1731760 (Refugee)

1731760 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 4254 (28 June 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE:  Dr Sirous Ahmadi (MARN: 0854826)
CASE NUMBER:  1731760
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Iran
MEMBER:Simone Burford
DATE:28 June 2024
PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the first applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction with respect to the second applicant.
Statement made on 28 June 2024 at 12:38pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Iran – religion – non-practicing and critical Muslim converted to Christianity in Australia – exploration, increasing activities and baptism soon before student visa due to cease, and application for protection when it ceased – generally credible claims and evidence – genuine conversion not for purpose of strengthening claim – documentation and supporting statements from ministers – country information – established groups monitored and limited and conversions prohibited – low-profile returnee converts unlikely to come to attention of authorities – high risk of societal discrimination – member of family unit son granted permanent visa in separate application, withdrawn from this application and no jurisdiction to review – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), (2), (4), (5)(a), (6), 5LA, 36(2)(a), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASE
Appellant S395/2002 v MIMA (2003) 216 CLR 473

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 dependants.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 31 January 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 23 November 2017 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
Background
The first applicant is a [Age]-year-old Iranian citizen who was born in [City], Republic of Iran. He is of Azeri background and was born into a Shi’a Muslim family but claims to have converted to Christianity since coming to Australia in 2012. He claims to be a member of the [Church].
The applicant’s parents are deceased. He has [brothers] and [sisters], the result of two marriages for his father. All remain in Iran. He is in contact with two of his siblings.
The applicant married in [Year] in Iran. He and his wife separated in 2016 and divorced in 2020. They have one [son] (date of birth [Date]), who was the second applicant for the protection visa. However, Departmental records indicate he was issued with a permanent visa on a separate application and the applicant withdrew his son from the review application on 7 March 2024.
The applicant arrived in Australia on a student visa [in] July 2012 to study a [Course] in a field of [Subject]. He did not complete his [Course]. He departed Australia for Iran in 2013 and returned to Australia with his wife and son [in] March 2013.
On 10 February 2016 the applicant’s student visa ceased. On the same date he applied for a protection visa. The protection visa was refused on 23 November 2017.
Issues
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets one or more of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act; that is, whether they are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or are members of the same family unit of such a person. The relevant law is set out below.
The issue in the review is whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran as a former Muslim who has converted to Christianity or for any other reason, or whether complementary protection provisions otherwise apply.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be remitted for reconsideration.
Protection claims
Protection visa application
The applicant detailed his claims for protection in his application form and in a ‘Personal statement’ accompanying the application. Essentially the applicant claimed to fear persecution in Iran on the grounds of his claimed conversion to Christianity since coming to Australia.
In his statement supporting the application the applicant stated that:
Although I was raised as a Muslim, I was always at unease with the religion my family picked for me. I was always forced to practice and I knew in my heart that Islam is not for me.
While in Australia, I have started investigating about other religions and was drawn to Christianity. I have started attending church regularly and have felt a connection to the peaceful nature of the Christianity. I have finally decided to convert an announced myself as a Christian during a ceremony on 25/12/2015 at the [Parish 1] Church.
According to Sharia Law, a former Muslim who converted to Christianity will be called Mortad and seen as the enemy who is leading war against Islam and it’s the obligation of all Muslim to kill Murtads.
Since the Sharia laws govern Iran, I will be persecuted if I return to Iran.
Evidence to the Department
The applicant attended an interview with the Department on 22 July 2016. Prior to the interview the applicant submitted the following documents to the Department:
·Written submissions from his (then) migration agents.
·Identity documents including an Iranian passport issued on [in] 2009 and passports for his son and (then) wife and his ‘Birth Certificate’ (ID card).
·Student card.
·University enrolment letters.
·A letter dated 9 February 2016 from a [Reverend A] at [Parish 1] Church Perth.
·Baptism Certificate in the applicant’s name for [Parish 1] Church dated 25 December 2015.
The delegate’s decision
On 23 November 2017, a delegate of the Minister refused the protection visa application.
The delegate accepted the applicant was an Iranian citizen. The delegate accepted the applicant had attended the [Church] at the end of 2015 but found that these activities in Australia were for the sole purpose of applying for asylum and that he was not a genuine convert as claimed.
The delegate found the applicant’s explanation for his conversion to Christianity to be unconvincing noting the delay in the applicant engaging with Christianity after arriving in Australia and the timing of his engagement several months prior to the expiration of his visa. These concerns led the delegate to find that the applicant’s conversion to Christianity had been conducted for the sole purpose of strengthening his claims for protection.
The delegate also did not accept that the applicant had any profile which may cause him to be harmed on the basis of being a returnee from a Western country in Iran.
Based on these concerns the delegate found the applicant’s claims were not credible. Accordingly, the delegate was not satisfied the applicant faced a well-founded fear of persecution. Therefore, the applicant did not satisfy the criterion under s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
The delegate was also not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Iran. Accordingly, the applicant was not a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Proceedings before the Tribunal
The applicant lodged an application for review of the delegate’s decision on 15 December 2017. His current representative was appointed in 2018.
The applicant appeared at an initial hearing before the Tribunal (differently constituted) on 23 February 2023. Some time following this hearing the member became unavailable and the matter was reconstituted to the Tribunal as currently constituted.
An initial hearing was held on 18 March 2024 to explain to the applicant and his representative that the matter had been reconstituted and to explain the Tribunal’s approach. At that hearing the Tribunal noted it had obtained a copy of the transcript of the early hearing and a copy of that transcript had been sent to the applicant (on 6 March 2024). The Tribunal indicated it would take that evidence into account and not require the applicant to traverse all the same material. The Tribunal indicated it would hold a further hearing where the Tribunal would ask any questions it had arising out of that material or with respect to that application and the applicant was invited to raise or clarify any matters covered the in the first hearing and reflected in the transcript.
A substantive hearing was held before the Tribunal as currently constituted on 12 April 2024 to discuss the applicant’s claims and updated country information. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter fluent in the English and Persian languages. The applicant’s representative appears by MS Teams. The applicant’s son attended the first hearing as a support person.
Evidence to the Tribunal
The applicant submitted the following additional documents to the Tribunal:
·Written submissions in February 2021, including:
·Letter for support dated 3 February 2021 from [Pastor B], Bishop, [Church] WA District;
·Letter from [Medical Centres] WA, [Mr B], Psychologist dated 3 Feburary 2021;
·Statement from the applicant dated 11 February 2021;
·Letter for support dated 13 February 2023 from [Pastor B], Bishop, [Church] WA District, Pastor [Parish 2] Church, [Suburb 1] WA;
·Written submissions dated 7 March 2023;
·Written submissions dated 14 April 2024.
At the first hearing on 23 February 2023 the Tribunal heard evidence from the applicant and [Pastor B], Bishop, [Church] WA District, Pastor [Parish 2] Church, [Suburb 1] WA.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (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, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
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 the 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 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’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Applicant’s identity and country of reference
The applicant travelled to Australia on an Iranian passport and claims to be an Iranian national. Copies of the applicant’s Iranian passport and other identity documents were provided to the Department and the Tribunal. The applicant confirmed at the hearing that he was a citizen of Iran. The delegate accepted the applicant’s identity. There is nothing before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant is not the person identified in the relevant application for protection.
On this basis the Tribunal accepts the applicant is a national of Iran and has assessed his claims for protection accordingly. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is a citizen of Iran, which is also his receiving country for the purposes of the refugee and complementary protection assessments.
The applicant’s migration history
The Tribunal discussed the applicant’s migration history, as outlined in the delegate’s decision, with him at the second hearing. The applicant’s migration history is as follows:
·     [In] March 2012 the applicant arrived in Australia as a holder of a student (Subclass TU-574) visa (Granted 30 October 2011; Expiry 10 February 2016).
·     [In May] 2012 – [July] 2012 the applicant departed for Iran.
·     [In January] 2013 – [March] 2013 the applicant departed for Iran and returned with wife and son.
·     [In February] 2014 – [May] 2014 the applicant departed for Iran and returned to Australia.
·     On 10 February 2016 the applicant lodged his protection visa application.
Evidence and submissions
At the hearing the Tribunal discussed with the applicant his path to conversion.
When asked about his conversion to Christianity the applicant said when he first arrived he was busy with his research and family issues. Around 2014 he started exploring Christianity including getting a Persian Bible from some Christian people. In 2015 he decided he wanted to change his religion. A few months before Christmas in 2015 he decided he wanted to convert.
When asked why he wanted to convert he said ‘really hated Islam’ because his family had suffered because he and his father were opposed to this religion and criticising it. He said in 1979 when the Revolution happened, three years after that, they took his cousin and his father and arrested them and kept them for two years. They were opposing the Islamic regime at that time.
He said when he was in High School he had been taken by Sepah and blindfolded and they asked him what he was reading and slapped him. They came a second time and did this to him and his cousin. They pursued his father because he said something about a Mullah and his father was taken to a special court and given 80 lashes. On another occasion his father and cousin were sentenced for 2 years jail for supporting the Shah.
The Tribunal notes the (then) Tribunal member asked the applicant why these elements of his claims were not in his original application and he explained that they were the reasons he hated Islam. The Tribunal understood him to be saying he did not fear harm on the basis of his father’s profile but that the treatment of his family by the Iranian authorities during and after the revolution caused him to be disaffected with Islam.
He said in Iran he did not practice as a Muslim ‘as such’, clarifying that he was not following everything Islam requires (for example fasting and praying) and he was also criticising Islam too, but this is not permitted in Iran. This was done privately and he did not participate in public protests or formal opposition to the government.
He said he chose Christianity initially because it was something he was familiar with from movies and people he encountered and he felt there was good in Christianity. He chose the [Church] because it was ‘a new paradigm’. The applicant gave evidence of aspects of [Church] practice and belief which he compared to more strict and hierarchical Catholic Church arrangements. While some of this evidence was difficult to follow, the Tribunal considered it reflected the applicant’s understanding of the church and demonstrated a rationale for membership of the [Church] (as opposed to other Christian faiths).
The applicant described that in 2015 when he had been developing an interest in Christianity he found a the [Church] in the city. He didn’t talk to anyone the first time he went but about two months later he made an appointment to see the pastor at the [Church] in [Suburb 2] and began weekly sessions with him during which he asked questions and was given information. After about 10 of these sessions he was Baptised on 25 December 2015. He said he did not attend church services before his Baptism because he did not see the point of going to church before then as he would not understand what was happening. He moved to the [Church] in [Suburb 1] in 2017 after moving to live in that area and back to [Parish 1] in 2021.
The account of coming to Christianity was consistent with that recorded by [Pastor A] in his letter of February 2016 where he noted:
I also discovered that [the applicant] has had a life-long journey of wrestling with his Islamic heritage as a citizen of Iran. As [the applicant] grew up his father had been a little more vocal than other Iranian men and spoke up about the inconsistencies in the teachings of Islam and how government and religious leaders were living them out. His father's questioning mind challenged [the applicant] himself to discover what his own religion and beliefs meant for him. This journey culminated in [the applicant] eventually looking up [Parish 1] Church because he had heard about the original founder [Church founder] and wanted to know more about what [Church founder] had taught about freedom in Christ.
The applicant described his understanding of the Church as follows:
Yes, since you were baptised, since you became a convert to Christianity of the [Church] variety, what do you believe?   I believe for many things. For example, we should forgive people, we should have good behaviour with people, we should have good behaviour with our neighbours, and we should define ourselves and make good relationship between us and God, Son of God, and Holy Spirit. We should try don’t be a hypocrite, and many other things (indistinct) list of these things. I learn from Bible and from my experience in services at different churches. We are talking to each other.
Okay. So you learned this from the Bible?   Yes, of course. No revenge, and so we shouldn’t use bad words, and we should forgive even our enemies. List of many things.
All right?   And Jesus Christ was doing all of them. When I study the Bible, especially four chapters in New Testament, all of this come with practical and I am learning too much from this and trying to be very close to that, if I can ..

He testified that if he returned to Iran he would try and find a [Church] or practice with other Christians:
What if there are no [Church] churches in Iran? If there are no [Church] churches in Iran, again I will find other churches, I will go there. Because as you traverse practically there is no big differences in services they are doing inside the church. But for us, theoretically, yes, there are some differences. (Indistinct) the most of people, they are not following basic things, you know, they (indistinct).
So are you saying to me that if there were no [Church] churches in Iran, you’d go to a Christian church? Yes, of course I do. If you – no [Church] church over there, I will go to Christian church.
….
All right. So in terms of if you were to return to Iran, you’ve said to me that if you go there you will continue your religion, and they can do what they like to you. So if you were to return to Iran and you continued your religion, what would that comprise of? What would be involved for you continuing your religion? What would you be doing?‑‑‑Yes, well I will find church, I will find a [Church] church first. If I can’t find, I will find another church closest anyway, keep practicing (indistinct) there is no big difference in Catholic church or in [Church founder] – [Church] church and another church. I will continue my faith with myself my God. So God and I will try to – many things I see in Bible and Jesus Christ did. He was (indistinct) I will try to make good behaviours, good personality in myself.
He told the Tribunal his ex-wife was religious and left several months after his conversion. He didn’t want to separate or divorce but it was her choice and several years later she independently filed for divorce.
With respect to the delay is seeking protection the applicant stated that he had hoped to continue his studies and extend his student visa but he had been unable to do so.
[Bishop B] gave written and oral testimony supporting the applicant’s account of his conversion and attesting to his belief in the genuineness of the applicant’s Christian faith. [Bishop B] was the pastor of the church that the applciant attended from 2017-2021 and since that time has kept in contact with him even though he has now transferred his membership to another of the [Church] churches ([Parish 1] Perth) due to a change in where he is living. [Bishop B] testified to ‘give witness to [the applicant’s] genuine Christian faith and practice’ as pastoral leader of the community in which he exercised his faith on a regular basis. In his written statement in Feburary 2023, [Pastor B] noted that the decision to reject his application for a protection visa [by the delegate] was based on assertions made by the person reviewing his application which questioned the authenticity of his Christian faith and commitment.
[Pastor B] testified that he had met the applicant prior to him moving to [Suburb 1], when he was a member at [Parish 1]. During his membership of the [Suburb 1] congregation he was attending services once a fortnight. He was also involved then in some of the wider life of the congregation and at one point he was elected to the church council where he served for 12 months as a member of that council. In terms of the applicant’s faith [Pastor B] observed:
What conclusion did you form about his understanding of the [Church] faith and his commitment to that faith?---Well, [the applicant] struck me as a person who believed. I would have said that he was, in some ways, early on in his journey of faith and that’s a lifelong thing of growing, but that he was committed to Christian faith. From my experience of him, I believed he had a genuine faith and that’s one of the reasons that I appear today because I was given a copy of the report from the person who interviewed him, who raised serious questions about the authenticity of his faith and I wanted to come and give my experience of him, which is that I never questioned that. So in my dealings with him, in my times of conversation, my times of prayer with him, I had the sense that this was his faith.
[Pastor B] testified that apostatizing the faith was not a ‘requirement’ of the faith but that ‘It would be encouraged, absolutely’. He went on to state:
I wouldn’t say ‘required’. I think it’s a natural outcome of having a faith in Christ is that we do share that good news, but as with many things, I think when we start making things a requirement we shift the focus from a gift of God to - well, all of this is on the basis of the things that you do.
He said that if there was not a [Church] place of worship accessible to a member of the faith he would expect that they may find a Christian congregation with whom they could be taught about the grace of God. [Pastor B] also attested to conversations with the applicant where he expressed fears of being returned to Iran where he believed he would be subject to intolerance and persecution because of his decision to adopt the Christian faith.
The applicant also testified that in Australia he had been ‘involved’ in two protests in Australia against the Iranian Government’s treatment of women including in the wake of the death of Masha Amini. In one case he shouted support from his taxi as a street protest march went by his taxi at the lights and at the other he walked with the group for about 300 metres. He said he didn’t have major concerns that he would be harmed because of this but he had heard the government had spies and they might know he had protested.
Country information
Discussion of country information at the initial hearings before the Tribunal (differently constituted) were conducted by reference to information contained in the most recent country information report issued by DFAT in April 2020 (the 2020 DFAT Report).[1] DFAT issued an updated country information report in July 2023 which was discussed with the applicant at the final hearing.[2]
[1] DFAT Country Information Report – Iran, 14 April 2020
[2] DFAT Country Information Report – Iran, 24 July 2023
The details of the country information are discussed further below. In general terms the Tribunal considered the 2023 DFAT Report reflected a tightening of constraints on Christians in Iran, particularly for Christian converts.
The DFAT Country Information Report indicates that the official religion of Iran is Shi’a Islam and that over 99 per cent of Iranians are Muslim.[3]
[3] 2023 DFAT Report at [2.62]
DFAT reports that there are non-Muslim recognised religions in Iran, including certain Christian religions, however proselytisation by religious minority groups is strictly prohibited under the Penal Code: it is a capital crime for non-Muslims to convert Muslims. Iran is a theocracy with little tolerance for non-Shi’a Islamic confessions. Attempts by non-Muslims to convert others attract the death penalty and apostasy is illegal. Christians, Zoroastrians and Jews may practise their faith, unless they are converts from Islam.[4]
[4] 2023 DFAT Report at [2.62]-[2.63]
Apostasy is not specifically codified as a crime in Iran, however, it is a crime under Sharia law, which is enforceable under the constitution. Both moharebeh or ‘enmity against God’ and fisad fil-arz (corruption on earth) are codified in law and can include apostasy, according to the 2021 US Department of State Human Rights Report. According to the Iran Human Rights Documentation Centre, a person can be found guilty of the crime of apostasy based on the testimony of two male witnesses, the knowledge of a judge or a confession. The death penalty is a potential punishment but very rare in practice.[5]
[5] 2023 DFAT Report at [2.65]
Blasphemy or ‘swearing at the Prophet’ is similarly an offence that attracts the death penalty. Blasphemy can be against the Prophet Mohammad, Islam’s founding prophet, or his successors or daughter, Fatima. The death penalty is a potential outcome, although can be reduced to whipping if the defendant admits the blasphemy and says that it was a result of drunkenness, anger or quoting someone else.[6]
[6] 2023 DFAT Report at [2.66]
Conversion from Islam to Christianity is prohibited by the authorities with converts facing the risk of arrest, detention and prosecution. As such, the recognised Christian groups do not accept conversions or proselytise.[7] As a result, Iranian Christians who are not members of the recognised ethnic minority churches generally practise in underground ‘house churches’.[8] Conversions that took place after 1979 or conversions that take place outside Iran are not recognised by the government. A person who claims to be a Christian, however cannot prove that their family was Christian before 1979, would be considered Muslim by the government and thus subject to apostasy laws.[9]
[7] ‘Country Policy and Information Note - Iran: Christians and Christian converts’, UK Home Office, 27 February 2020, p.7; ‘Christian Converts in Iran’, Finnish Immigration Service, 21 August 2015, p.9.
[8] 2023 DFAT Report at [2.83]
[9] 2023 DFAT Report at [2.80]
DFAT reports that Christians are subject to monitoring and regulation:[10]
The activities of recognised Christian communities are closely regulated, to guard against proselytisation. Recognised Christian groups refuse to proselytise as a result, and in-country sources told DFAT this resolve is tested regularly by authorities. All Christians and Christian churches must be registered with the authorities, and only recognised Christians can attend church. Security officials closely monitor registered churches to verify that services are not conducted in Farsi (they must be performed in the traditional language of the Church and not the vernacular) and perform regular identity checks on worshippers to confirm that non-Christians or converts do not participate in services. Churches that do not comply face closure.
[10] 2023 DFAT Report at [2.81]
House churches are found throughout the country though the number of adherants are not known. House churches vary in size, style and structure. Most are small and informal, and consist of close family and friends gathering on a regular or semi-regular basis to pray, worship, read the Bible and/or watch Farsi Christian television programs broadcast via satellite or discs smuggled from abroad.
DFAT reports that Iranian authorities interpret the growth in house churches as a threat to national security and periodically carry out raids against them. Congregants regularly change houses to avoid detection. Raids focus particularly on house churches that actively proselytise or seek out new members. Raids are reportedly usually the result of tip-offs by Muslim neighbours or people posing as converts to infiltrate house churches.[11]
[11] 2023 DFAT Report at [2.85]; 2020 DFAT Report at [3.52].
In terms of potential punishments for Christians, DFAT reports:[12]
2.86 Prison or the death penalty are possible outcomes for Christians meeting in house churches, both leaders and everyday adherents. DFAT understands that while not a common punishment, prison or the death penalty for apostasy is possible. Years or even decades-long prison sentences are also possible. Changes were made to the Islamic Penal Code in February 2021 that mean that those guilty of ‘deviant psychological manipulation’ or ‘propaganda contrary to Islam’ could be found to be members of a ‘sect’, which can lead to imprisonment, fines, flogging or the death penalty. According to international or media reports, three Christians in the city of Karaj, near Tehran, were sentenced to total of nine years in prison under the new offences in August 2021.
[12] 2023 DFAT Report.
With respect to Iranians who convert while overseas:[13]
2.87 In-country sources told DFAT that returnees who have not had a profile previously (for example through political activism in country) are unlikely to come to attention of authorities if they keep a low profile, and that this is not affected by social media posts about their conversion that they may have made while they were in a Western country like Australia.
[13] 2020 DFAT Report at [3.57]–[3.58].
However, with the 2023 DFAT Report goes on to state:
2.88 DFAT assesses that Muslim converts to Christianity risk arrest and detention if their conversion is revealed. Christians found to be proselytising face a high risk of arrest, prosecution and imprisonment. DFAT assesses Christian converts face a high risk of societal discrimination in the event their conversion becomes widely known, particularly if they are from more religiously-minded Muslim family backgrounds. This may involve ostracism from one’s family and discrimination in employment. DFAT further assesses that, while their congregations are monitored and they are subject to restrictions, Christians from recognised churches are permitted to practise their faith. DFAT assesses that, except for their exclusion from senior government, military, intelligence and judicial positions, recognised Christians who do not engage in proselytization activities face a low risk of official discrimination. DFAT assesses that those who convert while outside of Iran and who intend to continue to practise their Christian religion would face a high level of official discrimination and could be subject to the death penalty.
This assessment differs from the 2020 DFAT Report which assessed that Muslim converts to Christianity ‘risk arrest and detention if their conversion is revealed’ and noted that ‘Christians found to be proselytising face a high risk of arrest, prosecution and imprisonment.’ In the 2020 DFAT Report, DFAT assessed that ‘Christian converts face a high risk of societal discrimination in the event their conversion becomes widely known, particularly if they are from more religiously-minded Muslim family backgrounds. This may involve ostracism from one’s family and discrimination in employment.’ The Tribunal considers this changes may be interpreted to reflect a hardening in the approach to converts who seek to practise in Iran.
According to one source, Iran has agents abroad to monitor Iranian citizens. However, rather than monitoring people all the time, the authorities seek to create a fear that people are being perpetually monitored.[14]
[14] ‘Iran: House churches and converts’, Danish Immigration Service and the Danish Refugee Council, February 2018, p.26.
The UK Home Office in a May 2019 report about Christians and Christian converts in Iran states that simply converting to Christianity is not considered enough to put a person at a real risk of persecution but that their actions and activities and the degree to which their conversion is visible will determine whether or not they would be at a real risk.[15] The report goes on to state that the Iranian authorities are interested in those engaged in evangelical or proselytising activities and that it is not usually a problem for those who practise their faith discreetly, including for those who return to Iran and do not actively seek to influence others to convert to Christianity, who consider their faith a personal matter, and who are unlikely to seek to express in public their faith. Such people are likely to be able to continue practising Christianity discreetly.[16] The UK Home Office also reported that members of evangelical/house churches are ‘subject to harassment, arrest, close surveillance and imprisonment by the Iranian authorities’.[17]
[15] UK Home Office, Country Policy and Information Note, Iran: Christians and Christian converts, May 2019 at 2.4.13 < Ibid at 2.4.14.
[17] UK Home Office, Country Policy and Information Note, Iran: Christians and Christian converts, May 2019 at 2.4.4 <>
The Australian Institute of International Affairs published an Iran Study Tour Report in April 2018 which stated as follows:
Under the current Islamic regime, citizens are, at least in theory, free to practice the religion of their choice. Each religious minority is guaranteed a seat in parliament, as stipulated in Iran’s constitution. However, whilst conversion to Islam is accepted and encouraged, it is illegal to convert to a different religion once one has identified as Muslim. This is considered apostasy and harsh penalties can apply. Apostasy is punishable by death in certain cases, however the crime has never been codified in law.[18]
[18] Cited in: UK Home Office, Country Policy and Information Note, Iran: Christians and Christian converts, May 2019 at 8.1.3.
People who convert from Islam to Christianity in Iran can face rejection by the community and family members. Iranian Christian converts reportedly face ongoing societal pressure.[19] Many social norms and cultural activities are associated with Islam and non-participation in religious events can raise suspicion from neighbours and the community.[20] Sources indicate that it is possible that converts not conforming to social norms in smaller, more religiously conservative parts of the country could be at greater risk of being reported by someone in their social network, than those in larger urban cities.[21]
[19] ‘Iran 2018 International Religious Freedom Report’, US Department of State, 21 June 2019, Section III; ‘Iran – World Watch List 2020 Country Dossier – Second Revision: 6 January 2020’, Open Doors, 6 January 2020, p.21 and p.23.
[20] ‘Iran: House churches and converts’, Danish Immigration Service and the Danish Refugee Council, February 2018, p. 22; ‘Christian Converts in Iran’, Finnish Immigration Service, 21 August 2015, p.11.
[21] ‘Update on the Situation for Christian Converts in Iran’, Danish Immigration Service, 1 June 2014, p.14, CIS28931
The UK Upper Tribunal in the PS (Iran) decision genuine Christian converts face a range of difficulties on return. The Upper Tribunal found that:
[W]e have no hesitation in finding that a genuine Christian would face serious difficulties on arrival in Tehran. Asked about the basis of his claim for asylum, he cannot be expected to lie. The interviewer will quickly establish that here is an individual who has been attending church abroad, and who has perhaps been baptised into this new faith. Here is an individual who would then, as Ms Enayat puts it, be treated like “any other convert”. There is a real risk that he would be asked to sign an undertaking which among other things (see above) would require him to renounce Christianity. The convert who in fear chooses to sign that document will be quickly released, but will almost certainly be placed under surveillance. The effect of that surveillance would be that his ability to practice his faith in his own country would be completely denied. The convert who refuses to recant, and to make the admissions required of him, is on the road to martyrdom: even if he manages to avoid ill-treatment in the process, he will be detained until he agrees to sign.
The Tribunal discussed the country information with the applicant. With respect to how people might become aware of his conversion he said the authorities could find out because his family and his ex-wife’s family knew of his conversion. He said if he follows his religion he will invite people to his church but if he does that the government will kill him. He said he cannot ignore Jesus Christ.
Consideration
The Tribunal notes that significant time has passed since the delegate’s decision. During the years since the decision, [Church] officials have maintained support for his membership of the church congregation and attested to his commitment to Christianity. This included [Bishop B] testifying at the first hearing.
As discussed with the applicant at the hearing, the timing and manner of the applicant’s initial engagement with Christianity raised concerns that his interest was motivated at least in part by a concern to establish a basis to seek protection in Australia in the face of the cessation of his student visa. This view is supported by the applicant’s relatively short engagement with Christianity prior to his baptism and the timing of his application for protection shortly after.

However, the Tribunal is mindful of giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt and based on the evidence before it the Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s Christian conversion and involvement in Christian activities in Australia are genuine. In this regard the Tribunal notes the strong and continued support provided by [Church] officials to the applicant over the course of the visa application.
The Tribunal also notes [Bishop B] and previously [Pastor A]’s assessments that the applicant’s commitment to Christianity is genuine. [Bishop B] gave evidence at the first hearing. Having reviewed that testimony the Tribunal found that evidence to be genuine and credible. The Tribunal formed the view that [Bishop B]’s assessment was based on having engaged with the applicant in his faith journey over several years. The Tribunal also acknowledges the depth of [Bishop B]’s experience as Christian minister and places weight on his assessment of the applicant’s commitment.
Ultimately, while there were some inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the applicant’s journey to his conversion and about his practice in Australia, the Tribunal found the applicant’s account of his conversion to be generally credible. The Tribunal accepts he has a genuine desire to live as a Christian and as a member of a Christian community. The applicant’s account of his family background was consistent with having been raised by a father who was a secular Muslim who encouraged his children to study internationally and live as secular Muslims. The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant’s marriage breakdown may have increased the risk his conversion would be reported to the authorities. The applicant indicated his ex-wife was aware of his conversion and that he has been threatened by members of her family with regard to the circumstances of the marriage breakdown. Noting country information regard the risk of community sources reporting Christian converts to the authorities it is plausible that his ex-wife’s family may report the applicant if he returns to Iran, particularly if he seeks to engage in Christian practice.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant converted to Christianity on 25 December 2015 after joining the [Church] as a member of the congregation of [Parish 1]. He remained a member of the congregation until around 2017 when he moved to [Suburb 2], returning to [Parish 1] in 2021 where [Bishop B] testified he remains a member of the congregation. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s conversion to Christianity to be genuine. The Tribunal finds the applicant is a committed Christian and a member of the [Church].
Given these findings the Tribunal has gone on to consider the applicant’s motivations for converting to Christianity in Australia, noting that it is required to disregard such conduct in Australia unless satisfied that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee: s.5J(6).
The Tribunal is of the view that the applicant’s commitment to exploring Christianity was genuine and has grown over time. While the Tribunal has some concerns regarding his initial motivations and timing of his engagement with the [Church], the Tribunal regarded that he provided a plausible account of a developing interest in Christianity. The Tribunal places weight on the length of time he has engaged with the church since his Baptism and on the assessment of [Bishop B] that his conversion and commitment to Christianity are genuine.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant was not engaged with Christianity while in Iran. The Tribunal finds that claims the applicant’s account of difficulties with revolutionary forces was plausible but does not accept he would be at risk because of his father’s interaction with authorities, noting this was not a claim made by the applicant. The applicant relied on those claims as an account of his disaffection with the Islamic faith and the Tribunal accepts that the applicant was raised in a household where his father expressed secular criticism of the Islamic regime in Iran and that this is a plausible reason for the applicant being open to exploring religious alternatives in Australia and to embracing the community of the [Church] faith.
The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s ex-wife and son are aware of his conversion and that his ex-wife’s family may be aware. Having regard to the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s conversion and his notification to his family of the conversion were engaged in otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening his claim to be a refugee.
Having regard to the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the first applicant’s conversion and his notification to his family of the conversion were engaged in otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening his claim to be a refugee: s.5J(6).
The Tribunal has considered how the applicant may act on return to Iran as a Christian convert and whether that would lead to a well-founded fear of persecution by the Iranian authorities or his extended family.
The applicant submitted that he faces a well-founded fear of persecution on return to Iran due to his religion as a Christian convert.
The country information set out above indicates that the government in Iran continues to regulate Christian religious practices and those at greatest risk are its leaders and proselytisers. The information suggests that the State is focused more on the public practice of religion and proselytising than on private conviction. However, the Tribunal considers the 2023 DFAT Report identifies that a Muslim who converts while outside of Iran and who intends to continue to practise their Christian religion on return to Iran would face a high level of official discrimination and could be subject to the death penalty. In the Tribunal’s view this is a risk which cannot be discounted in the context of the attitude of the Iranian state to those it considers a threat.
Even if it were possible to practice discreetly without attracting the adverse attention of the Iranian authorities, the Tribunal notes that individuals seeking protection are not required, and cannot be expected, to take reasonable steps to avoid persecutory harm, or to live ‘discreetly’ to avoid such harm.[22]
[22] s. 5J(3), Appellant S395/2002 v MIMA (2003) 216 CLR 473
While the Tribunal does not regard the applicant’s claimed practise of his faith in Australia to include activities which could be characterised as proselytisation, having accepted that the applicant has genuinely converted from Islam to Christianity and that he is a member of a church which encourages members to invite others into the faith, the Tribunal accepts that he would seek to continue to practise his Christian faith in a consistent manner should he return to Iran. This would include prayer and worship with other Christians and encouraging others to learn about Christian beliefs. The Tribunal accepts that if the applicant were to return to Iran, were it not for his well-founded fear of persecution he would seek to attend church, seek out other Christians, possibly attend house church gatherings, and speak of his Christian faith.
For these reasons and having regard to the country information concerning the situation for Christian converts in Iran and the applicant’s particular circumstances, the Tribunal accepts that should the applicant return to Iran, now or in the foreseeable future, there is a real chance he will face serious harm from the authorities as required by s.5J(4)(b) of the Act in that it involves a threat to his life or liberty or significant physical harassment or ill-treatment. The Tribunal accepts that the treatment of Muslims who convert to Christianity and who come to the attention of authorities in Iran constitutes serious harm for the purposes of s.5J(5)(a) of the Act in that it involves a threat to life or liberty, even noting that though the death penalty is now rare, other harsh penalties can apply.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant wishes to freely practise his faith but fears that to do so in Iran will expose him to persecution, including arrest and detention. The applicant accepts such harm may be a cost of practicing his faith and expresses the view that would be God’s will. The weight of country information before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant’s fears are well-founded and that there is a real chance that continuing to practise his Christian faith would draw attention to his conversion from Islam and expose him to harm. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s religion is the essential and significant reason for the persecution which the applicant fears, as required by s.5J(4)(a), and that the persecution which he fears involves systematic and discriminatory conduct, as required by s.5J(4)(c), in that it is deliberate or intentional and involves his selective harassment for reason of his religion, as a Christian convert and a member of the [Church].
A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country: s.5J(2). Section 5LA(1) provides that effective protection measures are available if protection against persecution could be provided to the person by either the relevant State, or a party or organisation (including an international organisation) that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of its territory, and that State, party or organisation is willing and able to offer such protection.
A relevant State, party or organisation is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if the person can access the protection, and the protection is durable and, in the case of protection by the relevant State, the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system: s.5LA(2).
Since the Iranian government is responsible for the persecution that the first applicant fears, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the effective protection measures as per s.5LA are available to the first applicant in Iran provided by the state, party or organisation. The Tribunal finds that the first applicant would not be able to access effective protection if returned to Iran for the purposes of s.5LA(2).
For the same reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is any part of Iran in which he would be safe from the persecution that he fears as a Christian convert. The Tribunal is satisfied the first applicant would face a real chance of persecution in all areas of Iran and therefore satisfies s.5J(1)(c).
The Tribunal notes that s.5J(3) states a person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify their behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in the receiving country, other than a modification that would conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience, or conceal an innate or immutable characteristic. In this case the Tribunal is satisfied that the modification would require the applicant to alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practise of his or her faith therefore s.5J(3) does not apply.
Accordingly, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for the purposes of s.5J. In considering whether he comes within the definition of a refugee contained in s.5H, it accepts that he is outside the country of his nationality and unable to return to it owing to his well-founded fear of persecution. Therefore, he meets the criteria in s.5H(1). There is no information before the Tribunal to indicate that any of the exclusions set out in s.5H(2) apply to the applicant. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant has a right to enter and reside in a third country for the purposes of s.36(3) of the Act.
The Tribunal finds, therefore, that for the purposes of s.36(2)(a) of the Act, the applicant is a refugee.
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the first applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
Simone Burford
Senior Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) 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 non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2024] AATA 4254

28 June 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction