1715735 (Refugee)

1715735 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 5928 (20 May 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1715735
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Iran
MEMBER:James Silva
DATE:20 May 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.
Statement made on 20 May 2019 at 5:28pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Iran – Federal Court remittal – imputed political opinion – anti-government – pro-Arab – The Basij – imputed ethnicity – Arab – social group – failed asylum seeker – significant injuries – inconsistent evidence – lack of evidence – credibility issues – no adverse profile – no real chance of persecution – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36, 65, 425, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

The applicant is a man in his early [age] from Ahwaz[1] City, Khuzestan province, Iran. He claims to be an Iranian citizen.
[1] Also spelt Ahvaz
The applicant flew from Iran to [Country 1] in about June 2012. He travelled by boat, without authorisation, arriving on Christmas Island [in] August 2012.
The applicant applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa on 14 December 2012. He attended an interview with the delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 28 August 2013.
On 21 February 2014, the delegate refused the application pursuant to s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant applied for review of the delegate’s decision. On 4 January 2016, the Tribunal, differently constituted (the first Tribunal, or T1), affirmed the decision under review. [In] April 2016, the Federal Circuit Court issued consent orders quashing the Tribunal’s decision and directing the Tribunal to reconsider and re-determine the matter according to law. The Minister had conceded that the first Tribunal had fallen into jurisdictional error by failing to consider a submission made in the matter (a submission made by [Organisation 1] to the Department on 10 September 2013).
On 30 November 2016, the Tribunal (also differently constituted – the second Tribunal, or T2), affirmed the decision under review. [In] July 2017, the Federal Circuit Court issued consent orders quashing the Tribunal’s decision and directing the Tribunal to reconsider and re-determine the matter according to law. The Minister had conceded that the second Tribunal had fallen into jurisdictional error by failing to afford the applicant a ‘real and meaningful’ opportunity to appear at the hearing to give evidence and present arguments under s.425 of the hearing, due to the then representative’s disruptive conduct.
The matter is now before the Tribunal pursuant to the Federal Circuit Court’s order.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 18 March 2019 to give evidence and present arguments.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the refugee criterion, and if not, whether he is entitled to complementary protection. The relevant law is in Attachment A.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE, AND FINDINGS
Claims
The applicant’s claims have changed markedly over time. The essential elements are that the Basij[2] arrested him one day as he was passing near a political protest (he was an innocent passer-by). They detained and tortured him, alleging that he was involved in subversive activities. The authorities released him to his wife’s family, on a substantial bond. Their adverse interest in him rose after realising that his in-laws are Arabs. The applicant suffered multiple serious injuries while in detention, and suffers ongoing physical and mental problems. He appeared in court on charges of anti-government activities. These did not result in a conviction, but his personal file is marked.
[2] The Basij Resistance Force is a volunteer paramilitary organization operating under the command of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
Later, the applicant did some [contract] work for a Basij or Sepah[3] officer, which resulted in a business dispute. The officer falsely accused the applicant of insulting the government, in effect opening up the previous criminal case. By some accounts, thugs came by the applicant’s mother’s home to harass her; and on one occasion, they found the applicant there, took him away, and again detained and tortured him, leaving him again with serious injuries. The applicant claims that, since his departure from Iran, he has been sentenced in absentia to [imprisonment].
[3] The Sepah-e Pasdaran-e Enqelab-e Eslami, or Sepah, refers to the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps
The applicant claims to fear that the Iranian authorities will force him to serve the prison sentence, or kill him. During the course of his primary and review applications, he has alluded to (among other things), the risk of ham because of his imputed political profile (including being married to an Arab woman) and because of his future status in Iran as a returnee who is a failed asylum seeker. A full assessment of the applicant’s claims and evidence is below.
Background
The applicant’s background forms essential context for assessing his claims and evidence, as it sheds some light on the chronology of his experiences in Iran.
He is a [age] man from Ahwaz City (Ahwaz), Khuzestan province. He identifies as a Shia Muslim, and an ethnic Lor[4]. His gives his sole language as Farsi, although he told the Tribunal that he uses Luri with his mother, and he has some (limited) English.
[4] The Lur or Lor are an Iranian people living in mainly southwest and south Iran, estimated to number about two million. They are concentrated in the provinces of Luristan, Bakhtiari and Kuh-Gilu-Boir Ahmed, but for a significant population in Khuzestan and other provinces. They mainly speak Luri, a Farsi dialect. The applicant has made no claims related to his Lor ethnicity.
The applicant claims to have lived all his life in Ahwaz (Ahwaz), except for six months in Defzul (September 2004 to 2005). (This appears not to take account of periods of military service in [named city] and [second named city].) Most recently, the applicant lived in the [named] district of Ahwaz.
The applicant completed Year [specified], and worked from the age of about [specified], initially [doing certain work]. He appears to have worked in [a certain] sector and had brief periods of unemployment. From about 1991, he helped his [brother-in-law], and [Occupation 1] became his main occupation. For about two years, he worked as a [Occupation 1] at the [location], some [distance] from Ahwaz.[5] In 2003, the applicant opened his own [business] in Ahwaz, taking on contracts in [a certain] sector. (He provided a business permit issued [in] April 2003 as evidence of this business.) This business continued until 2012, when the applicant departed for Australia. For the first eight or nine years, he operated out of rented premises, employing [a number of staff]. He then sold the shop – this would have been in about 2010 or 2011 - and about a year later, resumed work as a [Occupation 1], with a small workshop in part of his mother’s home. These circumstances are closely linked with his protection claims. The applicant told the Tribunal that he was forced to sell the shop, and his employees had to find other work. This appears to coincide with the period in which he suffered injuries, and was unemployed for a year or more.
[5] [Details deleted].
From 1991 until 2012, he also occasionally sold [products] on the street and, by implication, undertook other casual work.
The applicant married a woman of claimed Arab ethnicity in September 2002, and the couple have a [child]. The applicant’s widowed mother lives in Ahwaz. He has [siblings] living in Defzul, and one deceased [sibling]. [Details deleted].
The applicant travelled from Iran with a brother-in-law, and [other] people related to his wife’s family. He flew from Tehran International Airport to [Country 1] in about June 2012, on a genuine Iranian passport issued in 2011. From [Country 1], he boarded a boat headed to Australia.
Evidence
The evidence before the Tribunal includes the following relevant material:
From the Department’s files
§Notes from the applicant’s Biodata interview on 12 August 2012 and Irregular Maritime Arrival Entry Interview in [in] September 2012.
§The applicant’s protection visa application form completed and signed on 22 November 2012.
§Statutory declaration dated 6 December 2012, and updated statement of claims of 27 August 2013.
§Documents relating to the applicant’s identity and nationality, and those of his immediate family:
-Birth certificate (shenasnameh);
-Iranian national ID card;
-Driver’s licence;
-Military service ID card, issued [in] February 2000;
-Marriage certificate, dated [in] September 2003;
-Employment card (issued in about 2003, certifying the applicant as a [Occupation 1]);
-Business permit, for the applicant’s business ‘[Named] store’, issued in April 2003 and valid for five years;
-Powers of attorney from the applicant to his wife, dated [in] June 2012;
-Wife’s and son’s birth certificates (shenasnameh); wife’s national ID card; son’s vaccination card;
§Documents relating to the applicant’s health:
-International Health and Medical Services (IHMS) records, extracts and a discharge summary date [November] 2012;
-Consultation record of [September] 2013, from Ms [A], [Organisation 2].
§A Protection visa interview (‘Department interview’) held on 28 August 2013, a recording of which is on the Department file.
§Submission dated 10 September 2013 from [Organisation 1], entitle ‘Post-DIAC interview submissions’.
§The Decision on Protection (Class XA) visa application (‘delegate’s decision record’) of 21 February 2014.
Materials submitted to the Tribunal (in the first, second and current instances)
§The application for review, lodged on 5 March 2014, has attached to it a copy of the delegate’s decision record and the notification of the visa refusal.
§A submission dated 8 March 2019 sets out a chronology of the applicant’s protection claims and migration history.
§The applicant provided to the current Tribunal a further statement (undated), summarising his claims.
§Documents relating to the applicant’s protection claims, described as two summonses:
-A notice to appear at the provincial Court of the Islamic Revolution [in] September 2005 (copy of Farsi text, with English translation), for ‘alliance in public places and causing convulsions’.
-A ‘warrant’, dated [in] April 2006, ordering the arrest of the applicant for him to appear in court [in] May 2006 (copy of Farsi document, with English translation).
§Further documents relating to the applicant’s health:
-Results from an x-ray of the applicant’s [body part], signed [September] 2012; and of the applicant’s [other body parts], dated [March] 2014.
-Letter from [Ms B], [Organisation 2], dated 8 May 2014, addressed to the applicant’s (then) representative.
-Letter from [Ms B], [Organisation 2] dated [November] 2015.
-Report dated [March] 2019 from Mr [C], clinical psychologist. Mr [C] provided an updated report [in] March 2019, following a further consultation that took place with the assistance of a telephone interpreter.
§Excerpts of medical documents, which the first Tribunal member extracted and placed on file, concerning the treatment of patients with certain medical ailments.
The Tribunal has before it the first Tribunal’s decision of 4 January 2016, and the second Tribunal’s decision of 30 November 2016. The current Tribunal also has access to the recordings of the previous Tribunal hearings on 24 November 2015 and 1 September 2016, both of which were conducted via video conference with the applicant in [City 1].
The applicant appeared before the current Tribunal on 18 March 2019, to give evidence and present arguments. The hearing was conducted via video conference between Sydney and [City 1], with the assistance of an interpreter in the Farsi and English languages. The applicant and his representative Mr [D] were present in [City 1]. Ms [E] appeared as a witness and support person.
Mr [D] commented to the current Tribunal that the hearings before T1 and T2 had been combative, and he invited it to discount completely the oral evidence given to those Tribunals.
§ In relation to the hearing before T1, the current Tribunal is of the view that the applicant was able to present his claims and evidence, and that the Member’s pointing to weaknesses in his evidence did not amount to him being ‘combative’ or impairing the applicant’s ability to present his case.
§ In relation to the hearing before T2, the current Tribunal accepts that the applicant was found to have been deprived of a ‘real and meaningful opportunity’ to appear at the hearing, due to his representative’s conduct. It is clear that the applicant’s representative prevented him from addressing a number of relevant issues.
-   It would of course be inappropriate to draw adverse inferences from such omissions.
-   Nonetheless, the applicant addressed and made cogent comments before T2 on a number of issues, such as confirming the summonses that he had received (allegedly in 2005 and 2006); the intervention of a judge to ‘remove’ his court case; the link between these legal issues and his later business dispute; and his ongoing work in Iran up to the time of his departure.
-   In sum, the Tribunal considers that some relevant evidence emerged at the hearing before T2, and that it should take that into account, with caution. However, in its view it would be inappropriate to draw adverse inferences from either the applicant’s statements or his omissions at that hearing, given the atmosphere that prevailed.
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken into account the most recent country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that it is relevant. This report is DFAT Country Information Report – Iran, dated 7 June 2018. The Tribunal drew on other general and country information sources, detailed where appropriate in the body of this decision.
Country of reference
The applicant claims to be an Iranian national. He departed Iran on a genuine Iranian passport, which he disposed of en route to Australia. The applicant has presented copies of other identity documents for himself, his wife and his son. He speaks Farsi, and demonstrated a good knowledge of Iran’s society and culture. The Tribunal is satisfied that he is an Iranian national, as claimed. Therefore, Iran is the country of reference for the purpose of assessing the applicant’s claims to be a refugee, and the receiving country for the purpose of assessing his eligibility for complementary protection.
Assessing Claims and Evidence, and Credibility
The Tribunal has taken into account the AAT’s Migration and Refugee Division Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility both in the conduct of the hearing and in evaluating the applicant’s evidence as a whole. Of particular relevance are that some of the key events may have occurred some 15 years ago; that almost seven years has passed since his arrival in Australia; and that he has now appeared before the Tribunal on three occasions.
The claims and evidence before the Tribunal are confused. As his current representative noted, one difficult aspect of this case is that the applicant has struggled with times, dates and the sequence of events, and he also tends to blend things (in other words, talking about individuals, actions or events without reference to any timelines or causality). As a result, the Tribunal has before it various sets of claims that lack overall cohesion or consistency. The Tribunal appreciates Ms [E]’s recent efforts to draw these strands together in to a single (proposed) timeline, which was a useful reference point during this review. However, as discussed below, this timeline remains at odds with some of the applicant’s ongoing claims, and it fails to explain earlier statements when he clearly gave contradictory evidence.
In broad terms, the applicant has, during the course of his interviews and hearings, presented two starkly different narratives, and various strands which have been unclear and/or changed over time.
§ By one account, the basij arrested him during the 2009 anti-government protests, detained and tortured him, and opened a criminal case that was eventually dismissed. He was left with serious injuries that prevented him from working for a year. Some years later, corrupt basij made fresh allegations of anti-regime conduct against him, in the course of a business dispute.
§ By the other account, the basij arrested him around 2005 (or perhaps 2003 or 2004), around the time of the Arab protests in Khuzestan. They detained, tortured and also brought criminal charges. Later, in around 2009, he was in a business dispute with corrupt intelligence officials when they detained and tortured him, leaving him again with serious injuries. He fled Iran due to renewed criminal charges.
The inconsistencies concern, among other things: (a) the date of the applicant’s initial arrest and detention, and, related to this, whether the basij picked him up near the Arab protests in 2005 or the anti-government protests in 2009; (b) the applicant’s physical injuries, including the number of occasions he was injured, the causes and the consequences; (c) the impact of these instances on his daily life and work; and (d) the applicant’s claimed dealings with the criminal justice system (the criminal courts or, as suggested on some occasions, dispute resolution centres). These are so basic to his protection claims that they raise significant doubts about his credibility.
The Tribunal’s concerns extend beyond these particular integers of his claims. For instance:
§ The applicant provided changeable or incomplete information about other matters, such the nature of his work, and whether or not he owned his own home.
§ On several matters, he related the basic elements of a claim, but struggled to provide peripheral information (such as what protests had been underway in Ahwaz when he was first arrested). This casts doubt on whether he was drawing on personal lived experience.
§ Finally, the applicant repeatedly claimed that individuals (such as a judge) had been able to resolve problem, such as enabling him to evade further court action, or to depart Iran on a passport in his own name. In each case, this person could assist for only a brief window of time; and he is no longer contactable, either to confirm the applicant’s claims or to assist him in the future. The Tribunal is not prepared to accept these claims at face value. It is concerned that he has advanced them to explain his conduct in Iran, especially his ability to leave Iran on a passport in his own name. It therefore considers that these claims, and the alleged role of these persons, warrant close scrutiny.
The Tribunal has before it a range of medical evidence which potentially goes to (a) an assessment of his protection claims; and (b) his presentation at hearing, and hence, the Tribunal’s assessment of his claims and evidence. The applicant has not suggested, and there is nothing before the Tribunal to suggest, that he lacks the capacity to present his claims and evidence.

Nonetheless, there is a range of material, including written and oral submissions, and some supporting documents, suggesting that the applicant’s poor recall is attributable to his mental and physical health, and that the Tribunal should therefore exercise caution in drawing adverse inferences from inconsistencies, gaps, anomalies or other shortcomings in his evidence. The Tribunal considers these below.
Mental health issues
At the most recent hearing, the applicant advised that he is not receiving any treatment for ongoing mental health problems. He said that he received psychological treatment while in immigration detention, but that he now only takes painkillers to deal with physical pain.
The Tribunal received two psychological reports dated [date] March 2019 and [date] March 2019 from Mr [C], clinical psychologist in [Suburb 1], [State 1]. The first report was based on a consultation conducted without an interpreter; the second was with an interpreter. They basically cover the same ground.
§ Mr [C] records the applicant’s account of his past experiences in Iran, as recounted at the consultation. He makes several observations about the applicant’s conduct, namely that he was very nervous and initially reluctant to enter the office; that he sobbed during the first interview; and that he alternated between silence and agitation when relating his circumstances. Mr [C] stated that the applicant described certain symptoms, such as depression, paranoia and irritability. It is not clear whether the applicant formulated these himself (there is, for instance, one recorded comment that he misses his family and worries about them) or whether he was responding to Mr [C]’s specific questions.
§ Mr [C] concludes that the applicant ‘describes a story and has symptoms consistent with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder’, attaching to his letter a copy of the DSM-IV criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD. The letter strongly suggests that Mr [C] formed this view based on the applicant’s own statements and oral responses to questions.
Mr [C]’s report indicates that he is aware of his role as an expert witness[6]. It states that Ms [E] brought the applicant to the practice to obtain a report detailing his abuse in Iran and ‘its subsequent effects on him’. The Tribunal accepts Mr [C]’s professional opinion that the applicant’s reported symptoms are consistent with PTSD. The applicant’s reported and observed conduct – such as sadness, irritability, frustration, feeling depressed and reluctance to engage with medical or other professionals – is potentially relevant when assessing his presentation to the Tribunal.
[6] He refers specifically to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s Expert Witness Code of Conduct
Mr [C] did not identify any memory problems, or inability to recall events. The applicant appears to have given him some detail about his alleged experiences in Iran, but Mr [C] reported that he avoided talking about his torture (including the applicant’s brief comment, at Mr [C]’s prompting, that there had also been a sexual assault). The Tribunal also takes these comments into account.
Mr [C] wrote: ‘I am well aware that a skilled fraudulent person may plausibly present as [the applicant] has done so I cannot vouch for the truth of his presentation. However, he seemed to me to be genuine.’ The Tribunal understands Mr [C] to mean that the applicant’s description of his symptoms appeared credible, or at least consistent with the conduct he displayed. However, Mr [C] has concluded whether the symptoms are attributable to any particular incident(s) in Iran, or that he has any professional expertise to comment on the veracity of the applicant’s claims. Mr [C] also does not address whether the applicant’s symptoms might be attributable to other factors, such as adjustment to life in Australia, his separation from family or his uncertain migration status. And most significantly, Mr [C]’s comments shed little light on whether the applicant suffers any memory loss or confusion.
In sum, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant suffers some mental health issues that are relevant to its assessment below. However, it is not satisfied on the available material that the applicant suffers significant memory problems or confusion. As noted above, neither the applicant nor his representative has raised any broader concerns about his competency to present his case, and the Tribunal observed nothing to merit further investigation. The available evidence strongly suggests that the applicant’s mental health issues relate to his personal circumstances in Australia (such as separation from his family), and that his lack of recall relates only to the substance of his protection claims.
Other medical issues
The applicant has also presented medical evidence relating to past injuries that he suffered in Iran. The Tribunal summarises this evidence below, to see whether these can shed light on the nature of his injuries, or (more tentatively) their timing and circumstances.
The applicant’s medical issues in Iran, as described in his written and oral claims, are:
§ In his statement of claims, the applicant wrote that in 2009, the basij tortured him. He suffered a nosebleed; he passed out; he was hit with a blunt [object]; and he briefly suffered blurred vision afterwards. The blows to his head have led to memory problems.
-   He had [an injury], and he was in bed for about two [weeks].
-   He then sought treatment for his [second injury]. A doctor visited his home, and [treated him], for about two months.
-   He was unable to work for about a year after this.
§ At his Department interview, the applicant said that he went to a private clinic for x-rays. He then received treatment at home in 2009 for his [problems]. The doctor [treated the applicant]; he was able to do so because there was nothing broken.
-   The applicant also said that the doctor treated him for a [third injury], and that he was unable to work for a year. [Details deleted].
§ The applicant told the first Tribunal (T1) that when the basij arrested him, [he suffered injuries]. He was taken at night to have [x-rays]. They [were] unable to operate. [Details deleted]. They were unable to operate on [a specific area], and as a consequence, he has a permanent injury. They [attempted] to deal with [one injury], but they had not done this well, and he still has scars. As for the treatment for the [second injury], the applicant said that he received treatment in his mother’s home. He did not receive a general anaesthetic, due to his [health] problem. (T1 flagged scepticism that it would be possible for the applicant to have his [specific treatment] at home, with a general anaesthetic.)
-   The applicant also told T1 that in about 2011, during the business dispute with other basij, they once came to his mother’s home and [injured him]. They hit him with a car and drove away. He went to hospital for treatment, telling staff that he had been involved in an accident.
§ There was minimal exchange relating to the applicant’s medical issues at the hearing before T2.
§ The submission of 8 March 2019 stated that the basij tortured the applicant (in 2004), but gives no details of specific injuries. It states that they later tortured and bashed him (in 2009), resulting in [multiple injuries].
At hearing before the current Tribunal, the applicant said that he suffered serious physical injuries twice: (a) the first time (ca. 2003 or 2004), he suffered [injuries] (when the basij abducted him on the street and bashed him); and (b) the second time (ca. 2009), he suffered [other injuries].
§ The Tribunal tried to gain some orientation by asking him his marital status and other circumstances at the time of each assault. He said that at the time of his religious engagement in 2003 (he married in 2004), [he was recovering] from the first incident.
§ In relation to the second incident (ca. 2009), he referred to various injuries.
§ Asked about his evidence to T1 linking his [injury] to a car accident, the applicant said that he once [suffered the same injury] in a car accident, when he was a child. In all, [it had happened] three times. He denied having told T1 that the basij once hit him with a car, [injuring him].
§ The Tribunal observed that the alleged basij bashings had for the main part resulted in injuries only to [a specific] side. At hearing, the applicant confirmed [this].
§ Asked about his ‘[injury]’, the applicant said that a doctor from Tehran assisted him under a local anaesthetic; he was unable to receive a general anaesthetic because of his [health] problems. In further exchange with the applicant and his representative, and with the interpreter’s comments about Farsi terminology, it transpired that this claim may not necessary relate to [that injury]. It could relate to a lesser [injury].[7]
[7] [Source deleted]
The Tribunal has before it letters from [Ms B], [at] [Organisation 2], dated [May] 2014 and [November] 2015; and x-ray reports from [a doctor], dated [September] 2012, and from [a second doctor][8] of [March] 2014.
[8] [Source deleted]
[Ms F] notes that she has examined many torture victims, and makes the following comments:
§ An x-ray shows a past fracture on the applicant’s [body]. [The] records show that he has suffered pain at the site of the fracture. [Details deleted]. This, she opines, is ‘consistent with his history of being beaten on this side’.
§ The applicant claimed to have suffered [a certain injury], with [treatment required] for three days (not two weeks, as per his original statement). She states that this procedure can be conducted at home. [Details deleted]. She adds that there are no signs of broken ribs. This is unsurprising, she notes, as a ‘blunt force trauma would typically not cause a fracture of the rib [details deleted].’
§ She notes that the fractures on [the applicant’s body] are ‘consistent with being shackled while beaten’, and are ‘not typical of injuries sustained while falling over’.
§ [Details deleted].
The Tribunal accepts [Ms F’s] expert opinion and conclusion that the applicant has injuries that are typical of those suffered from blunt force trauma and multiple beatings around the same time. Some aspects of the report are puzzling, such as the reference to the applicant having been shackled (he claimed to have been tied up on the first occasion), and the [injuries] not being ‘typical’ of a fall (it is not clear whether anyone has suggested that).
In the Tribunal’s view, the expert opinion is of limited assistance in assessing this case. It accepts that the applicant has suffered some physical injuries, [although] the applicant’s comments about prior [health] problems preventing him receiving a general anaesthetic also suggest that he has some chronic health problems. [Ms F] opines that the injuries are consistent with the applicant’s protection claims, as presented. Given that the report is not contemporaneous with the injuries, it is unsurprising that she does not confirm with certainty the cause of the physical injuries, or speculate as to whether there could be other causes. Similarly, she is also unable to draw conclusions as to the timing of the injuries; whether they occurred around the same time; or the circumstances in which they arose.
Other issues
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant does not have strong presentation skills. This may reflect in part his claim to have had limited formal education, a total of about [specified] years. It notes in passing that his biodata interview in August 2012 has the annotation ‘illiterate’ on it, although it is not clear whether this is accurate. On a slightly different note, Mr [C] records Ms [E]’s comments to him about the applicant: ‘She believes his inconsistency may be due to a combination of his ‘simple’ intelligence, phobia about talking about his torture and genuine inability to correctly recall chronological details’. Mr [E] confirmed the gist of this at hearing. As noted above, the Tribunal is mindful that a person’s narrative style, their memory (especially around chronologies) and a reluctance to revisit past traumatic events are all potentially relevant to an assessment of protection claims. In the present case, however, it is not satisfied that any such factors adequately explain the shortcomings in the applicant’s claims and evidence.
Detention and torture by the Basij
The applicant originally stated that his conflict with the basij started in 2009, ‘around the time of the national elections’. He told T1 that it had occurred in the sixth month of 1383 (August/September 2004), and T2 that it took place in 1382 (2003). The most recent submission put the timing of this incident at August/September 2004.
The applicant presented this as a completely unexpected incident that was the trigger for his later problems. The Tribunal expects that he would be able to recall the timing of such a life-changing event, at least in approximate terms. Its efforts to clarify the timing, by reference to other events, were inconclusive.
§ Asked to relate the incident to his family events, the applicant said that he had a religious engagement in 2003, and married about 18 months later, in 2004. At the time of his engagement, [he was undergoing treatment] (following the mistreatment from the basij). At face value, this suggests that the conflict with the basij occurred sometime in 2003. However, the marriage certificate he provided states that he was married [in] September 2003; and he stated on the protection visa application form that he married in September 2002. In sum, this line of enquiry was somewhat inconclusive, possibly due to confusion with dates and/or terminology, but it suggests that the incident occurred around 2003 or 2004; rather than in 2009, as originally stated.
Similarly, the Tribunal tried to explore whether the applicant was first arrested around the time of the mass protests by Ahwazi Arabs from April 2005[9] or during the anti-government protests in 2009 (which his original statement specifically refers to). Although he appears to have now settled on a date around mid-2004, this appears to be highly uncertain.
[9] See, for instance, International Federation for Human Rights 2010, The hidden side of Iran: Discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities, October, UNHCR Refworld, p.13 CIS19328>
Basij seize the applicant on the street
Original statement: The applicant has consistently claimed that his problems began one day when he left [where] he was working, still wearing his work uniform, to buy lunch for the workers he was supervising. He was walking down the street towards a nearby sandwich shop, when he noticed a protest on the main street. The basij closed off both ends of the street and came towards him. He turned around, but they caught up with him and held him. He told them that he was just getting some lunch, but they threw him into their van and drove off.
Subsequent evidence and consideration: The applicant has claimed that the basij arrested him in the belief that he was connected to the protestors. They did this, even though he was wearing his work clothes, and his boss ([details deleted]) told the basij that he had nothing to do with the protest. The applicant contends that he remains puzzled to this day as to why the basij singled him out.
The Tribunal for its part finds the applicant’s account of the incident difficult to believe.
§ First, as noted above, the applicant’s uncertain, changeable evidence as to whether this arrest occurred in 2009, or around the period from 2003 to 2005, casts doubt over its truthfulness.
§ Second, it is difficult to imagine why basij would pick up the applicant when he was clearly in work clothes and not participating in actual protest activity. The applicant suggested to T1 that they can do this to anyone, just to get promoted. The Tribunal views this with scepticism, as it is unclear how the basij would benefit from detaining and later torturing a person who had no obvious link with politics or Arab rights. (The Tribunal notes in this context that although the applicant claims that the basiji asked him about political links, including with Arab separatists, it was only later, when his in-laws collected him, that his family links to Arabs became apparent).
§ Third, even if the applicant has no personal interests in politics, it is surprising that he did not, after his release, hear or enquire about the protests that had been underway – even if only to understand why he had been picked up, or to prepare for any follow-up action by the basiji. The applicant said that he does not know what the protests were about. Pressed for further comments, he thought that they might have been linked with the Green Movement protests (which occurred in 2009); but when asked about the timing, he thought that the arrest might have taken place in 2004. The Tribunal asked whether – as of 2019 – he had ever enquired or found out whom he had been mistaken for. He replied briefly that he had not. The applicant’s response suggests that he was not in fact speaking from personal experience, and casts doubt over the truth of this claim. The Tribunal’s concern lies in the changeable timeframe that the applicant has provided, the lack of context and the applicant’s apparent failure to turn his mind to these aspects of his claims .
§ These concerns, taken together, cast strong doubt over the applicant’s claim to have been detained by the basij at all.
Basij detain and mistreat the applicant
Original statement: The applicant claimed that the basiji blindfolded him in the car, and tied up his hands and feet. They drove for about an hour. He then described his treatment in detention in the following terms:
§ The applicant stayed in the centre for an unknown period. He remained blindfolded throughout, with his hands and feet tied. His family has since told the applicant that he was detained for about seven days, in a known torture centre.
§ The basij interrogated him about the protests and what group he belonged to.
§ They threatened to force him to confess. Over this period, they forced him to jump over running water, whereby he hit his head and ended up with a nosebleed He has suffered memory problems ever since. Later, some officers came and slapped him. Later still, some other people came in and struck the applicant even harder, perhaps with a [rifle]. He eventually fell down and passed out.
§ Someone eventually removed the [blindfolds]. [Details deleted]. He mentioned this in the context of explaining why he did not have more details about the protest where he was detained.
The applicant essentially repeated these claims at the Department interview and before T1. As noted above, he told the current Tribunal that the basij repeatedly asked him what groups he belonged to, but he could not figure out what group they were referring to or interested in (contrary to his earlier statements that they asked about pro-Arab groups). He said that he was detained and tortured on this occasion over a period of only some two or three days, and that he suffered [injuries]. He said that the other injuries occurred later, on a separate occasion. Invited to comment on the inconsistencies in his evidence about this (first) detention, he merely repeated that in 2004, he was detained for two or three days, and suffered [injuries].
The basij’s motives in arresting the applicant remain unclear. The applicant told T1 that the Basij just arrest people to promote themselves; it had been his bad luck to have been singled out. At the most recent hearing, the applicant said that he speaks no Arabic, and could provide no further insight as to why the Basij arrested him on the periphery of some protest activity (whether Arabic or other).
The applicant’s release
Original statement: The applicant wrote that the officers eventually moved him to another room, and his in-laws came to collect him. His account of what happened around this time appears to be based in part on firsthand knowledge, and what he pieced together from other sources:
§ The workers who witnessed the applicant’s capture had alerted his family. They had been looking for him since then, unsuccessfully.
§ In the end, his in-laws and wife came to collect him. They are Arab, and their appearance confirmed the basiji’s suspicions that the applicant had been involved with the Khalq-e-Arab riots.
§ The applicant was released on condition that he did not leave Ahwaz, and that he report back to the basij as required. His father-in-law provided the title deeds to his house as security.
§ The applicant was not allowed to go to hospital, and his family had to write a letter stating that the basij had not harmed him.

The applicant repeated the basic elements of this case at the Department interview and before T1. He told T1 that [Mr G], a man who [had] been following the case; he suggested that [Mr G] had some role in securing his release, through connections, and by arranging for the applicant’s father-in-law to provide the title to his house as security. He said that the Basij had blacklisted him at all the hospitals, in order to prevent him having any evidence that they had tortured him.
At the most recent hearing, the Tribunal asked the applicant whether his father-in-law had any documents relating to the offer of his house deeds as security for the applicant’s release. The applicant replied that his father-in-law has since sold the house, and there is no evidence of it having been used as a security.
The applicant’s condition and treatment
Original statement: The applicant claimed that, after his release, he was in poor condition, and needed medical treatment. He went to hospital, but no one would treat him.
§ A doctor friend of the applicant’s family came to the house, and ordered an x-ray. The applicant had [injuries].
§ The applicant had [treatment].
§ The applicant went to [a specialist] who declined to treat the [injury]. A doctor came to his home and [treated him], for about two months.
§ The applicant remained at home, recovering, for about a year. One of the consequences is that [details deleted].
At the Department interview and before T1, described his treatment after this detention for [injuries]. He said that he could not go to hospital because he had given a written undertaking not to do so. The implication was that the basij were keen that he not present at the hospital, and that there be no record of the punishment they had meted out to him.
He was taken at night to a clinic for x-rays, but received medical treatment at home. The family had found a doctor willing to help him. The doctor had [treated him] at home, under local anaesthetic; he could not tolerate a general anaesthetic. [Details deleted]. [He suffered an Injury] and needed to be operated on, but the doctor managed to only [perform a specific treatment]. [Details deleted]. Similarly, the doctor was unable to operate on [another injury], and there is now a permanent injury there. They [attempted to treat another injury], but this was not done completely, and the applicant [still] has problems there, too.
By way of contrast, the applicant told the current Tribunal that, following his arrest on the margins of the protest, he suffered only [injuries]. The other injuries, he claimed, related to the second major incident in 2009. The Tribunal finds this significant change in the applicant’s claims and evidence to be of further concern.
Court action
Original statement: The applicant claimed that his detention in 2009 (after the street protests) resulted in him having a ‘file’, ie. an adverse file with the basij. His father-in-law knew [someone], Mr [G], a person with whom he used to drink alcohol. This man promised to remove the applicant’s file. But this turned out to be a temporary measure only. (The applicant linked this with his claim to be now subject to [imprisonment].) The applicant believes this person to have now retired, and he is unable to contact him.
Subsequent evidence: The applicant provided copies of two court summonses. He submitted one of these to T1. Dated [April] 2006, this requires his attendance at the Court of the Islamic Revolution [in] May 2006 stating: ‘for alliance in public place and causing convulsion, he must be arrested and taken to this office in custody’. It appears to indicate that, if he does not appear in court, he will be arrested. He submitted another summons to T2, an earlier, undated summons to appear in court [in] September 2005.
The applicant told T1 that he went to court twice in the Persian year 1384 (2005), and had been found not guilty. He attended court again the following year, but he was released as there was insufficient evidence.
§ The applicant’s original statement stated that he had gone to court two or three times, in around 2011; that he had been found guilty and sentenced; and that he had been released on the security of his own home. The applicant told T1 that he did not go to ‘court’ in 2011; rather, it had been a kind of dispute resolution centre, a small court.
The applicant submitted both summonses, with translations, to the second Tribunal. At that hearing, he said that he had received both summonses following his first arrest, but he did not appear in court because he had been ill. His father-in-law’s friend, Mr [G], was a [Senior Official 1], and he had managed to ‘settle’ the case, in other words, to have it stopped.
The applicant told the current Tribunal that he had received two court summonses. He thought that the first of these had been issued some eight or nine months after his arrest on the street. He appeared in court twice, and the matter was dismissed. Asked for details of what had happened, the applicant said that he and his in-laws bribed Mr [G], who then changed the judge’s decision.
Anticipating the Tribunal’s disquiet at this apparent change, Mr [D] observed that the applicant did not know the details of what happened, and seemed to be guessing. He noted other evidence that Mr [G] was not [Senior Official 1], and said that the applicant and his in-laws may have paid a fine or a bribe. Mr [D] posited that we cannot know exactly how the applicant’s father-in-law arranged this outcome. In any event, the applicant told the Tribunal that the court matter was dismissed (for the time being).
The Tribunal is concerned that, once again, the applicant’s claim about the court action shows marked inconsistencies, concerning the dates of any court appearances (although the summonses, if genuine, may address that issue; the role of Mr [G]; whether or not the applicant personally appeared; and the outcome. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are any factors – such as the applicant’s confusion about dates, or any limited understanding of Mr [G]’s role or of the Iranian court system – that adequately explain this confused evidence. It notes, among other things, that the applicant managed to conduct a business in Iran up to the time of his departure from Iran, and arrange official and legal documentation such as his passport and a detailed power of attorney for his wife to take care of his affairs during his absence from Iran.
Period of unemployment
In his original statement, the applicant claimed that he was unable to work for about a year after his detention. Even when he was fit enough to work, he had problems because government agencies had access to his adverse personal record.
At the most recent hearing, the applicant said that his one year of unemployment was not following the first arrest (in other words, around 2004), but rather following the assaults he suffered in 2009. He said that, following the first arrest, he still had the lasting effect of his [injury], which has never fully healed. The main consequence was psychological, as he was apprehensive of crowds.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was unemployed for a year, following some physical injuries. His accounts of when this occurred, and why, are inconsistent. His original statement clearly indicates that it followed on from the first arrest (which he then put at 2009), and before the dispute with [Mr H]. The more recent version states that he recovered for a year after [Mr H]’s thugs assaulted him
At the most recent hearing, the applicant stated that he sold his original business after some eight or nine years (hence, in around 2011 or 2012, although it may have been earlier); that he was unemployed for a year; and that he then resumed [Occupation 1] after setting up a workshop in his mother’s home. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has consistently stated that he operated a [business] from around 2003; that he was forced to sell or close it after being physically injured; and that he later reopened a modest workshop from his mother’s home. What has varied widely, however, are the claims surrounding this, including: (a) the timing and circumstances of the physical injury; (b) what in fact ‘forced’ him to sell or close the business; and (c) what happened during the period that he ran the smaller workshop.
Business dispute with a basij
Original statement: The applicant claimed that a person (‘[Mr I]’) who was a basij and a [Occupation 2] for a local [centre] approached him to do some [work]. A few days later, [Mr I] brought another basij to meet the applicant, [Mr H].[10] [Mr H] also worked at the [centre], and [Mr I] told the applicant that he had to take orders from him.
§ The applicant signed a contract with [Mr I] to finish [some work]. The applicant completed the work for [specified], but [Mr I] refused to pay what the applicant expected.
§ [Mr H] found the applicant work in another [location], but again refused to pay. He threatened to make trouble for the applicant.
§ One day, the applicant saw [Mr H] at the graveyard, visiting the grave of his brother, [who was a] basij. This confirmed the applicant’s suspicion that [Mr H] was a basij. He decided to stop working for [Mr H].
- By way of background, the applicant commented that these men are corrupt, and that they were looking to have a fight with him. He believes that [Mr J], a man who lived in his neighbourhood, knew about the applicant’s past file and was the mastermind of this conflict. He variously described [Mr J] as ‘the [Position 1]’,[11] and the ‘[Position 2]’, who was also a [basij] in the applicant’s local area[12].
§ The applicant wrote that ‘he’ insulted the father of a friend; the applicant responded by slapping him in the face; and that ‘he’ then sued the applicant. In context, this appears to be a reference to his dispute with [Mr H], not [Mr J].
§ [Mr H] accused the applicant of making anti-government statements. The applicant went to court two or three times, and was found guilty of insulting the government. He was ‘sentenced’, but released on the security of his home title.
§ A month later, the applicant fled Iran.
[10] The written submissions give the name as [Mr H], but the Tribunal uses the more usual transliteration of this [name].
[11] Statement of 6 December 2012, paragraph 36.
[12] Statement of 27 August 2013, paragraph 36.
At the Department interview, the applicant denied having said that he slapped [Mr H], but rather that he had pushed his hand to his face. At the time, he did not realise that [Mr H] had worked for the basij. He said that he had attended court a month or two before coming to Australia, and that a friend had alerted him that he should leave Iran. He had been expected to go back to court in around August/September 2012, but he had not gone. As a consequence, the authorities took away his house and his car. The applicant did not indicate that there had been any physical violence at the hands of [Mr H] or persons associated with him.
Before T1, the applicant stated his father-in-law had provided the deeds to his house to Sepah as a security in relation to the court proceedings, but he (the father-in-law) had wanted to sell the house, so the applicant provided the deeds to his own house. He commented that his father-in-law’s house had been worth [an amount] (currency units), whereas the applicant’s house was worth only [a lower amount]. It was not entirely clear whether the security was provided in relation to the court proceedings specifically, or as a kind of general bond to Sepah.
The applicant told T1 that [Mr I] had previously been in Sepah, but had left when he started working as a [Occupation 2]. [Mr I] later told the applicant that all of [Mr H]’s family were in the Sepah and the Basij.
The applicant told T1 that [Mr H] had pressured him to finish the job he had started; for his part, the applicant was no longer interested in even the unpaid sum.
§ [Mr H] started taunting him that he had insulted the government.
§ Meanwhile, every morning, two or three men from the Basij started going past his mother’s home; the applicant noticed them whenever he visited.
§ One time, these men entered his mother’s home while the applicant was visiting. They hit him with a car, [and injured him]. He went to the hospital, but just told them that he had been involved in an accident.
At the hearing before T2, the applicant briefly commented that [Mr H] made accusations that he was insulting the government, and that this had the effect of reviving the earlier court case.
At the most recent Tribunal hearing, the applicant described the contractual arrangements he had with [Mr I] and then [Mr H], and gave details of the business dispute he had with [Mr H]. Essentially, the deal was that [Mr H] agreed to pay the applicant upon completion of [a specified amount of work]. Like [Mr I], [Mr H] refused to pay at the agreed stages. The applicant decided to pack up his stuff and leave the job.
The applicant said that [Mr H] was furious, and came to his mother’s home looking for him. There were arguments and threats. The applicant suggested that it was during one of these encounters, at his mother’s home, that [Mr H] slapped him and he pushed back. One time, the applicant arrived at his mother’s home, and found his mother crying. Two men were there, and arrested him. They took him away and beat him ‘terribly’.
The Tribunal queried why [Mr H] waited for the applicant at his mother’s home, rather than his own residence (even allowing for the fact that he had his workshop there). The applicant said that he used to visit his mother every day. He said that nobody knew his home address. In response to the Tribunal’s surprise that the Basij and Sepah could not find his address, he then said that he did not have his own home at that time, as he was renting. The Tribunal put to the applicant that he had previously mentioned having offered title to his own home as a security. The applicant denied having ever said that, but Mr [D] confirmed on checking his records that that he had made such a claim. In a confused exchange, the applicant said that a [person] once gave him an apartment as part-payment for some work and for a car, although it was still subject to a mortgage. When he had the conflict with [Mr H], he had to hand over that title as security for his release. The Tribunal asked the applicant again how it was the [Mr H] and other Basij did not target him at his own home. The applicant replied that the [Occupation 2] whom he worked for knew only his mother’s address (where the [workshop] was). For whatever reason, [Mr H] knew only that address.
The applicant told the Tribunal that the two men at his mother’s home took him to the centre where [Mr H] works, and tortured him severely, over a period of ten to 15 days. He said that they took him to a [location] [and caused multiple injuries].
The applicant said that they released him ,[demanding] that he provided the deeds to his house, as security.
The applicant described his medical treatment after his release, essentially following on from the account in his original statement. The Tribunal enquired about the treatment of his [injury], which had appeared problematic. The applicant said that his family arranged for a doctor from Tehran to treat him at home. In response to questions, he said that a neighbour knew some hospital staff, who helped his family get in contact with a private specialist visiting from Tehran. The Tribunal signalled its surprise that the family had access to a visiting specialist from Tehran, for a home visit. As for the [treatment], the applicant said that his [health] problems prevented him from getting a general anaesthetic. The representative and interpreter suggested that the applicant might be referring not to having [the particular treatment], but rather [a different treatment]. Following on from this, the applicant said that it was more like [details deleted]. The applicant said that he did not have any receipts or other evidence of this treatment, as it had been long ago.
The applicant said that he could not work for a year or more after this. The Tribunal alerted him to his previous evidence that he had worked as a [Occupation 1] until 2012, when he left for Australia. The applicant clarified that he only had occasional work, and two of his employees would come by to help. (This appears to refer to his having set up a smaller workshop in his mother’s garage, after suffering physical injuries in about 2009).
The Tribunal asked the applicant for any details of legal action that [Mr H] had initiated against him, in the wake of their conflict (ca. 2009). He replied that [Mr H]’s men beat him up badly, and during the course of the assault, warned him not to take any legal action against them. During the assault, [Mr H] threatened to make false allegations that the applicant had made anti-government statements. The applicant did not receive any summons and did not appear in court prior to his departure.
The applicant was afraid, and contacted his friend Mr [K], a [Senior Official] in Ahwaz. Mr [K] consulted his friends in Sepah and the Basij, and informed the applicant that he was subject to charges that could result in him imprisoned on political grounds. Although the applicant told T1 that he went to court and received summonses, this appeared to have been a reference to the events in 2005/2006. He went on to say to T1 that he did not go to court in 2011. At the most recent hearing, he confirmed that he did not attend court in 2011. He reiterated that he only found out about the false political allegations when he contacted Mr [K], who warned him that he needed to leave the country quickly.
The Tribunal notes that the applicant spoke cogently and in some detail about the contractual arrangements at the [workplace]. He was clearly drawing from personal experience.
By way of contrast, there were glaring inconsistencies in his accounts of how the dispute with [Mr H] evolved; who inflicted the most serious injuries on him, which left him unable to work for a year (whether following the street arrest or his business dispute; when he suffered those injuries; what if any legal actions were underway while he was still in Iran; and what link this has with his eventual departure from Iran.
§ The Tribunal takes into account that some misunderstandings may have arisen from the use of medical or legal terminology. It also takes into account that some elements of his claims may have been recorded in an incorrect order or causality, perhaps due to interpretation or the applicant’s narrative style or the process of recording his claims – some elements may have been put down with an incorrect order or causality. And it takes into account that the applicant has suffered some physical injury and associated trauma; that he has limited education; that he claimed to have suffered some memory loss from a blow to his head; and that he has some ongoing mental health issues. It has also considered the cumulative effect of these factors
However, the Tribunal is of the view that these factors do not explain fully, or even to a satisfactory degree, the stark inconsistencies in the applicant’s statements, over time and even during the course of the most recent hearing. Furthermore, the Tribunal finds strong evidence in the circumstances of the applicant’s departure from Iran – see below - that he was not, in fact, subject to such targeting.
Departure from Iran
Original statement: The applicant claims that his name was on a blacklist, Mr [K], managed to have his name removed from the list for one week, together with his brother-in-law’s name. The applicant used to do [Occupation 1] work at this [Senior Official’s] home, so he was prepared to do a (corrupt) favour for the applicant.
§ The applicant gave his wife full powers of attorney, and provided a copy of these to the Tribunal.
§ A person from a taxi agency drove the applicant, his brother-in-law and another friend to Tehran.
§ The applicant already had an Iranian passport issued in 2011, and he passed through airport security without problems. A friend – in later evidence, the applicant clarified that this was Mr [K] - had ‘already guaranteed’ this for the men. The applicant’s wife and children had passports and had originally planned to travel, but the family decided not to travel together, due to concerns about the unsafe boat trip to Australia.

The Tribunal asked the applicant about his and his family members’ passports, which were issued in late 2011. Mr [K] had helped the applicant obtain a passport, by temporarily removing the files that might otherwise have prevented this. The applicant said that the Basij were not involved in passport clearances. He appeared to claim that the criminal charges were not brought until he departed Iran; and in the meantime, Mr [K] had removed his name from the airport watch list, again for a short while.
The Tribunal noted Mr [K]’s role, as a [Senior Official] in Ahwaz who helped the applicant obtain a passport, who managed to get his name temporarily removed from an airport watch list, and who later informed him by telephone that he had been sentenced to [imprisonment]. It appears that Mr [K] also obtained copies of the two summonses allegedly issued in 2005 and 2006. More recently, the applicant said that Mr [K] had asked him not to call from Australia any more, implicitly because it would put him in danger. The applicant has provided scant information about Mr [K]’s ability to have his name temporarily removed from file and/or to have his file put to the bottom of the list; how he timed this so that the applicant could obtain a passport, and secure safe passage through Tehran’s airport; and how he later obtained copies of summonses (although his claimed position in the court might explain this). The applicant had no correspondence showing his past relationship with Mr [K], and his account of having now severed contacts was brief and uninterested. The Tribunal does not accept at face value that the applicant has access to a person of influence (Mr [K], or earlier, Mr [G]) who could resolve problems in the short-term but is now unavailable to assist the applicant in the future.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant country information about the availability of fraudulent documents in Iran[13], both genuine documents with false information and forged documents. The Tribunal also observed that, by his own account, Mr [K] had acted corruptly in accessing and manipulating court documents, in return for work that the applicant had undertaken on his own home. The applicant agreed with this information. He added that, if he were dishonest, he could easily have obtained other fraudulent documents to satisfy decision-makers. He invited the Tribunal to place weight on the fact that he had not done so.
[13] Danish Immigration Service, Landinfo and Danish Refugee Council 2013, On Conversion to Christianity, Issues concerning Kurds and Post-2009 Election Protestors as well as Legal Issues and Exit Procedures: Joint report from the Danish Immigration Service, the Norwegian LANDINFO and Danish Refugee Council’s fact-finding mission to Tehran, Iran, Ankara, Turkey and London, United Kingdom 9 November to 20 November 2012 and 8 January to 9 January 2013, February, p.68: [CIS25114]
In the present case, the timing of when these documents were produced (only during the review phase); his brief, uninterested comments that there may be other documents, but his mother probably destroyed them; and the Tribunal’s broader concerns about his credibility, all reinforce its concerns about the genuineness of these documents and the truthfulness of their contents.
The applicant told the Tribunal in the recent hearing that he funded his travel to Australia by selling some [equipment] and borrowing money. Given the extent of the Tribunal’s concerns about the applicant’s credibility, and in the absence of any supporting evidence (such as receipts or other documents), the Tribunal does not accept that this is a complete and truthful account of how the applicant funded his travel.
Events following the applicant’s departure
The applicant claimed that the authorities seized his home and car (implicitly because he failed to appear in court for the further hearing).
The Tribunal has significant concerns about this claim.
§ First, the Tribunal considers that the applicant has been less than frank about his finances and his home. At the hearing before T1 and the current Tribunal, he clarified that his father-in-law had had to provide the title deeds in relation to the earlier allegations, even though the court had dismissed this. At some point, the father-in-law had decided to sell his home (it was worth [an amount]), so the applicant instead provided his own home as security (it was worth only [a lesser amount]). At the most recent hearing, the applicant initially denied owning a home (instead stating that he rented a house), but later changed his evidence to state that he had one that was subject to a mortgage. He also denied having said that he ever put up his home for security, but following an exchange between the Tribunal and Mr [D], he said that he had offered his home as security, not in relation to the court proceedings in 2005/2006, but rather in some other context. He suggested that it may have been to [Mr H], to secure his release after being tortured; but he also referred to the home mortgage.
§ Second, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has given a truthful account of what happened to his home and car. As discussed at hearing, it makes no sense that his alleged torturer repeatedly came to his mother’s home, and threatened and assaulted him there; and yet they did not know (and presumably did not have the means to find out) where he lived. The Tribunal explored with the applicant what avenues the basij could have used to find his location, but he replied only briefly that he worked as a private contractor out of his mother’s home, and they did not take other measures to trace him (like monitoring and following him home).

100. The applicant claims that his wife and children are now living with her parents, implicitly because of the forfeiture of the family home and/or fears that they may have. The Tribunal accepts that there may be practical reasons for the applicant’s wife and children to remain with her parents. However, the above assessments, and its adverse view of the applicant’s credibility, it does not accept that the family’s living arrangements are affected by any fears linked with his protection claims.
101. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant no longer has his home and car, and that his wife and children are living with her parents. It finds that this is for practical or other reasons unrelated to his protection claims. In this context, the Tribunal notes the applicant’s claims that [Mr H] and the Basij only ever came to his mother’s home, and never the family home. He said that they only knew his business address and, ‘for whatever’ reason, they never took other steps (such as following him home) to pursue their personal dispute with him. Even by his own account, then, (which the Tribunal does not believe) the Iranian authorities intent on pursuing him did not come to his family home or bother his wife or children.
102. The applicant claimed that a court has now sentenced him in absentia to [imprisonment]. Mr [K] informed him of this by telephone. As noted above, Mr [K] is also the [Senior Official] who helped arrange the applicant’s passport and departure from Iran – on a corrupt basis, as the applicant had done work for him on his home – and the applicant had little further information about this person. The Tribunal explored whether there were any ancillary actions about this, such as court summonses sent to his or his mother’s homes, or investigations. The applicant initially replied that he does not know, as he is no longer in Iran. Pressed for further details, he said that some people have been coming around to his mother’s home. She may have received summonses, but she is old and would have thrown them out.
103. The Tribunal formed the impression that the applicant had not really turned his mind to these issues, but was improvising and trying to imagine what consequences would flow if there had in fact been a criminal conviction and lengthy sentence in absentia. The Tribunal does not accept that there has been any such conviction or related actions.
Association with Arabs
104. The applicant has consistently claimed that he married a woman of Arab ethnicity. Country information discussed at hearing indicates that Ahwaz is a city of some 1.3 million inhabitants, in southwestern Iran. Its population includes Persians, Arabs, Lurs and other groups. This is reflected in the languages spoken, namely Farsi, Arabic and various Iranian dialects such as Luri.[14]
[14] The Tribunal referred to information from Wikipedia, which it used with caution. The applicant and his representatives agreed that this was an accurate summary of the city’s demography.
105. The Tribunal accepts that this means that the applicant’s son is half-Arab; and that his in-laws are Arabs.
106. At hearing, the applicant said that he does not speak or understand Arabic. Asked whether, in light of Ahwaz’ demography, marriages between Arabs and Persians are unusual, he replied obliquely that he did not think it would be a good thing. However, he did not advance any difficulties – from his or his wife’s family, the general community or the authorities – due to his marriage to an Arab (or related family issues). The Tribunal put to the applicant some country information about Ahwazi Arabs, drawing on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s most recent country information report on Iran,[15] such as continued Iranian sensitivities and arrests of Arab activists in Ahwaz, including ‘prominent activists’ and many who were ‘targeted for their perceived political opinions, for peacefully expressing dissent, or for openly exhibiting their Arab identity and culture’. He responded with general comments about the situation in Ahwaz province. He said that, despite the province’s oil wealth, severe poverty existed and people were resentful that the central government diverted funds elsewhere. Asked whether he had experienced any problems due to his marriage to an Arab, he commented briefly that he ‘never said’ he had any problems of that kind.
[15] DFAT, Country Information Report – Iran, 7 June 2018
107. The Tribunal notes that the submission from [Organisation 1], dated [September] 2013, strikes an altogether different tone. It describes the applicant’s ‘imputed Arab ethnicity [as] a central component of his vulnerability to persecution from Iranian authorities’, and goes on to state that they could see him as having ‘an imputed anti-government opinion and/or pro-Arab sentiment’. It states that ‘while the applicant maintains he had no knowledge of the demonstration near his work being a pro-Arab rights demonstration’, the fact of his arrest at that location, and his in-laws’ presentation as Arabs when they came to collect him, could result in the authorities regarding him as ‘a pro-Arab rights political sympathiser, despite his non-membership to any formal political party’. In the Tribunal’s view, this argument lacks substance, as the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was arrested at any demonstration in 2003, 2004, 2005 or 2009; let alone a pro-Arab demonstration. It also does not accept that the Basij questioned him about any suspected pro-Arab (or other) political links; or that the Basij’s suspicions were reinforced when his in-laws collected him from detention, speaking Arabic, wearing traditional clothes or otherwise exhibiting their identity and culture.
Failed asylum seeker
108. The Tribunal accepts that, if the applicant were to return to Iran, he would do so as a failed asylum seeker.
Summary of findings
109. The Tribunal has considered the claims and evidence relating to the applicant’s past experiences in Iran, the circumstances in which he left that country, and developments since his departure. It makes the following findings of fact.
110. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant worked as a [Occupation 1] in Iran, with a business employing [a number of] men; that he suffered serious physical injuries in about 2009; that he sold the business and was unable to work for at least a year during his recovery; that he later opened a smaller workshop in his mother’s garage; and that he had some business disputes with [clients] trying to avoid payment. The Tribunal is unable to more specific about the incident(s) which caused the applicant’s physical injuries, but the evidence strongly suggests that some if not all of these arose from a blunt force trauma to his [body], on one or possibly more occasions. The Tribunal accepts as plausible that the applicant also suffered some psychological harm from such a trauma, but for the reasons stated above (including the circumstances of his departure from Iran and the medical evidence of Mr [C]) it is not satisfied that he suffered significant, lasting memory loss.
111. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is married to an Arab woman, and that their son is of mixed Luri/Arab ethnicity.
112. In light of the extensive concerns set out above, the Tribunal finds the remainder of the applicant’s claims lacking in credibility, and does not accept them.
§ It does not accept that the Basij arrested him while he was on the margins of a protest (whether related to Arab unrest in 2005, or the Green Movement in 2009); that they detained and tortured him; that they interrogated about and accused him of subversive activities; that he suffered any physical, vision or memory problems due to his mistreatment; that he was released into the custody of his in-laws, who had to offer their home as a security for his release; that he was unable to receive hospital treatment (due to an undertaking he had been forced to make, or him being on a blacklist, or due to his fear of having to report the matter to the police); that he was summonsed to appear in court in 2005, 2006 or any other time, on criminal charges akin to affray or political subversion; that the court dismissed the matter (for lack of evidence any other reason); that the applicant’s father-in-law offered his home as security for the applicant’s release; or that the applicant continues to have an adverse file recording his offences, with the courts, Basij or any other Iranian authority. As the Tribunal does not accept that the Basij detained the applicant, it also does not accept that they inflicted any other harm on him (such as the sexual assault that Mr [C] alluded to).
§ Although the Tribunal accepts that the applicant may have had some business disputes, it does not accept that in 2009 or 2011, or thereabouts, he had verbal or physical conflict with a Sepah officer with links to the Basij who knew about his past and threatened to make fresh allegations of subversion; who was acting on behalf of a senior Khuzestan official who lived near the applicant’[16] who brought him to court but was angered when the charges were dismissed; and who achieved the applicant’s conviction, sentencing and subsequent release on bail. The Tribunal also does not accept the more recent claims that the Sepah officer and his thugs used to call by the applicant’s mother’s home, and harass or intimidate her; that they found him there once; or they detained and tortured him, leaving him with severe injuries.
[16] In his original statement, the applicant stated that he believed [Mr J], the [Position 2] had arranged for Mr [H] to entrap him.
§ The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant, his wife and child obtained passports with the assistance of [an official] who arranged for the applicant’s adverse file to be temporarily removed; and who later also arranged the applicant’s safe passage through Tehran Airport, where he left Iran legally on a genuine passport in his own name.
§ The Tribunal does not accept that the Iranian authorities, including Sepah or the Basij, have an adverse interest in the applicant for reason of any suspected involvement in anti-government actions (such as Ahwazi Arab unrest or the Green Movement), or impute him with an anti-government political opinion, including through his marriage to an Arab, any other family ties or other activities.
§ The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant left Iran following Mr [K]’s advice that he has an adverse personal file and faces eventual imprisonment. It finds that he left Iran in a planned, orderly manner; that he left on a genuine passport in his own name; and that he arranged to travel with relatives in order to migrate to Australia.
§ It does not accept that, since the applicant left Iran, the authorities have come looking for him; that he has been convicted and sentenced to [imprisonment]; that his family have faced harassment, have felt scared and had to move home; or that there have been any other adverse developments related to his protection claims.
§ Given the expansive and evolving nature of the applicant’s claims, and to avoid any misunderstanding, the Tribunal rejects all associated claims of past harm in Iran.
113. The Tribunal concludes that the applicant did not depart Iran fearing Convention-related persecution or significant harm, and that he does not have a genuine fear of such harm.
ASSESSMENT: REFUGEE CRITERION
114. The Tribunal now assesses whether, on the basis of the findings of fact above, the applicant’s future conduct if he returns to Iran, and relevant country information, whether he has a well-founded fear of Convention-related persecution, now or in the reasonable foreseeable future.
115. The applicant claims that his criminal file remains open; that he has been convicted in absentia and sentenced to [imprisonment] (due either to the events of 2005 or so being revived, or on new, trumped-up charges); and that he has been accused of insulting the government. He claims to fear that the Iranian authorities will persecute him for reasons of his imputed political opinion and, it has been suggested at various points, his imputed ethnicity (Arab) and his membership of a particular social group, namely his family.[17]
[17] See, for instance, the submission of 8 March 2019.
116. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his future conduct if he were to return to Iran. He emphasised that he can never go back. He implored the Tribunal to make a favourable decision, as this was his last chance to be reunited with his family. On the limited available material, the Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant would most likely return to Khuzestan and resume work as a [Occupation 1] or in a similar field.
117. In light of the above findings of fact, the Tribunal does not accept that the Iranian authorities, including the Basij, have any adverse interest in the applicant, as a result of any past detention (such as the now-rejected street arrest), any past business dispute, any perceptions of him (for instance, due to his marriage to an Arab), or for any other reason. The applicant has not claimed, and there is nothing to suggest, that anyone else has an adverse interest in him for other reasons. The Tribunal concludes that there is no real chance of the applicant facing serious harm amounting to persecution for any Convention reason, arising from his past experiences or profile in Iran.
118. The applicant has consistently stated that he has no political opinion or involvement. In the context of describing the situation in Ahwaz and the treatment of Arabs, he observed that the national government extracts oil revenues from the province, but many local people remain in poverty. His protection claims contain implied comments on the powers of the Basij, high level of corruption, shady business practices and the opaque court system. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that these observations amount to a genuine political opinion that the applicant has expressed in the past; that will motivate him to act in the future; or that he will have to refrain from expressing, for fear of persecutory harm. It finds there is no real chance of the applicant coming to the adverse attention of the Iranian authorities or others due to such matters.

119. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has married an Arab, and that his son is of mixed Luri-Arab ethnicity. It accepts that he has in the past, and will in the future, have contact with Arabs among his in-laws’ extended family and during daily life in Ahwaz, where there is a large Arab population. The applicant’s representatives have suggested, at various times, that such associations are ‘a central component of his vulnerability to persecution from the Iranian authorities,’[18] in terms of his imputed political opinion, and given broader official and social discrimination towards Arabs. At the most recent hearing, the applicant stated clearly that he ‘never’ said that he had any problems arising from his marriage to an Arab, and his representative confirmed that he was not pressing any claims in relation to that.
[18] For instance, the [Organisation 1] submission of 10 September 2013, at page 2.
120. The Tribunal has already rejected the applicant’s claim that the Basij arrested him, possibly near an Arab protest, and that the authorities’ suspicions about him grew when his Arab in-laws collected him. As for the remaining factors – such as the applicant’s marriage to an Arab woman, and his association with his in-laws – the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance of the applicant facing persecution, at the hands of the Iranian authorities or society at large, including for reason of any imputed ethnicity, any imputed political opinion (such as being a sympathiser of Arab dissenters, for instance), or any other Convention ground.
121. The applicant claims to fear that the Iranian authorities will also target him as a failed asylum seeker. This was closely linked with his claims that the Iranian authorities already have an adverse interest in him, due to his conviction and sentencing following his departure; his past record; and their ongoing pursuit of him. The Tribunal has rejected these claims. It finds that he had no adverse profile, and that he left Iran on a genuine passport in his own name, in accordance with Iranian law. As discussed at hearing, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in its most recent report,[19] noted the views of international observers that the Iranian authorities pay little attention to failed asylum seekers on their return to Iran. The authorities accept that many Iranians wish to live and work overseas for economic reasons. The Department identified those with an existing high profile, particularly political activists, as facing a higher risk of coming to official attention on their return to Iran.
[19] DFAT, Country Information Report – Iran, 7 June 2018
122. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has no adverse profile in Iran. It finds that the applicant does not face a real chance of being persecuted because he will be returning to Iran as a failed asylum seeker, or for any associated reason (such as his stay in a Western country).
123. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims and evidence, individually and cumulative. It does not accept that he has a well-founded fear of persecution for one or more of the Convention reasons, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, if he returns to Iran. It is therefore not satisfied that he meets s.36(2)(a).
ASSESSMENT: COMPLEMENTARY PROTECTION
124. The Tribunal has considered whether on the evidence before it, there would be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Iran.
125. Neither the applicant nor his representative(s) over time raised any additional factual claims that relate to his eligibility for complementary protection. They have variously referred to his prospects as a person from Ahwaz with Arab family ties through marriage; the Iranian authorities’ blacklisting of the applicant for anti-government statements; and allegations that he has (at least an imputed) anti-government or pro-Arab political opinion. More recent submissions have pointed to security, human rights and economic conditions in Iran, and especially the additional problems faced by the Arab community in Ahwaz.
126. In light of the findings above, the Tribunal does not accept on the available evidence that the Iranian authorities have any adverse interest in the applicant; that he has been convicted of any criminal offences; that he has been sentenced to [imprisonment]; or that he is at risk of any other treatment or punishment that, even cumulatively, amounts to significant harm. Similarly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s marriage to his wife, his fatherhood of a mixed Luri-Arab son; or any links with his Arab in-laws gives rise to a real risk of significant harm. Given that the applicant has no prior adverse political or other profile with the Iranian authorities, and taking into account DFAT’s advice about the authorities’ attitudes to returnees, including failed asylum seekers, the Tribunal does not accept that there is a real risk of the applicant facing significant harm as a result of his having sought protection in Australia.
127. As noted above, the applicant’s oral and written submissions variously refer to Iran’s challenges in areas such as human rights (political freedom and the treatment of minorities), governance and corruption. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant personally has suffered significant harm as a result of such conditions, and it does not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that he will as a result of being removed from Australia to Iran.
128. For the above reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s circumstances give rise to a real risk that he will be subjected to any form of harm which would be the result of an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on the applicant, such as to meet the definition of torture; or the definition of cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or the definition of degrading treatment or punishment. It is also not satisfied that there is a real risk that he will suffer arbitrary deprivation of his life or the death penalty.
129. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Iran, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa).
Conclusion
130. 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).
131. 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). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
132. 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).
DECISION
133. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.
James Silva
Member

ATTACHMENT A: 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 policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration –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.

[2019] AATA 5928

20 May 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Remedies

Jurisdiction