1731760 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse protection visas to an Iranian citizen and his son. The first applicant, who arrived in Australia in 2012 on a student visa, claimed to have converted from Islam to Christianity while in Australia. His student visa ceased on 10 February 2016, and he applied for a protection visa on the same date. The second applicant, his son, was initially included in the application but was later granted a permanent visa on a separate application and withdrawn from this review. The Tribunal was asked to determine whether the first applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran due to his claimed conversion to Christianity or for other complementary protection grounds.

The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of the applicant's claims regarding his conversion and his fear of persecution in Iran. This involved considering the evidence presented, including his personal statements, documentation from religious bodies, and country information regarding the treatment of converts in Iran. The court needed to determine if the applicant's conversion was genuine and not solely for the purpose of strengthening his protection claim, and whether he faced a real chance of persecution upon return to Iran due to his religious beliefs. The Tribunal also had to consider whether any effective protection measures were available to him in Iran.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence that he was a national of Iran and that he had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion. It found that his conversion to Christianity was genuine and not undertaken for the purpose of strengthening his protection claim. The Tribunal noted that while low-profile returnee converts might not attract the direct attention of authorities, there was a high risk of societal discrimination. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Act. The decision under review was remitted for reconsideration with the direction that the first applicant satisfies section 36(2)(a).