1714256 (Refugee)

The applicant, an individual claiming to be a stateless Faili Kurd from Iran, sought a protection visa. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Iran, based on his claims of being an undocumented Iraqi refugee, a convert to Christianity, and having an imputed political opinion against the Iranian government. The case was before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether the applicant was a refugee due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on his race, nationality, religion, or political opinion, or whether he faced a real risk of significant harm under complementary protection provisions. This involved scrutinising the veracity of his claims regarding his identity, his family's background, his alleged lack of documentation, his conversion to Christianity, and his fear of reprisal from Iranian authorities or a former neighbour's family.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on assessing the applicant's credibility and the consistency of his claims with independent country information. It found significant inconsistencies and implausibilities in the applicant's accounts, particularly concerning his parents' expulsion from Iraq, his own status as an undocumented refugee, his alleged detention and mistreatment by the Basij, his departure from Iran on a fraudulent passport, and the genuineness of his conversion to Christianity. The Tribunal noted that country information indicated Faili Kurds who are Iranian citizens generally do not face discrimination and that obtaining fraudulent Iranian passports is extremely difficult. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant's engagement with Christianity appeared to be primarily for the purpose of strengthening his refugee claim, rather than a genuine conversion. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, nor a real risk of significant harm if returned to Iran.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958.