he asked his Baha’i friends in Australia if he could get evidence of his [relative]’s execution, but was told this comes from [another country] and as a non-Baha’i he probably cannot access it. He has not provided any evidence of attempts to obtain such information.
The applicant claimed that following the execution of his [relative] his father was targeted by the government and imputed as Baha’i. He said that in Shiraz the government put notices on their shop that said that ‘these people are dirty’, ‘they deal with Baha’is’. He stated that the shop was confiscated by the government. Because of this his father decided that they would move to Tehran.
The applicant claimed that in 2002 his older brother first moved to Tehran and it took him two years to establish a relationship with an employer and find a place to live. His brother couldn’t own a shop in Tehran but had to work for other people. The applicant explained that the two years that it took his brother to find accommodation and work in Tehran was because he didn’t have any contacts in Tehran. He said that his family couldn’t simply move to a city where they didn’t know anybody. He said that the shop where his brother was working in 2002 is different to the one where his brothers and father are working now, which is a partnership between the applicant’s father and a friend. The applicant claimed that his father can’t have a business in his name as his father has been labelled a Baha’i.
In later discussions the applicant clarified that the business did not belong to his family as his family were all labourers for someone else. I asked the applicant whether his father was a partner in the business or whether he was a worker, as he had claimed both. The applicant claimed that it is his wish that his father was in a partnership. He said that his brother worked in Tehran for a few years and then his brother’s friend helped get them a house and a job. I asked again about the inconsistency and the applicant said that it wasn’t a partnership that his father had, he was just a worker. The applicant suggested that maybe he said it wrong, or it was misinterpreted, and he noted that it was ten years ago.
The applicant claimed that because his family was being targeted by the government they couldn’t take his mother to hospital, she wouldn’t be accepted. He explained that his mother had [a medical condition], ultimately she had [an operation], and a friend of his father’s had paid a lot of money for the operation. I asked where the applicant’s mother’s operation was performed. The applicant responded that his mother received treatment at a hospital in Shiraz that specialises in [her medical condition]. He didn’t provide a name, explaining that he doesn’t remember the name because he was young at the time, however there is only one [of that type of] hospital in Shiraz. The applicant stated that his mother had the illness before his [relative]’s execution, but after moving to Tehran it became more severe and needed surgery. Two years after moving to Tehran she had the operation in the Shiraz hospital.
The applicant claimed that his father had been arrested and that the authorities created a file. He said that it was after the execution of his [relative] that the authorities created a file and arrested his father many times. He said that his father was bailed out of prison after his mother and brother cobbled together some money.
The applicant said that subsequently he learned while he was in Australia that his father was detained again for three months and his family paid a bribe. He said that this arrest was last year, but he doesn’t know when, he only found out about it two weeks ago. I asked whether he directly enquired with his family about when it happened. He replied that he didn’t because the phone is tapped. I put to him that it appeared strange that he was happy to talk about bribery of officials over the phone but he was not okay to talk about when his father was imprisoned by the government. The applicant responded that his brother calls using a friend’s skype. He also claimed that he didn’t tell his representative about this after he’d learned of it because he forgot to tell her (there is no mention of his father’s arrest in his pre-hearing submission dated one week prior to the hearing). He said that his father was arrested so many times he forgot to provide this information.
The applicant claimed in his pre-hearing submission that he was ill-treated in the army including being placed in solitary confinement for days without food, the longest period being seven days, verbally and physically abused, made to clean the toilets when he asked to visit his family, and he was not allowed to enter the kitchen for meals with the others. He claimed that this occurred because of his family’s link to the Baha’i faith along with other reasons including because he did not pray like a Muslim should, because he missed meetings involving guest speakers, and because of his support for Mousavi. The applicant also claims his brother faced the exact same problems in the army and that his brother was sworn at and called a Baha’i and a dirty person. I accept that he was mistreated while serving his military service in the way described because such claims are supported by country information. I do not accept that it was for the reasons given by the applicant as is discussed further below.
I asked the applicant how he could be posted to [a] particularly sensitive location, if his [relative] had been executed for being associated with the Baha’i, a group which the government distrusts and persecutes.[1] He responded that conscripts are randomly assigned to postings. He claimed that no one checked and only later did they find out. After they found out they kept targeting him and punishing him, for example when he asked to visit his family, they didn’t let him go and another time he was denied food for seven days.
[1] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report: Iran, 7 June 2018 at [3.36]–[3.38].
In his first statutory declaration and through the Departmental interview the applicant did not mention that his [relative] was executed, that his family was persecuted, had their shop confiscated and felt forced to move to Tehran because of the imputed religious association. He did not mention that his father had been arrested for this reason or that his ill treatment while performing military service was in part because of this.
The applicant claimed that he didn’t mention any of this when he first applied for protection because when he came to Australia he had anxiety, stress and depression before pulling himself together and he was also scared of telling the truth.
While I acknowledge the applicant may have PTSD and that it is not uncommon for memory to be affected, these are not omissions of detail or inconsistent chronologies but rather the central reason for the course that his life took. That the letter submitted in support of his claim is written as if he had written it adds further doubt in my mind. In addition, as noted above no evidence was provided of his [relative]’s execution or any evidence of any attempt to obtain it through organisations representing the Baha’i.
As for his claim that he was scared of telling the truth, I put to him that he wasn’t scared to mention the name of an Iranian general to the Australian government through his submissions, but conversely he was claiming to have been scared to mention the truth about his [relative]’s faith. I asked him if he knew that Australia did not persecute people for their religion to which he responded that he did and that it was one reason why he came to Australia. I put to him that it is difficult for me to believe his claim that he feared the Australian government would relay the information to Iran considering that he sought protection in Australia. If one considered the Australian government would do such a thing I suspect that one would have sought protection elsewhere. The applicant said he did what he did to keep his family safe, he was scared and that when he came here he didn’t know Australia very well. He said that he grew up in a country where brothers don’t have mercy on brothers.
In his pre-hearing submission the applicant stated that he lived in a country where you cannot trust anyone, he had a corrupt perception of government, and he was very afraid that if he disclosed the truth the Australian government would pass the information to the Iranian government and put his family at risk. By the time of the AAT interview he had realised the Australian government was different and his friends had encouraged him to tell his story in depth.
Noting that the witness statement written by his father and others is suspiciously worded, not having provided any evidence of his [relative]’s death nor having sought it beyond talking to his friends, information of his father’s claimed arrest not being provided to his representative because he ‘forgot’ and not having presented any information relating to his [relative] and the subsequent persecution at the Departmental stage along with being posted to [a particular location] despite the animosity and suspicion directed against Baha’is leads me to find that the applicant’s [relative] was not Baha’i and was not executed.
As noted earlier regarding his mental health challenges, these are not inconsistencies or omissions but fundamental problems some of which are not dependent upon the applicant’s memory such as the witness statements and questions relating to his posting to [a particular location] and how that conflicts with the governments distrust of the Baha’i.
As such I find that all the claims that evolved from that claim to also not be true including that the motivation for their move to Tehran was because of persecution, that he was harassed while serving in the military for being Baha’i and that his father had been arrested subsequently. Furthermore this adds to questions of the applicant’s overall credibility.
Matters relating to his brother
At the hearing the applicant claimed that his brother was arrested by the police in early 2018 and asked regarding the applicant’s whereabouts.
The applicant explained that his brother wanted to avoid going to military service because of the incidents that happened to the applicant. I asked if his brother managed to avoid military service for six years and the applicant replied that he had. He said that his brother worked in [a] shop and wasn’t working for a registered business. He added that the business wasn’t his family’s as his family were all labourers for someone else. The applicant said that his brother was working legally and he would limit his travel outside to avoid being caught.
The applicant claimed that his brother is still in detention. He said that his father must know why his brother is being detained, but they can’t do anything about it. I sought clarification as to whether the applicant had talked to his father about why his brother was in prison and the applicant responded no. The applicant claimed that he hasn’t talked to anyone in his family for three months.
When he was asked by the Australian government to provide documents about his paternal [relative]’s Baha’i faith he contacted a friend and asked him to go to talk to his family, but his family said that contact should be avoided as everyone is facing hardship including that the authorities keep coming and arresting people.
I asked if it was possible that his brother was arrested because he avoided military service for six years. The applicant responded no because his brother had served extra time for avoiding the service. I put to him that there could be a criminal provision that carries a penalty. He said that the authorities told his brother when they arrested him that he was a dirty Baha’i and that was why he was arrested.
I put to the applicant that earlier he had told me that his father must know about his brother’s detention and questioned why his father hadn’t told him about it. The applicant elaborated that it was one month ago that he learned from his mother about his brother. I put to him that in earlier evidence he said that he hadn’t talked to any of his family for three months. He then said that he must have misunderstood. I asked what he misunderstood and he said that he was stressed and he didn’t even know where he was. We took a 10-minute break at this point of the hearing. The applicant did not object to resuming the hearing after the break.
After the resumption of the hearing I put to the applicant that his statutory declaration dated 21 August 2018 stated that his brother had been imprisoned for around three months, while at the hearing he was saying that he is still in prison. The applicant responded that the three months goes back to when his brother had just completed the military service and that he was released and then detained again more recently. I put to him that he hadn’t mentioned that his brother had been arrested twice and that it was becoming hard for me to believe his story. He responded that I wasn’t familiar with his culture and that his brother was arrested numerous times, but he didn’t know that it was that important to mention those details.
At the conclusion of the second hearing I read to the applicant from his statutory declaration dated 21 August 2018 (Tribunal f.54 at [28]) in which he stated ‘My brother just told me a few weeks ago that he was questioned about me.’ I put to the applicant that earlier he had said that his brother was in prison and is still in prison. I asked how it was possible that this brother had told him that he was questioned about him. The applicant responded that his brother was released for a while and then he was arrested again. He said that to his knowledge his brother had been arrested three times. I put to him that earlier in his oral evidence he said that it was only twice. I note that this was in response to inconsistencies that had arisen in his earlier evidence that suggested that his brother had only been arrested once. He responded that he knew his brother was arrested twice, but his brother is arrested every once in a while, and he didn’t know that it was so important for the Tribunal. The applicant’s representative submitted that the applicant had said earlier that his brother had been arrested numerous times. I reviewed the audio in detail and found that the applicant had clearly explained that a few months following his brother’s military service ending (2017) he had been arrested and then was released and arrested again and remained in prison since that time. There was no mention of numerous times. Any mention that may have been made at another point of the hearing could extend to a period prior to his military service but the period in question is after his brother’s military service.
The applicant’s inconsistency in providing evidence of the number of times his brother was detained, how long for and who communicated with him is concerning. I was not convinced by his explanations regarding his repeated changes to the evidence. I don’t believe that the applicant wouldn’t have enquired with his father about the reasons for his brother’s detention and I question his explanations for saying that he hadn’t spoken with his family in the last three months but then saying that he meant that he had misunderstood and meant that he had spoken to his mother but not other family members. I acknowledge that the applicant has faced mental health challenges and that this could contribute to some of these inconsistencies but taken as a whole I find that the applicant’s claims of his brother having been detained are not true. I find that his overall credibility is further questioned. Nevertheless, due to the stress the applicant claimed to have encountered during this period of questioning I give these inconsistencies less weight.
Support of Mir-Hossein Mousavi (“the Green Movement”)

In his statutory declaration accompanying his protection visa application, the applicant claimed that during his compulsory military service he was posted to [a particular location]. Due to his support for Mousavi he was interrogated by a [General C], given a hard time, then removed from this posting after he refused to support the current regime.
In support of his claim the applicant provided a photograph displaying items labelled as his Green Movement hanky, his Green Movement armband, and a photo of Mousavi that supporters held up in protest, which I accepted as true.
At the hearing the applicant was asked what role he played in supporting Mir-Hossein Mousavi. The applicant stated that he was doing military service at the time and Mousavi wanted freedom for people and less religion in people’s life and in his written submission he included Mousavi’s support for the youth’s future. He said that the military wouldn’t give him time off so that he could visit his family, just a day here or there. During those days he would join the people and demonstrations, but from a distance. He said that he was campaigning for Mousavi as much as he could. The applicant then corrected himself, saying he advocated for Mousavi by wearing a green armband and a green scarf. He said that he did not do this when on the military base, but always when he was out of the base. The applicant explained that before the results of the election came out the Green Movement was not illegal as both candidates were approved by the Supreme Leader and even in the military base a lot of staff wore green. The applicant stated that the problems began after the election, and noted that when it was close to the election the Supreme Leader started arresting Mousavi followers, however by this stage he had no involvement because he was scared.
The applicant was asked to clarify if he protested during the Green Movement elections, noting that the representative’s submission stated he didn’t protest and had only put up some posters. The applicant responded that at the time that he was serving in the military, and whenever he had free time he would go and put up some posters, but he wouldn’t go into the crowd and participate in demonstrations.
The applicant claimed that he was known as a Mousavi supporter but it wasn’t a problem until closer to the election and afterwards. Through this period he was targeted. He claims that he wouldn’t be allowed to go out on a day off. He said that he would be put in a dark room where he would be beaten and spat at. Once he claimed he was in the cell for one week without food or water (in a written submission he said only without food). He was then transferred away from [a particular location] by the Sepah to a posting outside of the city. For the rest of his service he remained in that location.
At the hearing I asked the applicant if he was ever interrogated by a senior officer as he had claimed in his written statement. He said that there was someone who looked like him in a demonstration and that they used film footage they had taken to blame him for that man’s actions. He proved to them that he was in the base at the time of that footage and so it couldn’t have been him. He added that he was questioned all the time and made to wash the toilet but he clarified that the people treating him this way were low-ranking people acting on the orders of high-ranking people. He said that when they were interrogating him about the film it was high-ranking officials. He said, ‘it was Lieutenant, second Lieutenant, first Lieutenant, Colonel…[and] two generals.’ I put to him that I find it hard to believe two generals would find the time to interrogate a conscript who proved that he was on the base at the time of the protest. He said that high-ranking officers get involved very quickly in the circumstances of the Supreme Leader’s security.
I read to him from the delegate’s decision: ‘I had a green armband in my pocket; I took it out and showed it to the officer. I told him I was a Mousavi supporter. I was then taken for interrogations with a higher ranked officer from the Sepah by the name of [General C].’ I put to the applicant that in his application he stated that his interrogation was related to the green armband, while he had at the Tribunal hearing talked about the interrogation being related to the film. The applicant said that his experiences are intertwined, can’t be separated, and in combination gave the authorities the reason to kick him out of that place. He explained that the film footage was from the period leading up to the election and they needed evidence to kick him out of [a particular location]. He emphasised that it wasn’t him that was on the film footage. The person in the film looked like him but when they checked he was accounted for at the time. I put to him that he hadn’t responded to the question despite being asked twice. At the third time he said that he had nothing further to add. After the natural justice break the representative clarified that the applicant had meant that the events had happened chronologically meaning that the film incident occurred first and then he had presented his armband and then he was interrogated.
I do not accept that he was interrogated by generals as his evidence is inconsistent and lacking plausibility. Considering that he was a conscript who was a [occupation] I find it implausible that [General C] or two generals would spend their time interrogating him and presumably other supporters of Mousavi. Related to this I do not accept that there was any reference to being Baha’i for the reasons discussed above as well as that was he considered to be associated with the Baha’is. I do not think it plausible that he would be posted to [a particular location]. I do accept that the applicant served in the military, that he was ill treated as described and that he provided support to the Mousavi movement as described above, namely that he wore their paraphernalia out of the base and had put up posters for the reason that these claims are supported by country information. I also accept that he was known as a Mousavi supporter among his military unit.
These findings lead me to further question the applicant’s general credibility.
Opposition to the Iranian moral code / Westernised anti-Islamic behaviour
The applicant claimed in his statutory declaration accompanying the protection visa application that he has been detained and fined by the Basij for violating the Islamic dress code; detained, fined and had his motorbike confiscated for transporting alcohol; and fined and warned for walking in public with his girlfriend.
In the applicant’s original statutory declaration he claimed that around 2010 he was riding a motorbike and the police stopped him and asked for his ID. Despite providing what was requested he was detained and kept for a day. He wrote that it was because of the clothes he was wearing. In a subsequent submission by the then representative it was put to the then Tribunal that it was at that time he was found to be in possession of alcohol. He claims that his father had to come and pay a fine to get him out.
The applicant was asked to elaborate on his claim that he was caught transporting alcohol. He stated that they had a guest who came from [another country] and the incident occurred a few years before he came to Australia. He had alcohol with him when he was stopped and taken away by the Basij. It was as if they had arrested a murderer, he was beaten, spat on, kicked and insulted. He said that he was held for the whole day at the police station and then released. The applicant confirmed that he drinks beer and wine, but not spirits.
The applicant also claimed that he was once detained overnight for wrongly being accused [of committing a crime]. I accept that this occurred.
I accept that the applicant was detained and fined by the Basij for violating Islamic dress code, detained, fined and had his motorbike confiscated for transporting alcohol and fined and warned for walking in public with his girlfriend as these claims have been consistent across the years of engagement with the Australian government and they are consistent with country information. As for the applicant’s narrative at the hearing about being beaten, kicked and spat at during his detention, it is new information that has not been provided before and I have serious concerns about the applicant’s credibility, in particular his willingness to amend his narrative. As such I do not accept that he was treated in the way he claimed at the hearing to have been treated.
Sur place activity
The applicant was asked if he has been active at all in Australia against the regime. The applicant claimed that four or five times he attended events organised by [an Australian politician] in support of refugees in Australia. Regarding Iranian protests, last year he participated in one concerning a few people who were being arrested and killed for political reasons. The applicant only remembered one of their names, a [Mr D], and he said that two weeks ago three of them were executed. I asked the applicant repeatedly to tell me what the issue was that he was protesting and he kept only saying politics without any further details.
I checked online and confirmed there were news reports relating to [Mr D].[2]
[2] [Source deleted].
I asked the applicant if he was involved in organising the protests. He responded by saying that the organisers were people who had anti-government beliefs and the people who form these protests are connected together through [social media] and protests are advertised there. The applicant said that if they want something printed then he will do that for them. In response to prompting, the applicant clarified that by ‘they’ he means the Iranians who are against this regime.
I accept that the applicant was involved in the above-listed protests in the way described.
Departure from Iran
At the hearing the applicant was asked if he departed Iran illegally. He claimed that he had a passport, however he didn’t have permission to depart, he needed an exit permit and to pay a considerable amount of money to bribe people to allow him to leave.
I asked the applicant how he knew that he would need to bribe people at the airport to let him out. He claimed that he tried several times to escape from Iran however it was very hard to leave Iran. Then he added that they were able to identify a person who they could bribe and that person would close his eyes when he was passing through. I asked how he tried to leave in the past. He responded that there were many people from other countries who approached him and advised that his life was in danger and he learned that even if he had a passport the authorities could take it away. I asked again for further information on his claim of having tried to escape before. He did not respond to the question instead providing other information. I asked again a third time. He then clarified that he didn’t mean that he had packed up and was ready to go, but rather thought about it many times.
I asked why he would think that he would need to bribe someone when he left. He said that he saw it on the news and knew some families whose members had been through a similar situation as him. He heard that those people who had political and social problems with the government and tried to leave were detained.
The applicant informed the Tribunal that his family through a friend had arranged for him to get a passport. He said they paid someone in the airport and he paid it on to the right person who would ‘close his eyes’ and allow the applicant through. At a subsequent hearing I asked again the process through which he had moved through the airport. He responded that he doesn’t remember. He again said that he had tried many times to run away.
He said that he couldn’t get his own passport but that his father got it for him. I asked why he didn’t do this himself. He said that he was targeted in Iran because of his father. I asked how his father was able to get it. He said that his father and elder brother had a family friend who arranged it. I asked if it was a genuine passport and the applicant said he wouldn’t tell.
I put to the applicant at the hearing the following country information which would suggest that he wouldn’t be bribing just one official as he said but several:
The Danish Immigration Service also received reports that leaving Iran illegally through an airport is very difficult due to thorough security checks. It’s source, a ‘western embassy’, stated that bribery of airport personnel may be possible, but would involve bribing many staff members as there are several checkpoints at the airport.[3]
The applicant responded that he was able to get through as it was God’s plan. When pressed as to whether he remembered there being a single check point or numerous check points he said that there were many check points. He added that the man who closed his eyes had said ‘good luck’. Otherwise he manoeuvred through the airport like a normal person.
I find that the applicant departed Iran legally with a legitimate and legitimately obtained Iranian passport. The applicant’s description of knowing that he had to bribe someone to exit Iran is unconvincing. His varying statements on how many times and how he had attempted to leave add to questions of his claim. Country information indicates that there are multiple layers of check points while the applicant described his father had organised to bribe ‘a person’ who then closed ‘his eyes’. As the individual could have bribed others I give this aspect less weight. Overall on balance I find that neither the applicant nor his family had to bribe anyone when departing Iran. I find that this leads to additional doubts about the applicant’s overall credibility.
Faith
The applicant’s pre-hearing submission detailed the development of his Christian faith since his arrival in Australia and stated that he continues to be actively involved in the church, including attending church and Bible studies, visiting friends, attending [an event], continuing his learning, and volunteering for the church cafe at [at an event]. He says that he aspires to be like a man he met at the convention who stopped a shooting at a school in Pakistan, stating ‘if you want to shoot someone shoot me first’. The applicant states that he shares his readings with his partner and he supported his Muslim friend’s interest in Christianity and will host his baptism. He states that he still feels stressed, anxious and helpless, but praying and reading the Bible has given him great peace and wisdom. According to the representative’s pre-hearing submission the applicant has posted many comments on his [social media] page and talks with friends and strangers about Christianity.
[3] Danish Immigration Service 2009, Human Rights Situation for Minorities, Women and Converts, and Entry and Exit Procedures, ID Cards, Summons and Reporting, etc., 30 April, < accessed 21 July 2011.

100. Over the course of the review the applicant submitted documents concerning his conversion to Christianity:
   His Certificate of Baptism dated [May] 2017 at [Church 1].
   A letter dated 3 August 2018 by [a] Senior Pastor at [Church 1] , confirming the applicant’s regular and active participation in church activities, that the applicant has pursued his Christian faith with great seriousness and shared his vision of Jesus before a congregation of 200.
   A statutory declaration by [a named person] dated [August] 2018 stating that he met the applicant at [Church 2] in [and] that once a week for two months in early 2017 the applicant attended Bible studies at his home. He also witnessed the applicant’s baptism.
   A statutory declaration dated 13 August 2018 and letter dated 29 May 2016 by [a named person] stating that he met the applicant in 2013 at [a particular church], the applicant is of positive character and is an [occupation], and the applicant is in a genuine relationship.
   A statutory declaration by [a named person] dated 7 August 2018 stating he has known the applicant for 5 years, they met through their church’s English program, the applicant is in a stable relationship, he is impressed by the applicant’s integrity, the applicant is sincere, affable, kind, and a [occupation]. He witnessed the applicant’s baptism and notes the applicant is a regular member of the congregation.
   A letter by the Volunteer Coordinator of [a] Committee dated September 2017 thanking volunteers for the work at the [event].
   A letter dated 12 September 2018 by [a named person] from [a] Persian Fellowship, a Christian group. He confirms that the applicant ‘occasionally’ attended meetings of the Persian Fellowship.
   A letter dated 3 August by the applicant’s witness, [Ms E], a Cross Cultural Worker at [Church 1], outlining her knowledge of, and involvement in, the applicant’s conversion to Christianity and her view that it is genuine.
   A statutory declaration dated 24 August 2018 by [Mr F] declaring that he has been a Christian since 2004 and the applicant showed interest in his religion and attended church with him on a few occasions up until 2016/17 when it became more regular and every week. The applicant told him about his dream in 2014 where Jesus told him to wake up. He and the applicant go to church together regularly and see each other often for tea and reading the Bible.
   A statutory declaration dated 24 August 2018 by [a named person] declaring that he has known the applicant for almost 4 years and when the applicant became a Christian he wanted to find out more too. He and the applicant attended Bible study classes and Christianity meetings. Along his journey to becoming a Christian the applicant was his influencer and his host on his baptism day. The applicant is a loyal and honest Christian person and he helped a lot in his journey to find his faith.
101. At the hearing the applicant was invited to tell the Tribunal about his faith journey. He explained that it didn’t happen all of a sudden. In 2014 he had two other housemates, [Mr F], who is Christian and [another friend], a Muslim. [Mr F] would go to church every Sunday morning. The applicant asked [Mr F] about his activities and learned he was going to church and Bible studies. He was told by [Mr F] that if he liked, he could join him and go to church. At one stage the applicant’s house was visited by Mormons. The applicant accepted them into his house. They gave him a pamphlet in Persian with a picture of Jesus on one side and Mary on the other. One night when he laid down in bed he put the pamphlet on his chest. After he fell asleep he saw a tall man with white clothes in his dreams. The image looked familiar to him. The figure reached his hand to the applicant and said, ‘[Wake] up.’ When he woke up he told the story to [Mr F] who said that it is a good sign for him and encouraged him to share the story with the people of his church. The applicant said all these events occurred in 2014 however he couldn’t remember exactly when. I put to him that it is an incredibly important event in his life, to which he agreed. I questioned how he could not remember when it occurred. He said that it was a cold winter’s day. I put to him that his evidence was contradictory as late 2014 is summer whereas he was claiming that it was a cold winter’s day. He said that it could have been August and he can get the exact date because it was a few days after his friend was baptised. I put to him that it isn’t the specific date that matters, but that he can’t remember such an important event. I said that if Jesus came to me in a dream I would remember. He responded that this is correct, but at the time he said that it wasn’t a big deal to him. Only later on he said that he realised that it was a big deal.
102. The applicant informed the Tribunal that he currently attends [Church 1], which is [Mr F]’s church. The applicant has also attended [Church 2] with a friend who goes there and had invited the applicant along. He explained that his friend is a Muslim who had a girlfriend who was Christian and they were going to [Church 2] together.

103. The applicant was asked to explain what makes a good Christian. He said love each other, love thy neighbour. Whatever you want for yourself, you should want for others. The applicant said it provides peace, calmness and hope. It gives you a new life. Knowing that Jesus believes in him gives him calmness.
104. The applicant was asked to explain how he spends his time devoted to God. He said that since that night with the dream his life changed. He has a lot of hope and his view of the world is different. It is like a wall behind him that he can lean on. The applicant advised that he goes to Bible study on Monday and Wednesday.
105. The applicant gave evidence that he has been going to Bible study since 2014, but since 2016 more seriously. This began when through the church he started meeting people who invited him to Bible study. The applicant stated that while he was going to Bible study classes in 2014, before the sign came to him in his dream, he didn’t believe in anything, but after the sign he started to get peace. He was going every week to Bible study classes with his friend [Mr F] in 2014. The applicant said that he loved Jesus ever since he was a child, but he couldn’t study or follow Him in Iran.
106. The applicant said that his Bible study classes were every Wednesday at [Ms E]’s house and Sunday mornings at church. At his church he was given a Pathway’s book and was told that he could study it in pairs. It took two months to finish the book and he finished at the end of last year. I put to him that earlier he had said he attended Bible study on Monday and Wednesday and now he was saying only on Wednesday. He clarified that at the moment he is only going on Wednesday. I put to him that for the past year he hasn’t been going on Monday. I emphasised to him the inconsistency. I noted that it isn’t about the number of times that he attends but rather that his narrative varies. He responded that the submitted paperwork provides the details.
107. According to the representative’s submission received 13 September 2018 the applicant does not always differentiate between Bible studies or church service or prayer meetings or English classes focusing on the Bible and since early 2014 the applicant irregularly attended church at [Church 1] and the Persian Church in [a suburb] and English classes, Bible reading and prayers at [another church].
108. The Tribunal received evidence from [Ms E] regarding the applicant’s faith. According to the witness’s evidence the applicant began going to church with [Mr F] in 2014. The witness said that she would see him occasionally, very spasmodically, however around the end of 2016 he would come more often and she would then meet with him. She would meet him at his home or in a café opposite the church. In the beginning of 2017 she invited him to come along and he started attending Bible classes on Wednesdays. The witness advised that since 2014 their church has had a Bible study class on Sundays for Persians and the applicant was attending those classes since late 2016. She also clarified the applicant’s attendance equated to once a month or occasionally twice a month. She said that she believes that he is completely genuine and you can’t fake it. She said that there are difficult chapters, and when she asks questions about the meaning of the content, his responses show that he has come to a place of true understanding, while his earlier answers were ‘airy fairy’. She said that he has raised things that he is struggling with and this shows her that there is a real genuineness. The witness said that the applicant seems to have flashbacks to his army days and now he is able to say that he will go read his Bible. The witness stated that the church does not evangelise, it decided this is not the way to do things, however the church does advertise that they have marriage courses and holds events to which the community are invited. At a second appearance the witness again stated that the applicant is a genuine Christian and has been through a lot in Iran. She said that he has been attending her Bible study classes every week since 2017. She also added that he had introduced one Persian friend to the group who was a Muslim before becoming Christian.
109. The Tribunal also received evidence from [his] current girlfriend, attesting to his genuine conversion. She said that his information has been consistent.
110. I provided information to the applicant under s.424AA of the Act. The information related to the claimed regularity of his Bible studies attendance. I put to him that earlier he had said that he had been going to Bible study classes since 2014 on a weekly basis and that this continued more intensively in 2015. The witness had said that he began attending regularly in late 2016. I noted that in the Tribunal decision record from 2016 it says ‘the Tribunal asked the applicant to explain his religious beliefs. The applicant said he attended a church in the city on a number of occasions. He did not know the name of the church or its denomination…He said he had no religion and was not a Christian.’ I explained that the information is relevant to the review because it questions the claim that he had attended Bible study classes since 2014 as well as going to the genuineness of his claimed conversion.
111. In response, the applicant said at the hearing that he had been joining Bible study classes since 2014 and he admitted that he didn’t mention it at the last Tribunal hearing. He explained that in 2014 his attendance wasn’t every week but a couple of times a month and his study increased from 2014 through 2015 and 2016. Since 2016 he has been with [Ms E] and going to Bible study at his church. He said that he was going with [Mr F] but nobody knew him there. He then clarified that some people knew him. He said he attended the church in [a specific location] in the city and he has a witness statement submitted to support that.
112. I asked the applicant if he spoke about his Christianity to the last Tribunal. He said yes, he told the Tribunal that he was going to church and that he was not a strong Christian. He said that he was researching the faith. The applicant added that he saw himself as a Christian at that time. I put to him that at the previous Tribunal hearing in 2016 he said that he had no religion and was not a Christian at that time. He responded that to be a Christian you have to have knowledge of the faith, so he told the previous Tribunal that at the time he was researching about Christianity and going to church. I put to him that I had just earlier asked him if he had considered himself a Christian at the time, and he had said yes, and now he was saying he didn’t. He responded that he wasn’t a complete Christian at the time. This changing narrative is vexing.
113. I note that the witness, a cross cultural worker at [Church 1], provided a letter prior to the hearing in which she wrote, ‘he first started coming to our church in 2014. In the first couple of years [the applicant] was not at all regular in attendance but at the end of 2016 he began to come more regularly.’
114. In a post-hearing submission it was put to the Tribunal that the applicant’s inability to remember how many times he had attended Bible studies in 2014 was not relevant to assessing whether his conversion was genuine. Furthermore, it was noted that the applicant suffers PTSD.
115. The applicant has provided written statements and witness statements supporting the strength of his commitment. He submitted in a statutory declaration (Tribunal file f.54) that he cannot deny his faith and that he remembers verses that tell him to go to other countries and talk about Jesus and that he wants to do that in Iran but that he can’t. A friend, [a named person], wrote of the applicant’s discussions with him about Christianity. None of this was raised at the hearing when he was asked about what makes a good Christian and how he devotes his time to God. The fact that he didn’t raise it along with wider credibility concerns leads me to question the genuineness of his commitment to these aspirations. Furthermore, I note that the witness explained that their church does not proselytise, though she did mention that he had brought a Muslim Iranian to their community who subsequently became a Christian.
116. While 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 this does not necessarily indicate a genuine commitment to Christianity. This is because his participation in church activities could be for various reasons including, for example, social benefits made available to newly arrived migrants or to improve his chances for a positive visa outcome.
117. Taking into consideration all of the evidence including the submissions, witness statements and evidence provided by the applicant I find that the applicant’s obligations to his faith are contrived. He has the paperwork to show that he has been baptised and participates in the rites and liturgy as expected of a Christian but I do not accept that he has a commitment to embrace God’s teaching for reasons of a serious lack of credibility as outlined above that I find arises from a willingness to amend his evidence to suit a preferred visa outcome and his responses to questions about his faith such as what makes a good Christian and how he spends his time devoted to God, questions that offer a rich source of possible answers, but instead his were limited and unconvincing relative to his claimed commitment. In some eyes this would still make him a Christian while in others he would not be considered one. I don’t find these simplistic categorisations useful. What is more relevant for this review is how he will act was he to return to Iran. I find that his current visa circumstances and lack of a social community in Australia led him to participate in church activities, which is a situation that would not be replicated in Iran. I find that he is not a committed adherent. I find that his sense of obligation to God’s word is contrived. I find that he will not be taking a leadership role or proselytising was he free from fear into the reasonably foreseeable future. I find that were he to return to Iran, even free from fear, the applicant would have no spiritual interest or commitment to Christianity. I do not accept his claims that he cannot deny his faith or that he aspires to be like the Pakistani he met at the convention who showed courage to save others.
118. The applicant claimed that he has spoken to his family about his conversion and that his father has no issue while his mother was apparently quite happy about it. While the applicant may have spoken about his nominal conversion to Christianity to his parents, possibly in the context of social activities or a better visa outcome, I do not accept that it was a conversation that discussed his claimed genuine conversion.
Basij having a file on the applicant
119. At the hearing the applicant was asked about the significance of the Basij having a file on him. The applicant stated that he knows the Basij have a file on him because he has been detained several times, once because of alcohol usage and another time because he was accused of [committing a crime]. I asked again how he knows and he said that everyone who has this sort of engagement with the Basij has a file created.
120. I accept that the authorities have a file on the applicant.
Other claims
121. The applicant claimed in his original statutory declaration that he and his mother were beaten by the authorities during Iranian New Year festivities. He claimed that in March 2013 he was standing in the street with his mother watching the fireworks and then the Basij and the police came and started beating them. He did not raise this at the hearings until prompted. He subsequently informed the Tribunal that during the festival which involves the lighting of fires and jumping on those fires the government sent some soldiers to extinguish the fires. He provided details of the incident stating that the authorities were pushing a lot of people including his mum who as a result had her teeth broken. I put to him that he wasn’t targeted, to which he said that you never know as sometimes they target particular groups. There were a lot of people in the street he said and you never know if you were targeted. I accept that the event occurred based upon country information of New Year’s Eve festivities involving fire.[4] I do not accept that the applicant and his mother were targeted as the narrative he provided does not suggest any intent on the part of authorities to harm him specifically but rather that they were, as he noted, trying to put out the fires.
[4] ‘Four dead, thousands injured in Iran fire festival celebrations’, Agence France-Presse, Tehran, 14 March 2018, < accessed 23 January 2019.
Considerations
Considerations – Access to mental health support
122. At the hearing the applicant stated that from 2016 he started seeing a psychologist, but that thereafter his Medicare stopped. I asked how many times he saw a psychologist. He said that he saw him four times in 2018. Before that he saw two psychologists, one in the city for two sessions, and a lady for one session. I accept this narration as fact.
123. I put to the applicant that reports on mental health in Iran have described it as an adequate system[5] and a ‘well-resourced and competent system’.[6]
[5] Forouzan, A S, Ghazinour, M, Dejman, M, Rafeiey, H and Sebastian, M S 2011, ‘Testing the WHO responsiveness concept in the Iranian mental healthcare system: a qualitative study of service users’, BMC Health Services Research, vol.11, p.3, < ‘WHO-AIMS Report on Mental Health System in The Islamic Republic of Iran’, World Health Organisation and the Ministry of Health and Medical Education Islamic Republic of Iran, 2006, < accessed 4 December 2018.
124. I summarised the below findings of an academic who spent considerable time in Iran:
Having spent considerable time in discussions with professors and students involved in [Tehran Psychiatric Institute] I find the training and students to be on par with some of the best U.S. mental health counselling training institutions…the doctoral-level training reflects the curriculum taught in American Psychological Association’s accredited counselling or clinical psychology training programs.[7]
[7] Priester, P. E. (2008), ‘Mental Health Counseling in the Islamic Republic of Iran: A Marriage of Religion, Science, and Practice’, Counseling & Values, 52(3), 253–264.

125. I have also considered whether the applicant would have access to these services. A World Health Organisation report states, ‘All mental disorders are covered in social insurance schemes’.[8]
[8] ‘WHO-AIMS Report on Mental Health System in The Islamic Republic of Iran’, World Health Organisation and the Ministry of Health and Medical Education Islamic Republic of Iran, 2006, < accessed 4 December 2018.
126. In response, the applicant commented that based upon the information I cited they will even give him dinner and that what I have said makes him crazy.
127. The applicant’s representative added that the applicant’s mental health issues will not resolve because his issues are related to his conversion and the tensions that occur. This claim is not supported by the psychologist’s report, which does not mention his conversion, or by the applicant’s own claims in which he states that his conversion has given him peace.
128. In a post-hearing submission the representative submitted that because there is a very real chance the applicant will be detained he would not be able to access the mental health services suggested by the Tribunal. Furthermore, most services would be provided by government employees and as the applicant’s mental health issues are a consequence of government conduct, he would not be able to share his story. I note that the psychologist suggests that his PTSD arose while ‘living in Iran and later as a refugee in Australia.’ He adds that the applicant, ‘seemed to develop PTSD symptoms whilst living in Iran. His family was marginalised and persecuted as a religious minority’. Considering that I have not accepted that this occurred and noting that the applicant self-reports to the psychologist I give little weight to the conjecture on the part of the psychologist as to whether the trauma arose from his time in Iran, his travel by boat from Indonesia to Australia or his time as an asylum seeker in Australia.
129. Considering the country information indicates that psychological support is available and even noting that the source of his mental health issues are indeterminate and could include government-related issues which would limit his ability to express himself fully I find that the applicant would not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm for reasons related to his mental health.
Considerations – Mousavi supporter
130. I put to the applicant that given the period of time that has elapsed DFAT assesses it would be highly unlikely that those arrested at the time for simply participating in protests would remain imprisoned, or would face continuing surveillance.[9] He suggested DFAT’s assessment applies to people who haven’t had any other problems, but people like him who have other issues with the government, if arrested, would be in jail forever.
[9] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report: Iran, 7 June 2018 at [3.59].
131. In the pre-hearing submission the representative disputed DFAT’s view. The representative claims that the regime is still highly sensitive to the Green Movement, calling it ‘sedition’, and that people who were actively involved in the movement are at some risk of ongoing attention, depending on how much they were involved. It is submitted the Iranian security forces are arbitrary in nature and as the applicant has negatively drawn the attention of the regime several times, arrest is highly likely. A reference to the treatment of low-level protestors was included from a 2013 report suggesting that it can range from 12 hours of interrogation to death in prison. A decision by the NZ Tribunal was included ostensibly based upon the New Zealander’s situation being analogous to the applicant. I find that neither of these references are relevant to the applicant. The former is dated 2013 while the DFAT report is more current dated 2018. The negative treatment of one-time protesters would diminish with time. Furthermore, the applicant never actually participated in public protests. As for the New Zealand applicant, the reference is to a decision made by another Tribunal which is case specific and does not shed light on the particular circumstances facing the applicant.
132. The representative provided further information about the circumstances of the leaders of the Green Movement including Mousavi. Their circumstances are not relevant to the review other than to provide context. Other information provided by the representative in her submission regarding the Green Movement is dated to the circumstances of 2011 and 2012. Considering more recent information is available through DFAT and other sources I have given this information little weight.
133. I note that the applicant had not actually protested other than carried Mousavi paraphernalia including a green armband and had put up posters. He wasn’t ever arrested and had only been associated with the Green Movement by his superiors as a military conscript. There is no claim and no evidence that the security forces outside of his unit identified the applicant and held any adverse information against the applicant for reasons of his support for Mousavi. I find that the country information supports the view that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm was he to return to Iran for the reason of having been a Mousavi supporter.

Considerations – Western habits
134. The applicant may retain some Western habits such as the way he dresses. He had in the past been harassed because of the way he had dressed. I put to the applicant the following country information:
DFAT assesses that where there have been incidents of harassment of men for violating the dress code, it is likely to have been the result of either over-zealous enforcement by individual security authorities in particular locations (particularly outside of major cities), or because the individual has come to the attention of authorities for separate activities, particularly political activism. DFAT assesses that the restrictions the dress codes place on men do not amount to discrimination.[10]
[10] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report: Iran, 7 June 2018 at [3.85].

135. In response, the applicant said that what you hear and what you see is different to the reality.
136. I put to the applicant country information on Western music:
Although Iran has a vibrant cultural scene, the music, arts and film industries are all subjected to strict censorship. The Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance reviews books, films, and exhibitions for their adherence to Islamic values before publication or exhibition. Western music has been officially banned since the 1979 revolution, but it is commonly played in coffee shops, restaurants, taxis and private homes.[11]
[11] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report: Iran, 7 June 2018 at [3.67].

Other articles indicate an increased ability for bands to perform.[12] I acknowledge the country information provided by the representative including the arrest of a young woman for dancing to Justin Bieber music and then posting it on Instagram. I give greater weight to the country information from DFAT for the reason that the circumstances of a young woman dancing in her bedroom and then posting it is more relevant to considerations of gender roles and the perceived sexuality of dancing than to the applicant’s claims of fearing listening to music itself. The applicant responded that he doesn’t have a problem with music. He reiterated his problems being his family background and his Christianity.
[12] ‘A Guide to Iran’s Electronic Underground’, Bandcamp Daily, 6 April 2017, CXC90406624868.
137. The applicant said that he drank beer and wine. I put to the applicant the following country information:
Local and international observers report widespread use of alcohol across Iranian society. Iranians wishing to obtain and consume alcohol can do so relatively easily.[13]
Media reports of prosecutions for alcohol consumption exist, but these are not common. DFAT understands that police do not usually seek to investigate actively or entrap individuals consuming alcohol in their own homes.[14]
[13] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report: Iran, 7 June 2018 at [2.24].
[14] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report: Iran, 7 June 2018 at [2.25].

138. The applicant responded that this information is ridiculous. He said that you have to undergo 80 lashes if caught with alcohol and you go to jail as well, unless you can bribe the authorities to be released. The representative provided country information from 2012 in their submission that confirmed 80 lashes as punishment for intoxication and that a third conviction can lead to the death penalty. The information also noted a Human Rights Watch statement calling for the removal of the death sentence and noting that the use of the death penalty is extremely rare with no records of cases in the past 10 years. The applicant stated that if the authorities have an issue with you, then even if you drink water, they will arrest you.
139. The representative added that the latest news from Iran is that there has been a crackdown on moral codes, social media sites have been closed, and in June 2018 40 people who posted on Instagram were arrested. While I accept this reporting and other country information provided by the representative I find that the DFAT report is very current being published in June 2018 and tailored specifically for the purpose of assessing the circumstances of returning asylum seekers to Iran and as such I give it greater weight. In addition, some of the country information submitted by the applicant is not inconsistent with that available from DFAT. The former, with regards to the situation of alcohol, summarises the legal situation while the latter explains how it is not being enforced. The applicant’s own experience supports this. Having being caught with alcohol he was not lashed nor did he go to jail.
140. I accept that the applicant having done so in the past would once again in the reasonably foreseeable future find himself in some manner transgressing the moral code in Iranian society. Specifically I accept that the situation the applicant would return to is culturally different to Australia with a different emphasis on the type of music someone can listen to or the dress men wear and that this would lead to the applicant being stopped and reprimanded but based upon country information I do not accept that such harassment amounts to serious or significant harm. I note also the country information on the extent of alcohol being procured in Iran. Despite the applicant having once been stopped randomly and found to be transporting alcohol and as a result had his motorbike detained I find that he does not face a real chance or a real risk of it occurring again in the reasonably foreseeable future.
141. Even taking his past transgressions into account which I find would not increase his risk of being caught but may increase the severity of his punishment I find that was the applicant to return to Iran and dress in a Western manner, seek to procure and drink alcohol and listen to Western music he would not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm.
142. I note that the applicant had in the past been harassed for walking with his then girlfriend in public. The applicant has an Australian girlfriend. Was the applicant’s girlfriend to visit him in Iran and were they found to be walking in public together he would face a real chance of being approached by the authorities. If that were to occur I find that he would face the same harm as he experienced before, namely being fined and warned. I find that such action would not amount to serious or significant harm.
143. I accept that the applicant had been detained wrongly for [a crime] and then released. I find that this would not compound his circumstances nor is there a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm arising from this past experience.
Considerations – Opposition to the regime upon return
144. The applicant was a supporter of the Mousavi opposition but didn’t participate in protests. His activities amounted to wearing Mousavi-related clothes, being known in his military unit as a Mousavi supporter and putting up posters. He was not arrested at the time. While in Australia he attended one protest last year. He wasn’t aware of the details of the protest, being able to name only one person whose life he was protesting on behalf of. The applicant has undertaken no other political activity. Based upon this background I find that the applicant is very unlikely to participate in any political activity and may only do so if there is a widespread general uprising.
145. I summarised the following information to the applicant:
DFAT assesses that those identified as having played a leading role in the 2017–18 protests are likely to face official discrimination, including arrest, monitoring and continuing harassment. DFAT assesses it unlikely that authorities will similarly target ordinary protesters whose motivation to demonstrate was to protest economic difficulties.[15]
[15] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report: Iran, 7 June 2018 at [3.55].

146. I put to the applicant that this indicated that if he were to return to Iran and protest he wouldn’t risk harm. He claimed that the jails are full now and that is why they don’t want to arrest anyone. He claimed that the Basij throw acid on people and break the teeth of people who protest. In prisons they kill them.
147. I give little weight to his evidence in this regard for reasons of his general lack of credibility and place more weight on the DFAT report and as such find that was the applicant to return to Iran and join mass protests if they were to occur he would not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm.
148. The applicant also claimed and I accept that he had participated in protests organised by [an Australian politician] on behalf of asylum seekers in Australia. While I have taken this into consideration above in developing a view that he has some interest in politics I find that the act of participating in those protests would not have brought him to the attention of the Iranian authorities for any reason because there is no evidence and it is highly unlikely that the Iranian government has an interest in or an ability to monitor all political protests in Australia for any Iranian participants. Furthermore, country information noted below and discussed with the applicant (DFAT [5.25]) states that the regime has little interest in prosecuting returnees for activities conducted outside of Iran. For this reason I also find that the applicant’s participation in the protest mentioned about [Mr D] would not raise the applicant’s profile upon return to Iran.
Considerations – Failed asylum seeker
149. 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.[16] 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.
[16] ‘Iran would welcome back asylum seekers “with pride”, Iranian Foreign Minister says’, 2016, ABC News, 16 March, < accessed 25 January 2019.
150. Charlesworth J in CLS15 v Federal Circuit Court of Australia [2017] FCA 577 stated at [64] that, ‘It is for the Tribunal to determine, on the evidence before it, whether or not the appellant can be forcibly returned to Iran and hence whether a fundamental premise of this aspect of his claim exists.’ Based upon the long history of the Iranian government not accepting involuntary returnees and only in recent times a diplomatic breakthrough led to a change of position I find that into the reasonably foreseeable future the Iranian government will not again give ground and revisit its agreement not to accept involuntary returnees prior to the date of the MOU. As such when turning my mind to considering the applicant’s risks I do so upon the basis that was he to return to Iran in the reasonably foreseeable future he would do so as a voluntary returnee. As such I will consider whether as a voluntary returnee he would face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm.
151. In the statutory declaration accompanying his protection visa application, the applicant claimed that because he is seeking asylum and speaking badly about the regime, he will be accused of being a spy, and given he was stationed at [a particular location] and was known to be a Mousavi supporter, he will be accused of giving confidential information to a foreign country.
152. The representative argued that the applicant’s military history with the Sepah, his support for the Green Movement, and the numerous incidents of being stopped and detained and/or fined by the Basij, including for dressing in an un-Islamic manner, [a crime], walking alone with his girlfriend, and being caught carrying alcohol, means the applicant has an adverse profile in Iran and is a ‘person of interest’. I accept that there will be a file on the applicant. I do not accept that he would be a person of interest for the reasons described through this decision, namely, that his transgressions of the past were minor and his support of the opposition eight years ago was so insignificant that if it is even recorded it would not raise any flags on its own or even collectively alongside his other transgressions for the purposes of re-entering the country.
153. I read the following country information to the applicant:
5.25 According to international observers, Iranian authorities pay little attention to failed asylum seekers on their return to Iran…International observers report that Iranian authorities have little interest in prosecuting failed asylum seekers for activities conducted outside Iran…This includes posting social media comments critical of the government.[17]
[17] Department of Foreign Affairs, DFAT Country Information Report: Iran, 7 June 2018 at [5.25].

154. The applicant stated that when the Tribunal tells him about these sorts of things he gets very angry as they are not the truth, this information is a trap, and while they tell you that they don’t pay attention to these issues, he knows that his fate will be execution.
155. The representative submitted country information that suggested returnees travelling on a laissez-passer would be questioned. This information was from 2013. I give greater weight to more recent reporting found in the DFAT report discussed with the applicant. The representative provided extensive and well-researched information including anecdotal information regarding a past client. Information from this submission which is timely and relevant to the applicant’s circumstances has been taken into consideration.
156. 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 is not a person of interest. His transgressions against the law were minor and nearly a decade ago. He has no political profile. 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. He will not be considered a spy for the West. 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.
Considerations – Reasons of his faith
157. The applicant declared in his pre-hearing submission that he cannot deny his Christian faith and he wants to follow Matthew’s Gospel which tells you to go into other countries and talk about Jesus with everyone, but he is not permitted to do so in Iran. He believes he would have the courage not to deny his faith, but the punishment would be severe. He says he has heard of many people who returned to Iran from a Western country and were detained a few weeks later, their families having no further news of them.
158. In the above considerations of the evidence I found the following: that the applicant is not a committed adherent; that his sense of obligation to God’s word is contrived; that he will not be taking a leadership role or proselytising was he free from fear into the reasonably foreseeable future; that were he to return to Iran, even free from fear, the applicant would have no spiritual interest or commitment to Christianity; regarding his claims that he cannot deny his faith or that he aspires to be like the Pakistani he met at the convention who showed courage to save others I found to be contrived. In this instance the question arises whether his nominal Christianity, that is, his conversion on paper and his attendance to Christian activities, his discussion of Christianity on [social media] and communication with other Iranians about his conversion including his family could lead him to face harm upon return to Iran.
159. We proceeded to discuss the different country information. I summarised to the applicant the following information:
The Danish Immigration Service undertook a fact-finding mission to Iran in 2012 and 2013 to identify issues related to conversions to Christianity. This report interviewed in-country experts and several Western embassy officials who separately said that ‘being a Christian as such is usually not a problem’, that Christian converts ‘would most likely not experience problems with the authorities’, that ‘authorities would not go after individual converts…the authorities have not cut the TV satellite channels that disseminate Christian TV…the authorities are not chasing house church members’ and that wearing a cross ‘would not be a problem in itself’.[18] This sentiment was qualified with statements that the authorities would pursue those who are ‘evangelizers and proselytizers’, those who choose to have an ‘active manifestation of one’s Christian identity in the public sphere’.[19]
A 2015 Finnish Immigration Service report stated that in relation to regular members arrested during home church raids, the interest of the authorities is usually limited to gathering information on the operations. They are usually released after a short time.[20]
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 proselytisation or political activities within the country.[21]
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.[22]
[18] Danish Refugee Council, Iran: On Conversion to Christianity, Issues concerning Kurds and Post-2009 Election Protestors as well as Legal Issues and Exit Procedures, February 2013, p.24.
[19] Danish Refugee Council, Iran: On Conversion to Christianity, Issues concerning Kurds and Post-2009 Election Protestors as well as Legal Issues and Exit Procedures, February 2013, pp.24 and 26.
[20] Finnish Immigration Service, Christian Converts in Iran, 21 August 2015, <CISEC96CF14127>, p.10.
[21] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report: Iran,7 June 2018 at [3.34].
[22] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report: Iran,7 June 2018 at [3.35].

160. The applicant said that the country information is laughable and the authorities execute people for minor offences. He said that his mother socialises with a Christian in Iran and they can attend church only once a year secretly. As a Christian believes the Bible, in Iran they believe in the Koran, and their book states that anyone who leaves the religion must be executed. The applicant said that one example of apostasy is his [relative] who changed his religion and was executed. The government does one thing, but says another. They kill apostates, but hide it from the public. He said that in the Bible Matt 28:16-20 it says if you deny me, I will deny you. He said that he can’t deny his God. I asked how going back to Iran would lead him to deny his God. The applicant said the authorities will ask about his religion and he can’t lie. Jesus says you go to all nationalities, inform them about me and baptise them. The applicant said that he believes that he will be questioned at the airport as they will be worried that he is a spy and took information out of Iran.

161. According to the representative’s pre- and post-hearing submissions, country information indicates that conversion from Islam is punishable by death or lifetime imprisonment and non-Muslims face discrimination. Many apostates are arrested and charged with offences such as ‘propagating against the Islamic regime’ or ‘colluding to undermine national security’. There has been a recent unprecedented campaign of arrests for reasons of religious belief. Human rights abuses can occur in prison and extra-judicial murder and attacks by official Islamic militias or radical groups are a serious concern. It is claimed that due to the arbitrary nature of arrests made by the Iranian police and Basij forces, the prison conditions the applicant would face upon arrest, and the lack of a fair and independent judiciary and trial, the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution due to his conversion to Christianity.
162. In a submission received on 13 September 2018 following the hearing the representative noted that the Tribunal quoted extensively from the Danish Immigration Fact Finding Mission in 2013. It was submitted that this report is ‘well out of date’ and current reports by reputable Christian Human Rights groups such as Middle East Concern (MEC) and the DFAT report on Iran dated June 2018 raise serious concerns about the increasing persecution faced by Christian converts in Iran.
163. The representative put to the Tribunal that more weight should be given to recent reporting as DFAT reports would be 6–8 months out of date upon publication. But I note that one of the articles in the submission references two Christians being arrested, an event that was first reported in March 2017, while the DFAT report is dated 7 June 2018. Other events referenced in the submission include a report on Christian converts who were proselytising and as such not relevant to the applicant’s situation. I acknowledge the updates provided by the representative from MEC including the final post-hearing submission received on 23 January 2019 though give less weight to those from 2016 and 2017.
164. While I acknowledge that the Danish Immigration Fact Finding Mission is dated, the information provided at the hearing includes a 2015 Finnish report and two quotes from the 2018 DFAT report. But I also note that the picture conveyed by these reports spanning a period of five years is consistent. I have reviewed the information referenced by the representative but give it less weight for the reason that sources such as Middle East Concern are not unbiased reporters of events in Iran unlike the government reports of Finland, Denmark and Australia. Middle East Concern describes on its website that ‘MEC believes Christians are called to stand with those who are persecuted. Christians are called not only to expect persecution but also to fight injustice. Responding to the injustice of persecution is part of the Christian calling.’[23] This is an activist organisation that seeks to influence the situation in Iran in favour of Christians that leads me to question the impartiality of its interpretation of events. Nevertheless, I accept the facts if not the analysis, such as those listed as being imprisoned are imprisoned. But without further details about the activities of those imprisoned the information is difficult to apply to the circumstances of the applicant. Case details were provided in some instances. When considering these I note that they include two pastors, making their cases dissimilar to that of the applicant, while the descriptions of the others only provide details of how they were arrested and not what their activities were prior to arrest. Were they actively proselytising? Did they establish new house churches or were they preaching publicly? Were they genuine believers but low level? Or did they have a profile similar to the applicant? As the answer to these questions is not known the utility of the information is diminished.
[23] Middle East Concern website, < accessed on 5 December 2018.
165. I have noted earlier that the applicant will not be questioned at the airport. Country information discussed with the applicant indicates that Iranian authorities have little interest in prosecuting failed asylum seekers for activities conducted outside of Iran. Country information discussed above shows that the persecution of Christians in Iran is largely against those who are pastors or leaders and sometimes others participating in house churches are rounded up but DFAT has concluded that they face low levels of harassment. Considering this assessment of the authorities’ approach to Christianity I find that the applicant’s nominal conversion in Australia would not lead to the authorities identifying him or pursuing him for apostasy or other reasons and I find that radical elements of society would not learn of his nominal conversion in Australia.
166. The applicant noted that his family is a liberal family and that his mother has a Christian friend. He has not raised any concerns about harm from his family. The representative had mentioned ‘family’ in a submission as a potential threat without further elaboration. I raised this with him. He responded that his father has no issue with his conversion as he had spoken with him about Christianity before converting. His mother is quite happy about his conversion.
167. Submissions were made that Christians also faced employment discrimination and trouble with property ownership along with access to education, senior executive roles and other public roles. Having found that his commitment to his nominal conversion was limited to Australia I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm arising from discrimination.
168. Not having genuinely converted to Christianity other than on paper, but accepting the applicant isn’t a committed Muslim leads me to consider whether he would face harm for being a non-practising Muslim. I had accepted that the applicant faced hardship during his military service for in part not praying along with other Muslims. Nevertheless, those particular circumstances won’t be relived as he has completed his military service. We discussed the World Values Survey which found that nearly a quarter of Iranians never attend any religious services and another 23% only attend on holy days.[24] The applicant responded that you never get to know who is a Muslim or what god they worship until a file is created against you as is his situation. He also added that the non-practising Muslims have to pretend to be Muslim. Considering so many don’t pray and that the applicant does not have a particular profile that would lead him to be targeted more so than the general population and that he is Muslim albeit non-practicing, a reluctance to pretend to be Muslim is not relevant. I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm for being a non-practising Muslim.
Considerations – Other circumstances
[24] World Values Survey, ‘Iran Wave 2005-2009 Online Data Analysis: V186. – How often do you attend religious services’, available at < accessed 16 September 2016.
169. I have accepted the applicant’s claims that he was harassed by the authorities during New Year’s Eve celebrations. Having found the assault not to be targeted against him I find that he could once again be caught up in government action taken for legitimate (putting out fires that are lit during New Year’s Eve celebrations) or nefarious reasons (preventing large gatherings for political reasons) but that such a possibility occurring in the reasonably foreseeable future does not amount to a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm.
170. I have accepted that the applicant was once detained for being wrongly accused of [a crime]. Considering that the authorities released him after finding that they had the wrong person I find that the applicant will not face in the reasonably foreseeable future a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm for having been wrongly detained in the past.
171. The applicant provided several letters of support, including:
A reference letter by a work [contact], dated [September] 2016, outlining the applicant’s positive character and status as a [occupation].
A letter dated 25 May 2016 outlining the applicant’s positive contribution to [a community organisation].
A character reference by [a charity organisation] outlining the applicant’s positive contribution as a volunteer.
An undated letter by [a named person] outlining the applicant’s positive character.
An undated letter by the applicant’s employer confirming that the applicant is important to his business.
A statutory declaration by the applicant’s partner outlining the applicant’s positive character and their committed relationship.

While these letters are overwhelmingly positive none of them are relevant to the necessary considerations of this decision and as such I have not considered them further.
172. At the conclusion of the third hearing I asked whether he had anything to add to which he said that he did not.
Cumulative
173. In MILGEA v Che Guang Xiang the Court required that to establish a real chance of serious harm it is necessary to look at the totality of circumstances.[25] As such I turn my mind to considering the cumulative impact upon the applicant’s profile. The applicant’s fears are detailed above and based upon my findings of fact the harm he faces can be summarised as arising from being a Mousavi supporter in the past with Western habits including dressing in Western clothes, drinking alcohol and singing and dancing to Western music, opposing the regime in the future at moments of widespread general uprisings, being a failed asylum seeker, showing public affection to his girlfriend and having nominally converted to Christianity while in Australia but remaining a non-practising Muslim as described above along with other particular circumstances as noted under the heading ‘Other Circumstances’. In addition the applicant has PTSD and would have some access to psychological treatment. I have considered how each of the circumstances discussed above could impact collectively other elements such as whether having converted nominally to Christianity would raise the risk of being harassed for wearing Western clothes, or if he were to participate in a mass protest whether his prior support for Mousavi would make him face an increased amount of harm. In all permutations I find that considered cumulatively the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm.
[25] Unreported, Federal Court of Australia, Jenkinson, Spender and Lee JJ, 12 August 1994 at 17.
174. 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) of the Act.
175. 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) of the Act. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
176. 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) of the Act.
DECISION
177. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Denis Dragovic
Senior Member

[2019] AATA 223

25 January 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Appeal