1801821 (Refugee)

1801821 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 5475 (22 December 2021)

DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1801821
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Iran
MEMBER:Rodger Shanahan
DATE:22 December 2021
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 22 December 2021 at 10:23am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Iran – adulterous relationship with wife of a police officer – political opinion – printing anti-regime literature – online social media activities – religion – Christianity – genuineness of faith – credibility concerns – interpreter issue – public profile – protests at immigration detention centre – failed asylum seeker – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65, 91R, 423A, 424AA
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

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 8 January 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Iran, applied for the visa on 31 March 2015.
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 (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.
CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Protection Visa Application
The following statutory declaration was made by the applicant as part of his protection visa application in October 2009:
My name is [the applicant] and I am a [age] year old male born in TEHRAN. IRAN. My ethnicity Is Persian and my religion is SHIA MUSLIM. My father [Mr A] and my mother [Mr B] are currently residing in Iran, My brother, [Mr C] and [Mr D] are married and currently residing In Iran. My sister, [Ms E] has been residing in Australia for approximately two years.
Why I left my country: Last Iranian year, on 21 March 2009, the custom Is that the people go to the parks and celebrate the 13“* days after the New Year. I met a lady, exchanged numbers arid started to message each other and later on. meet each other. I found out later that the lady married and her husband was, the deputy of the police station. I had sexuai relations with this lady a couple of times. Around May, they moved to the same alley where I used to live, only a few houses away.
This lady used to come to my shop to visit me and have chat. Sometimes I used to lock the shop and drink together. A couple of days before he left the country, the lady called me and asked me to go to her house, I said NO because I did not want to go and be seen by the neighbours. About 11 pm. she called me again and told me that her husband is going in a mission or assignment I took some drink with me and I went to her house.
We went to bad and suddenly the husband returned home and he saw us in bad. The husband went to the kitchen to pick up something to hit me. He attacked me and I pushed him away and run out of the apartment about 2 am in the morning; I did not have my shirt on, I went to a public phone and called my cousin and told him that I will be going to his house, I told him that I didn't have any money. I left my mobile in the apartment and this is (he reason why I couldn't call my cousin from my mobile.
I went to an agency where I could hire a chauffeur car and went to my cousin's house. I was very scared because the lady's husband was a policeman. I told my cousin everything that happened. In my country, adultery is punished by being killed with stones. My cousin told me that he can arrange for me to flee the country through a smuggler. He went to my house and picked up my passport and all the money I had in the bank. He arranged the smuggler to, take me to a safer place; he did not tell me that I will be coming to Australia. I thought that I will be going to Canada but when I got to [Country 1]. I found out that the smuggler will send me io Australia by boat.
What I fear might happen if I go back to my country: If I return to Iran, 1 will be killed by the authorities because of my adultery.
Who I think will harm or mistreat me if I go back: The police
Why I believe they will harm or mistreat me if I go back: I was involved in a relationship with married woman and this Is called in the local terminology ZANA and Is punished by stoning to death.
Why I believe that the authorities In my country will not protect me If I go back: The adultery is not accepted in Islamic countries, therefore I will be sent to court that is ruled by the judges which are; Mulla and I will, be punished by stoning to death.
The following claims were made as part of the applicant’s 2015 protection visa application:
I left Iran in August 2009 because of the certainty that I would be arrested and sentenced to death for adultery. The Sharia law requirement of four male witnesses would not protect me because the law is not applied consistently and fairly in Iran. Furthermore, witnesses can be “arranged”.
I was also in danger because of my known participation in political protests related to the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in June 2009.
I will be arrested and sentenced to death. Apart from the original “crime” and its certain consequences in Iran, I am in danger because of the very public reports of my conversion to Christianity, surrounding a [protest] in which I participated in April 2011.
An ITOA report dated 17 January 2012 stated: “I accept it is very likely that [the applicant] has been identified by Iranian embassy officials in Australia. In doing so, I accept that there is a very real risk that Iranian officials would not look favourably on [the applicant]'s very public behaviour. I consider that [the applicant]'s actions [at the immigration detention] facility, displaying a cross, contacting Australian media, claiming he was involved in anti-government protests in Tehran, claiming he would be tortured and killed in Iran and requesting assistance from UNHCR for third country resettlement all impute him with an anti-regime political opinion.”
“I consider there is a real risk [the applicant] will be detained upon arrival in Iran. Given the evidence relating to prison conditions in Iran, particularly as they pertain to detention for political reasons, I am satisfied substantial grounds exist for believing he would be subjected to significant harm. In these circumstances, and as a result of actions in which [the applicant] is directly responsible, I accept that substantial grounds exist for believing [the applicant] would face a real risk of being subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Iran in pursuance of Article 3 of the CAT and Article 7 of the ICCPR.”
ff
AAT Hearing
The following is a transcript of the hearing:
Recording 1 of 3
·Only regards the organising of an interpreter. Not transcribed as nothing substantial.
Recording 2 of 3
·From 00:00 to 19:15 – preliminary procedural discussion
19:15 – applicant’s cut to the head
Rodger: You know everything you have written and said before in support of your claim and you know it to be true and correct?
Applicant: Yes
R: I received information provided by you advisor. Is there anything else besides that that I should be aware of?
A: The applicant states he had a cut in his head and prior to the Member entering the room, he was discussing it with his representative and the hearing attendant. The representative was saying that he can show you the cut and that he was in the hospital and lost a lot of blood.
R: What is the relevance of that?
A: Since you asked whether I have anything to say, I know that it is irrelevant to the case, just to answer your question I thought I might mention this because my representative was saying that this was of importance that this has happened to me and my physique
R: I don’t under the relevance. You had a cut on your head and went to hospital and had it treated. What do you want me to do about that?
A: I mean because you asked whether I had anything to say. I know that this irrelevant to the case, because this happen it might perhaps affect my participation in the answering.
R: Unless you have any medical evidence that it has any impact on your ability to attend? Are you saying you cannot attend because you had a cut, or?
A: No as I said I think there has been a misunderstanding, perhaps I hand over to my representative.
Representative: Member we are just alerting you that he had a head injury on the weekend, lost a lot of blood, I have asked for the discharge letter and he said it is in the car that hid partner is going to work in today. He is not saying he cannot participate today, but he may need to have frequent breaks as he will tire quicker because of the loss of blood and he may still be suffering the effects of concussion.
R: You’re not a medical doctor I take it?
Rep: No.
R: If it is relevant and you have suffered concussion, as an adult I would assume that you would provide that to the Tribunal. I note that you have had a cut to the head and I will take note of that if it has any Impact on his hearing, but you have provided no medical evidence. I assume if it was of any significance you would have provided some medical evidence but failing that I note that you have had a cut on the head that meant you had to go to the emergency department.
Rep: I can show that to you Member?
R: I am not a doctor, so I can accept that he had a cut to the head but that is all I need to know.
Rep: Okay but it is quite a substantial cut.
R: I am not a doctor, you are not a doctor, I would take medical evidence but I assume it is not overly bad if he has not been hospitalised overnight or anything like that.
Rep: He was.
R: Overnight?
Rep: I believe he was, that is what he told me.
R: Did you report to the emergency department, or were you put in hospital overnight?
A: I went to the emergency and they washed my head, and I lost a lot of blood. I was admitted to the hospital and I was there until 9am in the morning. Some injections were done and what not.
R: Right. I note that there is no medical evidence, but I will take medical evidence into account post hearing and I will see if it has had any relevance to giving evidence today. What day did you do that?
A: I think it was Saturday night. I have the discharge paper that I can send you.
29:30 – s 438 certificate
R: Okay. I also have to tell you about a s 438 certificate. What it says is that there is information on your file, the disclosure of which would be contrary to the public interest. There is a certificate on one of your files. So, I will tell you that there is a certificate that relates to the naming of other people’s names. It includes your name and a list of other people’s names. It is nothing to do with your case. Also, information that relates to your request for a ministerial intervention. That ministerial intervention brief includes information about your background. There is nothing in my opinion that hasn’t been mentioned elsewhere, and it is not my intention to use any of that information in determining the outcome of my decision. But the Act requires me to tell you that this certificate exists on your file and whether that material is relevant to your claim. In my opinion there is nothing in there that I would rely on. Do you understand what I just said?
A: Yes.
33:10 – mental health treatment
R: I also see that you have a past history of mental health treatment. I asked if you are receiving mental health treatment in Australia since you have left detention?
A: Yes.
R: From an Australian mental health practitioner?
A: Yes. For 3 years I was with [Dr F].
R: When did that finish?
A: For three years I was with him. In 2019 I felt that I was better so I slowed down for another one year I did not refer to him.
R: I asked for some evidence about your mental health treatment, can you provide that form this doctor?
A: I can obtain that, yes.
R: Where is he based?
A: In [Suburb 1].
R: Okay, I need a letter form him outlining your treatment history.
A: I’ve got it sir. For one year I did not go to [Dr F], however I continued with counselling but not with the Australian practitioners. With those doctors that are residing in Iran. Online I was doing counselling once a week. They are paid in Iran.
R: How are they paid in Iran?
A: I myself pay those fees, and I send that feel over.
R: How do you send the money to them?
A: I go through the exchange people here. When I pay $100 it takes me for… that was the cover between sessions.
R: How often do you … this is for the doctor in Iran, correct?
A: It used to be 2 sessions a week, but it has now been changed to 1.
R: How do you send that, which money exchange?
A: My sister. I go through my sister. I give the money to my sister who lives here, and she arranges for it to be sent to Iran.
R: Why don’t you do it?
A: Because my sister lives for a long time and she is more familiar. In the mena time she is going to send some money to Iran so I give my money to her too. It doesn’t happen all the time because once I pay it takes about 3 months.
R: Yes, but you have been living here for 11 years so you’re pretty familiar with Australia.
A: I have been here for 11 years yes, but 7 of which I was detained.
R: What I want to do is established what mental health treatment you are having, so I just need you to provide evidence on this money transfer to the medical practice in Iran so that I know that has occurred, and a letter from your treating medical health practitioner in [Suburb 1] so I know what treatment has occurred, okay? Is there any mental health reason why you can’t attend your hearing today? I haven’t been given any, but I just want to check that there is not.
A: I can continue. I don’t have any problems sir.
42:20 – statement of applicant’s claims and interpreter issue
R: Now if the opportunity, can you tell me, every briefly, in 1 or 2 sentences, what is the reason you cannot return to Iran. Who would harm you, and what would they do to you? You will have an opportunity to expand on them.
A: I beg to say that I have been in here 12 years and I categorically cannot return to Iran. I refer to the pictures of the cross of mine, with my name, that has spread not only in Iran but also in the whole wide world. That has put me in danger. My name, my pictures with the family have been shown on the Iranian national television.
R: Sorry, your photos of the family? I don’t understand.
A: What I mean is, my picture with the cross in my hand and my family here, you know, standing on the side supporting… that is what I mean.
R: Are you claiming to be Christian? Is that your claim?
A: Look, I mean yeah. I became a Christian because of my heart. I haven’t mentioned this anywhere, even after I was registered. I did baptism and I have not mentioned to the immigration.
R: Applicant, you are speaking for too long. Please break up what you are saying, then stop and give the interpreter an opportunity to interpret. The longer you speak for, the more people have to remember, and the harder it is to remember accurately. On top of that, you are moving around, and sometimes you are cutting out. You need to sit still while you speak so that you do not cut out. Keep your sentences short, and do not move around so we get a better quality of sound.
A: I am explaining, however, I don’t think that my interpreter is conveying what I exactly mean and I would like you to change the interpreter for me please.
R: Can you point me to mistakes that have been made so far?
A: That is not the right thing, I am asking you please if possible to change the interpreter for me.
R: You have not given me an example of where the interpreting has gone wrong. Do not speak over the top of me. If your English is sufficient to understand what he and I are saying, then you probably do not an interpreter. However, if your English is not sufficient, and you are not an accredited interpreter, then you need to tell me what has gone wrong because your responses so far have been in accordance with what I have asked so far.
A: I beg to say that I am entitled to have an interpreter, irrespective of my English, and I would like to have an interpreter and my words to be uttered to the point, to the letter.
R: I have asked you, twice already, to tell me what has been interpreted incorrect. At the moment, I don’t have a problem with the interpreter. You haven’t told me what the problem is so please tell me.
A: You don’t have the problem, I do. I don’t understand actually because he is using the word ‘it is too big’, I don’t know what he is trying to explain. I know that different, but it is my right to have the interpreter because my English is not 100%. This is my opportunity. This is my life. I want to give you everything I want to provide.
R: I understand what you say, but your right is to have an interpreter. He is an accredited interpreter. You haven’t told me what has not been interpreter. You don’t have the right to just say ‘I don’t’ like that one, get me another one’. If you can tell me what has been conveyed improperly I will consider it, but at the moment one of the problems that we have said to you is that you are speaking for far too long. So part of the problem may be at your end, not his end. Do you understand?
A: Okay. you asked him about Christianity. Four times I mentioned about the baptise. He said register. Then I said baptise and finally he said baptise. It is very important to me. I have to get my interview after 12 year.
R: I completely understand. I know when he said registered that he meant baptism. I have been doing this for a long time, I don’t care whether he says baptism or registry, to me it is the same time. My intent at the moment is to continue using this interpreter and for you to slow down and be specific, and not speak for as long as you have.
A: This is a compulsory order?
R: It is my direction at the moment, yes.
A: Yes, I have said what is my problem but if it is your order I will respect it.
R: If there is a problem that raises itself then please raise it, but at the moment I am understanding what he is saying. One or two words does not really make a difference.
A: Yes it does. My case has already been harmed by these mistakes. In my last case the interpreting was wrong.
R: Did you lodge a complaint about the last one?
A: No, because you are saying that you are understanding. There was an issue with the last interpreter.
R: I understand that you have been here for 12 years. You cannot say that there was an issue with the interpreter without providing evidence or providing an alterative interpretation. It is not an uncommon complain but I need to understand the veracity of it. At the moment we will continue with this interpreter, and I will ask you to keep your responses shorter so he has fewer words to have to interpret. Do you understand? And if you think that something is being said incorrectly, then by all means, correct it. It will be apparent if things have not been done correctly by my or your response.
Interpreter: My apologises. I said register, not baptism. He never reminded me to say baptism. If you listen to the recording…
R: Okay, lets stop it there. Interpreter, can you just advise the applicant what I said, that we are going to continue and that if he believes the interpreting is not being done correctly then by all means he can raise that issue. I would also ask the applicant to keep his responses tight and short.
1:01:00 – Christianity claim
R: At the moment, is your claim that you have converted to Christianity since you have been in Australia. Yes or no?
A: Yes.
R: What will happen to you if you return to Iran as a result of that, and who would do that to you?
A: After my picture, my film, my interview was broadcast. Before that, nothing. But after this happened then the danger was there.
R: Can you just tell me what serious harm would you fear if you returned to Iran and who would do this to you?
A: I don’t know who would do the harm, however, I know that my mother after leaving Australia was detained in the airport in Iran and 5 days that was. That was mentioned in the case.
R: Please answer the question that I asked you. What harm would happen to you individually and who would do it to you?
A: The Islamic Republic of Iran is the one that would harm me. There are possibility of battery and lashes, and even execution for apostacy. In Islam whoever becomes an apostate is subject to persecution.
1:04:30 – activist claim
R: Do you have any other claims to harm besides your Christianity claim?
A: Yes I do. I am an activist politically against the regime of Iran online, on social media.
R: What would happen to you because you are a political activist and who would do that to you?
A; My main aim is that in my political activities, I targeted his regime and I would enter their official site and would you know, do my activities. For that reason, often my sites was intruded by them.
R: I don’t want you to tell me the claim, I am not examining the claim at the moment. I just want to know what would happen to you if you returned to Iran because of this activism and who would do it to you. Just a couple of words.
A: If I return to Iran I categorically be detained or tortured or incarcerated and all of these would be under the Information office of the Tsar.
1:08:00 – adultery and incest claim
R: Do you have any other claims other than your Christianity and your activism?
A: Well I am still, you know, thinking about the reason that I left Iran. That in itself, you know, has put me in a serious position.
R: Can you just be very specific. What have you done, what serious harm will happen to you, and who will do it to you? Just in one or two sentences.
Interpreter: The gentleman is asking me to repeat, will you allow me Member?
R: Go ahead.
A: Well, there is a problem you know that I have and that was adultery, incest, and before it was stoning but now it is done with a rope.
R: Who would do this to you?
A: The siege, the legislations of Iran and this is part of the law.
R: Do you have any other claims? At the moment we have a claimed fear of harm for conversion to Christianity, political activism, and adultery. Do you have any other claims?
A: No.
1:12:20 – expanding on adultery claim
R: Lets start with your last claim about adultery. Now is your opportunity to expand on that claim. Tell me what happened, why you fear serious harm if you were to return to Iran because of that.
A: I don’t understand whether you want me to explain or give an anecdote of what happened, or whether you want me to give you the rules and law of there?
R: Both. Just tell me what occurred, and why you think you will be stoned or hanged because of it.
A: About 12 years ago… during this 12 years I did have a hard time, 7 years of which I was detained. So there is a possibility because of great deal of stress and pressure on me, I may not remember exactly but I will try to the best of my ability to be honest. The thing is, you know, what happened was I got friendly with a lady and I was running a [specified] shop. Well, several times you know she came and we got acquainted and I even did not realise she was already married. Several times we had intimacy, and once then she invited me to her home. What happened then, I can’t remember the time exactly but it was the middle of the night that her husband came in. in that situation I bolted and I went to my cousins home. Look, I remember that I was staying in my cousins for a few days but then I left Iran because I came to know that the lady’s husband was a police officer.
R: When did you know that he was police officer?
A: That very night that he came and came in, I came to know he was a police officer.
R: That was the first time that you knew?
A: I never knew that he was … I never knew first of all that she was married and on that night perhaps the guy was on the night shift and maybe they planned for me and lured me there.
R: When did you meet her?
A: I do not remember that one exactly, but I know that I mentioned the date of this in the previous interview.
R: Where did you meet her and what were the circumstances in which you first met her?
A: In my shop. She was my customer. I took a photo of her.
R: Okay, so her husband came and found you in bed with her. What happened then?
A: Look, what happened was when I heard a knock on the door or the sound of the door, I jumped out of the bed and I had my clothes with me. Quickly I got my clothes and he came in. in the kitchen there was a roller on the bench. I myself with much bigger physique than him, he’s a small guy, he took that roller and through it at me. Then I remember that I bolted out and I got an uber to go to my cousins. I think I was at my cousins for 3 days and my cousins arranged my documents. He went to my home and got my documents and with those I arranged and left and I flew out of Iran. Then I went to [County 2] and after [County 2] I left [County 2] for [Country 1]. Especially in [Country 1] with visa and what not was easy for us and that was the place that I went.
R: What is the punishment for adultery in Iran?
A: I cannot remember exactly the article in the law, but article 259 I suspect. According to that that would be 99 lashes and at the very most, stoning.
R: Stoning for who?
A: Yeah, what I mean is stoning for that adultery. I mean putting to death with stones.
R: Yes, who would they stone? The man or the woman?
A: look, I don’t know about the laws. I do not know. I do not know that the lady was married, so this ordeal happened and then I came to know what consequences, serious consequences were waiting for me and for that reason I left Iran.
R: My reading of the Penal Code is that adulterous women are stoned to death and single adulterous men receive 99 lashes, but in your protection visa application you said you would be stoned to death but that is not the case. Why did you say you would be stoned to death when that is not the case?
A: I was … look, well I was a kid and I witnessed with my own eyes that a man was stoned. I was a kid and I don’t know the guy’s, you know, accusations and what not but that was the case that I saw with my own eyes.
R: You’ve been charged with adultery, have you?
A: No. look, for my fear I left Iran so I was not there anymore.
R: Yes but you can be charged in absentia, so surely you would have been charged in absentia, wouldn’t you?
A: The police, her husband and the police were following me and apparently they go to my shop and there too they see the green movements, a newsletter that I was having in there.
R: Sorry, can you just explain why you hadn’t been charged with adultery?
1:30:00
A: In Iran, there is a matter of dignity of the family and it doesn’t go into the law, rather people take the law into their own hands to retaliate.
R: Okay, so was your lover sentenced to death by stoning and has that been carried out?
A: never did I, you know, hear anything because after I left Iran I got no clue, no news, whatever.
R: You’d have asked your family I expect about it.
A: My family never knew at that time why I was leaving Iran.
R: I have looked for country information and there are NGOs that keep an eye on Iran and any woman that may have been sentenced to death by stoning, but there is no information that anyone fitting the description of this woman in this timeline in Tehran has ever been sentenced to stoning. Why is that?
A: Look, I mean, because of the pressure of international over Iran, there was a legislation from 2013 that the stoning changed to hanging. The documents show that… the last woman who was stoned was the record shows it was in 2009.
R: So, has this woman been hanged then? Or was she sentenced to stoning and then it was changed to hanged instead? Is there any record of her?
A: Look, I don’t know anything about my lover what so ever. What you are saying, asking about the public information.
R: Yes and what I am saying is there is information about women being sentenced for adultery. NGOs track this sort of stuff. But I cannot find anything about the incident that you are talking about. Do you have anything to support your claim?
A: I don’t know what happened to her. I left Iran because of that serious matter. Had I stayed, I would not have known what would have happened to me.
R: In your statutory declaration you said you met this woman in a park on the 13^th day after Nowruz.
A: Yes the first time that I saw her was the 15^th time after Nowruz but the first meeting was at the park.
R: Did you do anything between meeting, did you talk?
A: Yes, on the phone.
1:38:00 – concern about coincidence of meeting woman
R: What’s the population of Tehran?
A: I don’t know, there is too many.
R: It is pretty big, you’d agree? Millions of people.
A: I think, during the day 14 or 15 million and during the night it is perhaps 19 or 20.
R: I have been to Tehran a few times and it is an enormous city. So what strikes me is how big of a coincidence it is, that in such a huge city, you run into and start an affair with a married woman who’s husband happens to be the deputy of the police station and they move onto the same street as you. In a city of over 10 million that seems to be an extraordinary coincidence.
A: This is your opinion, but this happened actually. It is just a local park and everyone goes there.
R: It seems to me extraordinarily coincidental that the one person you met and exchange numbers with and start sexual relations with just happens to be the wife of the deputy police officer. It could raise questions about it because it is just so coincidental. Not only that, they just happen to move onto the same lane, just a couple of houses again, in a city of so many people. Again, incredibly coincidental.
A: I have been here for 12 years and I have told you the truth and nothing but the truth, and I have taken the oath to tell you the truth, so if you believe it but if not. That was my house.
R: Anything else you want to add to the adultery claim?
A: If you have got any questions to ask sir I will oblige.
R: The issue that I’ve got serious doubts that this occurred given the coincidental matter of events. You just running into this person. Them just moving into the same street as you. There has been no arrest warrant, no court case, no indication that a woman was ever charged or sentenced. It just relies entirely on your oral testimony.
A: What I have said before is the reasons for what happened at that time. Now that I am talking to you, I have got several other reasons why they have got kind of surpassed or outsmarted the initial reason for not being able to be in Iran.
R: So you have got no more you want to say about the adultery claims?
A: Like I said I don’t have anything else to say unless you want to ask questions sir.
1:46:30 – Christianity claim
R: No I have already raised my concerns about the adultery claim. Let’s talk about your Christianity claim. Tell me about your path to Christianity, when you became interested in it, how you practise it?
A: It happened when I was in [immigration detention]. There were missionaries who were coming to the camp and play ball with us, and games. Some of them would bring books. They brought us in Persian the bible, and because we have all the time in the world, we read the bible. For me that was like a story book and I started reading it and I became interested. I was familiar because some of those matters were told to us during our childhood. Then when I came to Australia I was detained in the [Australian City 1] camp, so the facilities got better and people were coming more this time from the church into the camp. I told them that I was reading the book and they were overwhelmingly impacted and they were also bringing us food and what not. We were so acquainted together because of reading the bible, it was good. I was so interested and things got taken care of for me. Every week I was allowed by the immigration to go to the church out of the camp. For a few months this took place and eventually got baptised.
R: When did you get baptised?
A: As far as I remember it was 2011 in [Church 1]
R: What branch of Christianity were you baptised into?
A: Protestant.
R: What time of protestant?
A: What do you mean by what kind?
R: In Christianity there is the Catholic church and various branches of the Protestant church with different views on the faith.
A: These are different form one another. Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox.
R: Yes but you have a particular faith with a certain branch of Christianity so what branch is it?
A: Loo, can you say again that question. We are talking about the Protestant is that correct.
R: What kind of church do you go? What branch of Christianity to you go to?
A: Anglican.
R: So you were baptised into the Anglican church?
A: Yes.
R: So you are a baptised Anglican?
A: Yes.
R: Which Anglican church do you go to in Sydney?
A: [Church 2] in [Suburb 2]. I used to before the COVID 19 I would go every week. Every single week on Sunday, morning service and night service.
R: What time are the morning and night serve?
A: The morning service was 9 and 12 and the night service was 7 to 9. I used to go with who I was living with and my friend who passed away 1.5 years ago.
R: Who is in charge of [Church 2], who is the Anglican priest there?
A: [Pastor G], I don’t know his family name.
R: How many years did you go there?
A: Just started 2017 or 2018 I can’t remember because I moved to the [Suburb 2] and the church was near my home and local. I went there for an English class first because I saw that there was an English class for free. So I went there and met them and I used to do the sometimes, few times a week, bible study when I was living there.
R: I don’t have any letter from the Anglican Priest from [Church 2] that would support.
A: Yes I did already send that. Three letters from [Church 2]. One from the [Pastor G], one from the English teacher and one from the GP I used to live with.
Rep: I haven’t received the one from [Pastor G], are you sure you sent it to me [applicant’s name].
R: I don’t have a copy of that.
Rep: I’ve got [Mr H].
A: He is the GP. There are another two. The English teacher from the church and [Pastor G], he is the pastor.
Rep: [Pastor G]?
A: Yes, I can send it right now. I already emailed it but I can send it now.
2:00:00 – Christianity claim continued
A: Before going to this Church I used to go to the Iranian church.
R: Which Iranian church is that?
A: In [Suburb 3].
R: What was the name of the church.
A: I am not sure of the very exact name, but it was an Iranian church in [Suburb 3]. The name was [Name 1] or [Name 2].
R: Was that an Anglican church as well?
A: These are people with home I got acquainted with from [immigration detention] from 2011 to 2016.
R: What branch of Christianity were they?
A: Same, Anglican. Because the pastor with whom I got acquainted in the camp, he got married and left for the US. So I didn’t go that church anymore. And I moved house.
R: Do we have a letter from that person that would support your claim?
A: No. He is in the USA sir.
R: Is there anyone that could attest to your attendance at the church at that period of time?
A: Yes, I do have that one and even now online those people are my friend actually and every week we meet.
R: When were you let out of detention?
A: [In] February 2016.
R: You’ve been a regular church goer since that time, have you?
A: At the start no, because I was not familiar and I did not know anywhere but little by little after.
R: Can you be more specific?
A: Because I was living in the north of Sydney.
R: Where abouts?
A: [Suburb 4].
R: What churches are there? There are a stack of churches there, they are everywhere.
A: I didn’t go to the church in [Suburb 1] or [Suburb 4].
R: Why not? What are the Anglican churches in [Suburb 4] or [Suburb 1]?
A: Look after 7 years that I was detained, I left and I was in north in [Suburb 4] and then [Suburb 1] I did not know anybody, it was my effort to go and find.
R: So, you left in 2017, you went to [Suburb 4] where there are a lot of churches of all faiths. When did you start going to church?
A: First of all, after I left I lived in [Suburb 4] for two months and my landlord was a religious person with plenty of books.
R: Where was this landlord?
A: [Suburb 5] in [street name]. The first place I was renting after [Suburb 4].
R: What was the local Anglican church in [Suburb 5]?
A: I did not know because of my lack of English where the Anglican was. My landlord took me here and there in his car.
R: When did you start attending church after you were released? There are photos of you with a cross [while you were in immigration detention] and I imagine it is highly important to you and you would have wanted to get to church to pray. So when did you start going?
A: I was interested of course and that was my interest. I was not a pastor or minister or anything, you see what I mean?
R: No I don’t. I go to church regularly. I am not a priest. That is what you do if you follow a faith. So can you tell me again when you started going to church.
A: On a regular basis and kind of a permanent regular basis I am thinking 3 years ago, yes 3 years ago.
R: So when, and where?
A: I cannot remember the date exactly.
R: What year?
A: We count back. If we are in 2021 we are talking about 2018.
R: But you didn’t go between when you were released and 2018, is that what you are saying?
A: No I did go, but my friend who left for the US, that was the time that I did not go.
R: So I don’t have any documentation that you went to churches. Where was this church that you went to with your Iranian pastor?
A: I never knew that you would ask for a document, had I known it was required I would have provided that.
R: Where was the church at?
A: [Location 1].
R: But you don’t know the name of it.
A: The [Name 2] church.
R: is that an Anglican church?
A: Yes. [Suburb 3] Iranian Church, that will show up.
2:16:00
R: So you started going to this Anglican church in [Suburb 2] in 2018, is that correct?
A: Yes but before I was going there before the COVID-19. 10 to 12 and 7 to 9.
R: Are there any other services?
A: English classes during the day.
R: Are you going to church services or English classes?
A: I do church services from 10 to 12 then English class at 7 to 9.
R: Are there any other services?
A: I used to go only that service because the people that I was living with would go to the 10 o’clock one.
R: Are there are any other services of is 10am the only one?
A: There are other services, they started at 8am. I always go with them every week, they drive me there. And the night service my good friend who passed away would drive me.
R: And you have been doing that every Sunday since 2018?
A: Every Sunday yes.
R: Did the church reopen during Covid, we have the first then second lockdown.
A: No never, just the one or two times but they had limited person and you had to put your name down at that time. I didn’t get the chance to go there. After I lost my best friend and then I moved from that area and I came to a different place and I am now having to contact a different Pastor who is frequent and living in [Suburb 6]. During the lockdown they are doing the online service and he always sent me the invitation and would text me in the prayer groups.
R: You’ve always identified as an Anglican is that correct?
A: Well whether Anglican, Protestant what not. They are… the origins of Christianity is of importance for me. It doesn’t really matter and I didn’t really delve into this and neither am I interested to investigate what branches but just the origin in Christianity.
R: Were you religious in Iran and have an interest in Christianity?
A: No.
R: Did you know anything about Christianity?
A: Of course, you know, I knew about Christianity because part of Islam we learn about Jesus Christ but we were not allowed to access bibles. People who live in Iran realise there are no bibles at hand.
R: Okay.
2:23:00 – s 424AA
R: I will tell you about a section of the Migration Act called 424AA. It says that I should give you clear particulars about any information I believe would form the reason or part of the reason for refusing your protection visa. This relates to your previous interview with the Department in 2017. It said how you made the claim that you were a practising and committed Christian.
A: I never said that sir.
R: I will rephrase that. It said you presented letters of support from friends who said you were a practising and committed Christian. But the letters were from 2015 and there was nothing more recent than that. The person called one of the people who wrote one of the letters of support and accompanied you during the interview.
A: At that time I was at the detention centre.
R: Yes. The person that he spoke to said you hadn’t been active in church activities because of difficulties including work, commitments and divorce form your wife and the decision maker didn’t believe that you were a current and active practitioner of the Christian faith. And that you said you attended church at [Suburb 3] after your release. The decision maker asked you to provide a letter form the pastor about being a regular attendee there but I can’t find any record of you providing one and you said today you were never asked to provide one. On top of that, you asked some basic questions about Christianity and claimed that Jesus was born in Jerusalem and resurrected on Good Friday. The combination of all of those gives me concern about you being a practising Christian based on your conversion, and your confusion about certain elements of Christianity. You can have more time to respond to my concerns but I would ask for your comments.
A: Mainly the picture that I took [at] the church, that was spread everywhere here and there. But I am confused now whether you are here to test my religion or are we weighing up the visa status? For the authorities of Iran it doesn’t really matter whether I became Christian in my heart or whatsoever, so that is not the issue there. I am talking about, you know, a problem that has put me and my family in danger for this Christianity. If I knew that my pictures would have been spread here and there and in the world I would not have [photographed] in the first place. Because of that, particular incidents put my family in danger as well. If I know I wouldn’t have done that.
R: Who do you say takes you to the Anglican church twice every Sunday?
A: [Mr H] in the morning, [Mr I] for the afternoon and nights.
R: I have a letter from [Mr H]. It doesn’t say anything about them taking you to church twice every Sunday.
A: Never did I know you would need this information otherwise I would have provided.
R: Your true attachment to Christianity has bene raised before in your decisions. You know that the genuineness of your Christian conversion has been raised, don’t you?
A: I think so.
R: Well I just read out of them to you, so I assume you knew that.
A: Look, you are talking to a person who has been here in a difficult situation for 12 years and has lost everything what so ever, I have lost it all. Now you are sitting here and you know telling me that you didn’t say this or that, or that you have this on the file. If you were in my position you would be.. I don’t know… yeah.
R: The reason that I am here is that I am reviewing decisions made previously and those decisions… I look at everything with a fresh set of eyes obviously. You have been refused on numerous occasions so you are not here for no reason. This is the process that is giving you natural justice so you have an opportunity to address issues where your claims may not have been believed. You understand that don’t you?
A: Yes.
R: Do you have any social media sites?
A: I am sorry my charge ran out, I couldn’t get your question.
R: Do you have any social media sites?
A: Yeah, [Social Media 1], [Social Media 2].
R: Do you talk about religion much on those?
A: Well I do have my old page of Christianity on which I put the relevant information.
R: I don’t understand what you meant.
A: Well I do have a [Social Media 3] profile titled ‘[Name 3]” and on that page I was publishing the verses of Qur’an and yeah. No not Qur’an. You are talking about Christianity and you are asking if I am active and I would like to say I am active.
Interpreter: the gentleman used the word Qur’an and I am not sure if that was correct.
R: I have not seen this, have you presented this previously?
A: Sir I mean look I became Christian for my own heart. If I had known I need documentation, this paper, that paper. I became Christian for my own interests.
R: When did you start this [Social Media 3] page, is it current?
A: It refers to the time I was in the camp in [immigration] detention.
R: Is it in your name?
A: I am the owner of the page.
R: It is in your name?
A: Yes.
R: Is it current?
A: The title of the [Social Media 3] profile is “[Name 3]”
R: Is it current?
A: Yes at the moment it is. It is on, but less active
R: Is there anything that shows you attached to it?
A: I am already connected to it because I am the founder of the profile.
R: What does that mean?
A: When you add a page, obviously you are the admin and administrator of that page. You are in control, you manage it with the posts. You confused me sir.
2:44:00
R: Why did you not put a religious site in your submission? Why is there just a [Social Media 3] page with your name and some karate stuff?
A: My dear member, this is a personal profile. It is not under [my name]. It has its own title. I can show you from here. You ca create the page or a business page, what ever you want. I have a few for soccer, and then my religious one I used to be active on.
R: When did you stop being active on that one?
A: When COVID 19 came up. Maybe 3 years ago.
R: Before that how often did you post on it.
A: It depends, when I saw a good chapter or a post on the Iranian church. A couple times a week.
R: Is there anything that would indicate you have anything to do with that? Is your name on it, your photo on it?
A: Yes you will have to go through my personal [Social Media 3]. It is not under my name it is under [Name 3].
R: Have you ever mentioned this previously in your written submissions or interviews?
A: No I didn’t. I could never even remember.
R: So do you know if you mentioned it or not?
A: No like I said, I said no.
R: Why haven’t you mentioned it before?
A: I didn’t know. Talking about the social media and things that I put against the regime of Iran. I never knew. Then I got informed and I put that in. had into know I wouldn’t have mentioned this.
2:49:00 - S 91R(3)
R: I will tell you about a section of the Migration Act that is section 91R(3). It says that if I believe you have undertaken certain actions for the sole person of improving your refugee claims I can ignore or disregard that claim. I have concerns that in your previous interview with the immigration department they formed the opinion that you are not actively expressing your Christian faith in the community, and that decision was made and given to you in January 2018. Then in 2018 you start attending places of worship. I have a concern in my mind that you are only attending these places of worship for whatever reason after you received a negative decision. In addition, you made this massively public display of having this cross [at the immigration detention centre] knowing that photos would be taken and using that as a claim for protection subsequently.
A: I didn’t do that. I didn’t publish anything. I was [there] for ten days. There were, you know, paparazzi. They published that. Had I known that this would be published internationally I wouldn’t have done that.
R: So you’re telling me you had this huge cross not expecting it to be published anywhere. I find that extremely hard to believe. You’ve given letters in support of what an evangelical Christian you are and how the strength of your faith and will never let go of Jesus Christ, but your behaviour doesn’t appear to indicate that. You aren’t evangelising in your own name on social media. You attend church as a normal person rather than as an evangeliser. Your descriptions don’t match your actions. All of this raise concerns on my mind on the genuineness of your faith.
A: I haven’t done this to advertise anything. Here you know people are freely able to talk about Christianity and speared the word. But in Iran that is where the show pinches. You would be persecuted for your Christianity. I changed to Christianity for my own heard and my own life.
R: Had you had any negative decisions made against you before you became baptised?
A: Yes.
R: How many.
A: Twice.
R: Again, that also raises questions. Someone whose initial claims have passed muster might then think that a claim of Christian convert might strengthen your claims without being genuine. What do you say to that?
A: Well it was not just those twice before baptism but twice also after baptism. It was the word of my case manager at immigration who suggested I tender my baptism certificate. Otherwise I would not have done that. I did not even mention once when I had been baptised. Twice after baptism I failed and even at that time I did not mention I was Christian but I was and I was filed.
3:00:00 – political activism claim
R: Lets go on to your other claim, which is about your political activism. Can you tell me about your political activism and why you think the authorities would be interested in you because of that?
A: In terms of the danger that I am facing, it is very as I said before, the very person that I have aimed at is the regime. I have let the cat out of the bag in terms of his lies and behaviour. Those posts were put up by me. Several times I was cyber intruded and cyber bullied by my site.
R: Have you ever been politically active in Iran
A: Yes but it was not transparent because I was more acting in terms of printing pictures and what not.
R: Can you be more specific?
END OF AUDIO RECORDING 2 OF 3
START OF RECORDING 3 OF 3
0:00 – political activist claim continued
A: The thing is, we didn’t have the heavy duty professional excel printer and we printed the newspapers but never were we caught.
R: Who is “we”?
A: I didn’t say “we”, I said “I”
R: What did you print?
A: We were printing you know, notifications about the demonstrations and what not and even the supreme leader was saying that he was more acquainted with him than other. We wrote letters and those letters we printed them.
R: Sorry, you did this on your own, is that what you are saying?
A: Yes. Look, I was not writing those or issuing those, my friends were bringing them for me. We have a photoshop and it was not my job to print, rather they were printing out those brochures and I printed them illegally against he regime. I was paid for that.
R: Who brought them to you?
A: Two friends of mine. They were always coming together.
R: Did you own that shop, did you?
A: No it belonged to my brother. The shop belonged to my brother but I was the manager at that shop. My brother was more of the sale man and I was running the shop.
R: Which brother was that?
A: My youngest.
R: Do you think he knew you were printing off opposition newsletters?
A: Yes.
R: He was okay with that?
A: We are all against the regime by Iran and if anything happens… my brother knew about this however he was telling me to be careful. He was not really wanting me to put this on and I was paid as well so he was taking it easy but telling me to be careful.
R: How long did you do this?
A: Well let me say that I printed 25 000 pf the political materials. Three or four times they came to collect.
R: Did you take part in any protests?
A: I was perhaps maybe once or twice every time and because I am … my physique is big I am projected when I go there and everyone sees me, so I couldn’t go that much, when I was going I was going in disguise not to be recognised.
R: How do you go in disguise, I don’t understand?
A: I didn’t usually go to these demonstrations, like I said I was an athlete and am big. Had I gone, everyone would have recognised me. I was active in the periphery. When I was passing by those demonstrations they would see me.
R: How many did you go to?
A: I don’t know, perhaps a couple.
R: Did anyone find out about you printing these newsletters?
A: After I left Iran that guy went into our shop and found out about it. After they filed a case against me in the system
R: Did they raid the shop?
A: Look I don’t know because I wasn’t there. I don’t know whether they intruded aggressively or if they came in a friendly way. All I know is that these what they had done before. anything related to me… based on that they filed a case.
R: So they came to the shop?
A: Yes
R: Your brother must have been in trouble then.
A: Well they actually officially closed down our shop for 2 weeks.
R: Did they arrest or charge your brother? They charged you so surely would have charged him because he owns the place.
A: No. Because my brother through the ball completely into my court
R: Close family… he dobbed you in did he?
A: What do you mean.
R: I am being sarcastic.
A: Well the reason was the regime could not access or reach me, hence my brother turned everything on me
R: Is this part of your original claim? The anti-regime activity in the shop?
A: Yes. The intruders came and collected my material and iw as in [immigration detention centre] at the same time.
R: You had to put forward your claim, didn’t you When you arrived at [immigration detention centre] they would have asked what harm you fear and if you were politically active. Did they ask you that?
A: When I came to [immigration detention centre] I did tell the ordeal about the people going into this shop and searching for my documents. They told me from Iran that they had been looking for me.
18:20 – s 424AA information
R: I would like to put some more information to you under s 424AA. In your initial entry interview you were specifically asked “were you involved in any activities or protests against the government and you said no”. If you had said yes there are areas to explain underneath it. But, you have just said that you were printing 25K anti-regime newsletters and attended a couple of protests. But there is no mention of it here. The rest of the information seems to be accurate, so I have my concerns that because you have never mentioned it here, you never mentioned that activity in your statutory declaration in your application, and it only came in later, so I have concerns that this event never occurred you have just put this in to bolster your claims. You can have more time to respond to my concerns but I welcome your comments.
A: I did say initially that I was not political, I was not a political activist. They asked me and I said no. I didn’t have any problems with politics in that sense.
R: There are two aspects to that question and you answered ‘no’ to both of them. The first was ‘were you a member of any political group and the other one is ‘did you undertake any activities against the government’. You are telling me now that you printed 25k anti government newsletters but you said no. I am concerned that the reason you said no, was because you never actually did this.
A: I know you are intelligent enough and are in the know about Iran. In the meantime I have told you the truth. Whether you believe it or not, that would be your jurisdiction.
R: Okay. I am also taking into account that you have sent these documents that you say are a court document. Country information indicates that court summons and the like from Iran are fabricated so it is unlikely that I will be able to give much weight to those documents that you provided. Because of that, I need to place more weight on your credibility as a witness. That is why I am testing your actions to satisfy myself about how believable they are. The timings of certain actions that you have done, all that kind of stuff can become important because I cannot place much weight on the documentary stuff. So tell me about this online [Social Media 1]. When did you start posting anti-government stuff? I looked at the stuff you gave me. There is nothing earlier than late 2019 or maybe 2020. When did you start?
26:00 – Social media posting
A: Can you ask the question again?
R: You said you started anti-government political messaging on [Social Media 1]. You have given me a copy of some stuff. I can’t find anything earlier than July 2019. When did you start doing this?
A: I was more active after 2019.
Interpreter: The gentleman has asked for a break.
A: I cannot continue. I need a break.
R: We will just finish off this point then we can have a break.
A: I have been in contact with different televisions here and there and interviews. In terms of evidence I don’t have evidence.
R: Can you answer the question please. When did you start this [Social Media 1] account, because the earliest you have given me is July 2019.
A: Look, I started the [Social Media 1] a long time ago from inside the camp. My writing things against the regime against Iran happened parallel with the time the airplane went down and killed hundreds of people.
R: So can you tell me when that was?
A: I think it was 2019.
R: Okay. Have you mentioned this [Social Media 1] account previously?
A: Yes but I don’t have any record of that because every 24 hours they disappear.
R: Do you have any record that you have previously advised the Australia government of the existence of this [Social Media 1] account?
A: No because I never knew even … it has been a couple of weeks before coming to my notice.
R: And it is a private account?
A: I changed it to private because before there were people who were coming and threatening me. For that reason I changed it.
R: Do you have evidence on that? Or do I have to rely on your oral testimony?
A: I am not sure whether I can retrieve anything out of the [Social Media 1].
R: Why do you think anybody would know that you are doing this. Lets say it is anti-regime stuff, the country information says there are 24 million [Social Media 1] users in Iran. Why would they know out of 24 million there is some guy posting random anti-government stuff on it?
A: 24 million, but you are talking about a few of them are able to aim themselves because they do not have that courage.
36:00 – s 91R(3)
R: I will tell you again about s 91R(3) of the Migration Act. I can ignore certain actions if I believe they were done for the sole purpose of improving your refugee claim. The obvious things are there is no record of this previously and your last negative decision was 2018. Then suddenly this private [Social Media 1] account critical of the regime somehow pops up from July 2019. The timing, again, raises concerns in my mind that it is not reflective of your genuine believes but is done solely to try and create a profile for you.
A: Look I have taken the oath and told you the truth and nothing but the truth. In 10 years time if you ask again I will have the same answer. I have taken the oath to tell the truth. I respect your opinion but this is just your opinion. I appreciate you are a person in the know about Iran. If I return to Iran I would be in grave danger and great difficulty.
R: Against I can’t take into account without… it must be translated.
39:30 – 15 minute break
56:30 – hearing resumes & social media continued
R: We left the last issue we dealt with was your online social media footprint. On your [Social Media 3] posts there doesn’t seem to be anything political on that. Is [Social Media 1] the only one with political stuff on it.
A: Yes [Social Media 1] and [Social Media 2].
R: I don’t have a copy of that [Social Media 2]. When did you start that account
A: It has been a long time. 10 of them I made but they were removed
R: Are you saying you were politically active on [Social Media 2], were you?
A: Yes and [Social Media 1] as well. It was more on [Social Media 2]. On [Social Media 2] I was more putting comments.
R: Have you written anti-Iranian government things on [Social Media 2], have you?
A: Ten of those [Social Media 2 accounts] I made and it was cyber bullied and removed and I made again.
R: Who removed them?
A: The post was getting reported as against the government and against the terms and conditions. We had a cyber attack and the Iran government…
R: Do you have any evidence of it?
A: Of course. They even publish that there was 200K army on the cyber.
R: I would like you to provide evidence that your [Social Media 2] account has been hacked by the Iranian government, okay? and it wasn’t just [Social Media 2] blanking a [post] for particular content, which they are allowed to do. [Social Media 2] can remove it themselves, I just want you to prove that what happened to your [posts] was because of it being anti government.
A: I cannot prove that.
R: When did you start writing these [posts] against the government?
A: I think it is parallel with the [Social Media 1].
1:00:00 – s 91R(3) and s 423A
R: Again, under s 91R(3) it has the same concerns that I raised about your [Social Media 1] account coming after a rejection form the Australian government. I have concerns that whatever may be contained in it was done to give yourself a refugee profile. Is [Social Media 2] available in Iran? It is blocked isn’t it?
A: VPN is the filter that it is filtered through in Iran. No network is on in Iran except VPN.
R: I understand you can access it through VPN. Again, you haven’t provided any evidence of it. If you want to provide any social media posts I need them translated. But again I would have to look at the timing of these posts. I have concerns that there are actions and claims with convenient timing. After you have been refused you come up with a new plan. I will tell you about s 423A. It essentially says that if you introduce a new claim or evidence that wasn’t put forward in your original claim then I can draw an adverse inference form that unless you come up with a reason that I can accept for the lateness of the claim. Which essentially is what I have been saying all along. If you put up claims after you have been rejected it raises questions about how real those claims may be.
1:06:30 – [Immigration detention centre] protests
R: The other issue that you raised is about you being publicly known about the protests in [immigration detention centre] in 2011. Why do you think that would be a problem if it was known that you were in immigration detention as an asylum seeker from Iran? Country information indicates that if you don’t have a pre-existing political profile in Iran the government doesn’t really pay attention to failed asylum seekers that return to Iran. That includes social media, conversion to Christianity. The Iranian authorities kind of know that people may make up claims. Certainly why your name is out there on the public record having been involved in that protest, why would the Iranian authorities care? You were criticising your detention, not the Iranian government. From what I can see in the country information there is just your brother saying you converted to Christianity, but nothing about an anti-government profile. The Iranian foreign minister ahs also criticised the way that Australian has detained Iranian asylum seekers and said they should not be detained as they are. He is essentially agreeing with you. There is no country information that I can find that indicates the Iranian authorities do target failed asylum seekers as they understand the difficult financial system in Iran and there may be more opportunities in Australia even if it is untrue, they do not worry. The Iranian authorities probably know that you took part in this [immigration detention centre] protest but so what. Why would they be interested in that if you didn’t have a profile in Iran?
A: You are talking about a country where they kidnap anti government people in Iran, put them to the court and are executed. You are talking about this kind of country. Do you want a piece of evidence of this?
R: The evidence would be... what I am putting to you is people without a pre-existing political profile in Iran are not of interest to the authorities. What I am putting to you is if you do not have a profile and you return to Iran, so what?
A: We are talking about a country where the anti-government people are not active in Iran but overseas because they can’t be in Iran. But when they all come overseas they can do their anti-government activities. Then they follow you up to the degree that you are active, they kidnap you and kill you. *Name* is one example.
R: And they had a similar background to you?
A: He was much more active than I, I just wanted to give this to you as evidence. In Turkey where Iran was trying to kidnap more people and the police arrested about 12 people in that regard.
R: Were they trying to kidnap a failed asylum seeker? What is the relevance?
A: Yes he was against the army.
R: That person had a profile didn’t he? What was their profile?
A: We are not talking about a person we are talking about a regime. He was not doing anything inside Iran, his activities were outside. Even his own father was turned in and acquainted with the government. My father no was not in the eye at all. He passed away last year and was not into these things. He was a royalist.
R: The country information relates to people without a pre-existing profile in Iran. It does not necessarily relate to those with a profile where the authorities may want to target them. If you are going to put forward country information you need to make it relevant to your circumstances, not high profile people. Do you understand?
A: When we are talking about a regime with terrorism and torture and killing. I myself do see these things clearly. I am not a political leader I just raise my voice.
1:19:20 – travel of family members
R: And your sister lives in Australia?
A: Yes
R: Has she gone back to Iran at all on her Australian passport?
A: Yes in 2008 I think she came.
R: She hasn’t been back?
A: No.
R: Your mother has been here?
A: Yes and when she got back she was arrested at the airport for 4 days then released. Now she is in Iran.
R: Is there any evidence of that? When did you tell the authorities about that?
A: The first day that I found out.
R: We have to rely on your oral evidence that that occurred?
A: Yes I have told immigration that my mother was here and in this situation and blah blah. Let me explain this. When I was over at the [immigration detention centre], my mother was here and television showed my mother. My mother was so much afraid of returning to Iran.
R: But she still returned?
A: Look, my mother was meant to be here for a year according to her visa but she stayed for another 1 and a half year over, so 2.5 years to wait for the situation to ease off. Immigration knows about this. Immigration itself returned my mother to Iran.
R: She got deported?
A: I don’t know deported or … maybe deported but I don’t know. It was one day before the visa was over. At that time I did not know anything about this whether deported or not. Immigration said this to me later because I was incarcerated for criminal activities.
R: Sorry you were incarcerated for what?
A: I was in prison from the protests that we had in [immigration detention centre].
1:26:40 – s 424AA
R: Under s 424AA, in your entry interview you were asked did the police or security intelligence impact on your life in the home country, and you said no. then you were also asked if you were ever arrested or detained by the police and if so please provide full details of this. You also answered no. In your statutory declaration with your claim you made no mention of having any interaction with the police aside from the alleged affair with that woman. In one of your psych assessments you claimed that you witnessed the beating of your father by the police because one of your brothers had been drinking alcohol. And that you also claimed you had been drinking and was stopped by the police who were going to beat you, made you take your shirt off and saw you had a small tattoo of a [symbol] and burnt it off and beat you. You said that you also claimed that you had been beaten many times by the Iranian authorities and received lashes after being stopped with your girlfriend. Now there is a … it is very strange to me that you would say you have never been detained by the police or have it impact on your life, yet have this litany of things happen to you. The inconsistency between what you told the authorities and wrote and subsequently told after your visa was refused, calls into question whether these actions actually happened to you in Iran. You can have more time to respond to my concerns but I would ask for your comments.
Int: Interpreter would like to go because the time is up for me. It is well over. I was meant to be here until 1pm.
R: Can you give us until 3:30pm and it was be over by then?
Int: I’m sorry I apologise. I have a commitment.
R: Do you have a response, applicant?
A: I have an answer for all these questions but you didn’t let me so I can’t remember what to say any more.
Int: I have to go now.
1:34:30 - ADJOURNED
1:59:20 – RESUMED – adultery claim
R: Are you happy with that question I put to you under s 424AA about what you said on your arrival and initial application about the interactions you had with the authorities in Iran.
A: Yes I am happy with it.
R: Under s 424AA in relation to your alleged adultery you had told the previous interviewer that you had found a woman in the month of Tir however the month of Tir would have ended about 21 July of that year. But you also said here in your submission and previously that it occurred about 16 August that year. That is a significant inconsistency in the time difference. You gave this evidence nearly 10 years ago so close to when the events occurred. This inconsistency in the dates you provided previously concerns me that this affair you had with the woman in Iran never actually occurred. You can have more time but I welcome your comments.
A: Regarding this inconsistency, I have the answers now to give you. Actually the previous Member or Judge who interviewed me on 6 April has just put the date… they cant figure out the date. I have never been advised of that date. That is why the reason why the mistake and inconsistency because the Judge put the date on the wrong calendar. Actually, what happened, because in Iran the month of July is actually the date you mentioned the 21 of July… the date is in the calendar year has 10 days different than our calendar year. The Judge then himself made a mistake because he considered it August, there are 10 days different.
R: What I will ask you to do is include this conversion of dates in a written submissions after the hearing so you can articulate it better. Otherwise you can show me what you said, how to calculate it, and how that relates to the 16th of August.
A: I Just accept that the 26^th of August is correct however saying that because of that statement there is only 12 weeks of difference and this 12 weeks of difference should not have caused so much stressed.
2:11:00 – [Church 2]
R: During that break I received a letter from [Church 2]. He said he first met you in late 2013 and you were asking about English classes and later you went on to attend the evening service. So that s a bit different, his letter doesn’t appear to back up your claims that you attend two services every Sunday since 2018. Sometime after late 2018 you started attending the evening services. Why would he not know you attend four hours of his church every Sunday?
A: His telephone number is on the let head. I am not sure why he said I am not attending. You can call him and clarify this issue
R: Or you can provide another letter form him explaining why he hasn’t done this?
A: I can also get a letter, whatever you want I can get
2:15:00 – Warrant in Iran
R: When did you find out that you had allegedly been charged in Iran?
A: I can’t remember the date
R: Did you ever appeal the finding?
A: No I didn’t, when I was charged I wasn’t in Iran then
R: But it says on this that you were notified for the final time to attend court, so there must have been previous summons. Where are they and when were they issued? In Iran.
A: Yes I have already provided all the documents in English
R: I’ve got them. I cant find any previous summons. This says it is the final one issued [in] June 2009. So there must have been ones issued previously to that
A: Prior [to] July 2009 I believe I had two or three times summons but I can not remember if it was twice or three times
R: Were they mentioned to the Immigration authorities to Australia?
A: Yes straight away I let them know
R: Approximately when was that?
A: It was probably during being in camp and also can’t remember because it was so far away
R: It goes to the issue of when you were told about the arrest warrant and when you advised the immigration authorities and included it as time of your claims so if you can include that in a post hearing submissions when you have had time to think about it. Again for completeness under s 424AA there was an inconsistency pointed out to your previously by another decision maker when you presented this to them and said this was the first you knew about it. It was then pointed out to you that it was the final summons so you have known about it previously. When you did not mention the earlier ones it raised concerns in the decision makers mind about the genuineness of that claim. I don’t have any record of any arrest or summons other than the final you presented and I cant finds any reference to it in the decisions so I am taking that it was not provided because I cannot find any reference to it anywhere. You can have more time to respond to my concerns but I ask for your comments. I appreciate this was quite some time ago so I am happy to give you more time for you to provide a timeline so we can get some clarity.
2:27:15 – Data breach claim
R: The last thing again I think you made a claim about information being released in the data breach in 2014 I believe.
A: I can’t remember
R: I have accepted that the report of you in the papers it is known that you are an asylum seeker so the data breach is neither here nor there, but the Iranian authorities don’t really care about Iranian asylum seekers unless you have got a pre-existing political profile in Iran. The concern is that you don’t have a profile so if you were to return to Iran they would know that you are an asylum seeker but they wouldn’t really care.
A: Member I respect your opinion but the reality is not like that.
R: That is all that I have at the moment, is there anything you would like to raise before we give your advisor the opportunity to say something
A: No
2:29:50 – Advisor submissions
R: Advisor is there anything you would like to say?
Advisor: Yes there is Member. With regards to the s 424AA matters issued that you have raise, there are quite a few and I didn’t really understand the first one in relation to someone providing a support letter, the department calling them and the information they gave the department. I am assuming that was in 2017 and the interview. So I got the other ones down clearly but that one I couldn’t make heads or tails of it when I was writing it down.
R: If you look at paragraph 26 it raises questions about the applicant’s Christian participation.
Advisor: I was wondering if these could be summarised in a letter?
R: No you get the hearing
Advisor: I think I have 4 issues that were raised under s 424AA. There I just some house keeping issues. You want the discharge letter from his injuries on the weekend. Mental health letters and transfers of money to Iran. [Mr H] and [Pastor G] to write another letter each addressing when the applicant attends church. You want the [Social Media 3] page in relation to Jesus Christ. A letter from the church in [Suburb 3], I believe it is [Church 3]. [Mr J], I got that. As to the applicant not having favourable decisions, I believe he had two. One in detention that was revoked from the protest and the IOTA in 2015 so he hasn’t been rejected all the time. He has had some positive. As to your comment about him only converting to Christianity for the purpose of getting a visa. The Conversion happened 10year sago, if that was the purpose there would be no way that he would still be practising the faith. He would have realised that didn’t work and try something else. That works on the opposite. There are cases where the people did it for the visa but became a genuine convert. As to the letter to my client on 12 October, from the UNCHR, in my 30 years in representing the UNHCR has never intervened to attempt to persuade the Australian government minister or department that they needed to reconsider a case. This I find extraordinary that a paramount agency intervened in his case.

R: What do you mean by the paramount agency for determining refugee status, is that not the Australian government?
Advisor: Well Australia is a signatory to the UN although sometimes that is a bit of a stretch.
R: For your applicant, who is the paramount authority for determining whether he is a refugee?
A: In this case, the Australian government. But Australia is a signatory to the UN. In 30 years I have never seen them intervene and ask for the matter to be reconsidered and given its reasons why it believes the obligations are engaged in this matter, which then led to the ITOA I believe, the department offering the ITOA process that was favourable. I believe the position that the UNHCR took is relevant today. Those articles I sent, I printed out on that day, so those articles including the client’s photo, name, age, reasons for protesting that their asylum claims had been rejected twice. They show that he was making a claim against Iran and were protesting not being treatment humanly by being kept in Detention. During an interview with a Sri Lankan client in the detention centre I witnessed the SERCO guards manhandling my client. The treatment that they get in detention is what the protest was about.
R: Please keep to the claims.
Advisor: This is still on the internet as of Monday, all of these articles.
R: I don’t think the fact that he participated in the protest in [immigration detention centre] has given him a public profile of applying for asylum in Australia. The issue is not whether he would be known, but whether the authorities would care
Advisor: with the conversion issues, there is a display there in those photos. As to what part of the Iranian authorities would be interested in him, it would be the religious sections of the authorities as it is apostacy and a Muslim man cannot convert out of his religion, they will not accept that. This display of Christianity with his mother also in rally out the front of the protest. Not only the evidence of my client but his sister has put it in her evidence and was detained for 7 days. Photo, name that is all in the articles. My question then goes to how much time do we have to prepare this?
R: COB next Wednesday
Advisor: That gives me one day to work on it. I doubt I can get that done.
R: See how you go, there is always negotiations if you are finding it hard.
Advisor: I do not have time, I only have Monday.
R: Lets see how you go, then come back if you are not going to make it.
Advisor: Those four points will be a huge point in themselves.
R: Anything else you would like to raise at the moment?
Advisor: No
Applicant: no
R: I understand it has been long time in this hearing and since you put in your applicant and you have trouble remembering. I am sure you have had time that you could have gotten it straight in your mind. This is another opportunity to get as accurate regarding events as you can okay? Unless there is anything else then that is the end of a long day, so thank you all for your patience.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The applicant arrived as an irregular maritime arrival in September 2009. He was refused protection as per a Refugee Status Assessment (RSA) in November 2009, which was affirmed by an Independent Merits Review (IMR) in January 2010 – a second IMR was conducted which also affirmed the RSA in April 2011. That same month he was involved in a disturbance at [the immigration detention centre]. The Federal Magistrates Court upheld the IMR decision in August 2011.
In January 2012 an Independent Treaties Assessment Obligation (ITAO) was carried out that found the applicant engaged Australia’s protection obligations. As a result of the incident at [immigration detention centre] the applicant was found guilty at trial and sentenced to three years prison. He applied for a Temporary Protection Visa in April 2015 and this was denied in January 2018.
The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by Microsoft Teams video. The hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic. In arriving at this course of action the Tribunal had regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by this means.
The applicant is a [age] year old man. I accept that he is an Iranian national and his claim will be assessed using Iran as his country of reference. I also noted the presence of a s 438 certificate on his file that he was advised about, and while it was a valid certificate none of the information covered by it was relevant to his claims.
The applicant claims that if he was to return to Iran he would be stoned to death for committing adultery with a police officer’s wife. He would also be in danger because he was known to have participated in protests against then-president Ahmadinejad in 2009, he had been an on-line political activist against the Iranian regime and he would also be sentenced to death because of public reports about his conversion to Christianity.
In considering an applicant’s account, undue weight should not be placed on some degree of confusion or omission to conclude that a person is not telling the truth, especially in the context of entry interviews constrained by time and the inherent limitations of interpretation and often before an applicant fully appreciates what is relevant and the degree of detail required. Nor can significant inconsistencies or embellishments be lightly dismissed. The Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any and all claims made by an applicant.
The applicant had evidence of previous mental health treatment on his file. Reports from 2012 to 2014 indicate that the applicant has reported instances of torture and trauma in Iran, that he had found the lifeless body of his close friend in his room after he suicided at [the immigration detention centre], that he self-reported forgetfulness and problems with his memory, that he suffered from anxiety and depression and had PTSD symptoms. It recommended that he be released from detention.
The Tribunal checked open source records of deaths in detention and could find no record of anybody dying by suicide during the time the applicant was detained there. He was asked via a s 424A letter to provide the name of his close friend and the date on which he died. His adviser provided media reports concerning the death of an Iraqi asylum seeker who hanged himself in the shower cubicle during the same period that the applicant was there.
I accept that this event occurred in November 2010, while the applicant was at [immigration detention centre] and would have been known to the applicant. I do not however accept that the applicant found the body as his claim to have found the lifeless body of the person in his room is also inconsistent with media reports that the body was found in the shower cubicle.
The applicant claimed that since he had been released from detention he had been seeing a [Dr F] but he stopped seeing him around 2019 and had been having online counselling with someone in Iran once a week. He was asked to provide a letter from [Dr F] outlining the treatment he had received and undertook to do this. No such letter was received by the Tribunal. He was also asked for proof of the money transfers and he provided a screenshot from April 2021 that may have been indicating his sister transferring AUD 572 to an account in Iran. No explanation was provided with it, or evidence that the account the money was going to belonged to a mental health professional in Iran. I lend it little weight in proving that he has ongoing mental health treatment with an Iranian mental health professional.
The applicant was asked and advised that there was no reason why he could not attend the hearing. The applicant was lucid throughout the hearing and his responses were coherent and relevant to the questions asked of him. I am satisfied that mental health played no part in the inconsistencies or implausibility of some of his claims.
The applicant’s adviser also brought to the Tribunal’s attention that the applicant had suffered a head injury prior to the hearing that had required him to attend the hospital emergency room for treatment. I note this however there was nothing in the applicant’s manner, or the way in which he answered any of the questions that gave the Tribunal any cause to think there may have been any lingering effects of the head injury that impinged on his ability to give evidence at the hearing or to answer questions put to him. The Tribunal was satisfied that he was given a real and meaningful opportunity to appear before the Tribunal to present evidence and mount arguments.
I also note that the applicant raised concerns regarding the interpreter for this hearing and for his previous one. He made no formal complaint regarding the previous interpreter and the Tribunal was satisfied that whatever problems there may have been initially with the interpreting they were resolved quickly and the interpreter carried out his role in a professional manner. Due to the length of time that the hearing took, a second interpreter was used and I am satisfied that she too carried out her duties in a professional manner.
Overall, I found the applicant’s evidence regarding his claims to lack credibility. For reasons set out below I did not find the applicant to be a reliable, credible or truthful witness, and that he fabricated claims in order to be granted a protection visa.
Adulterous Relationship
I do not accept that the applicant was ever in an adulterous relationship with the wife of a police officer, that he found them in bed together but the applicant escaped, hid and then fled the country in fear of his life. To begin with, when asked at the hearing how he first met her, he said that he first met her at his shop where she was his customer and he took a photo of her. In his 2009 statutory declaration however, he claimed that he met her at a park on the traditional 13^th day after Persian New Year (21 March 2009) where they exchanged numbers, messaged each other and then met. I do not accept that he was distinguishing between ‘seeing’ someone the first time and ‘meeting them’ the second.
I also find the claim that the applicant, in a city of 8 million people on 2009[1], met the wife of the deputy of the local police station who then was keen to start an adulterous affair with a local shopkeeper to be so impossibly coincidental as to render the account implausible. An equally unlikely coincidence also occurred when the woman and her police officer husband then moved to a house just a few doors away from the applicant, and yet another unfortunate coincidence occurred when the husband returned unexpectedly to find them in flagrante delicto. Any one of these coincidences could easily render the account implausible – the combination of all three makes it even more so.
[1] Tehran, Iran Metro Area Population 1950-2021 | MacroTrends, accessed 30 November 2021.
I also note that there has been no legal action taken against him even though it is against the Iranian Penal Code, nor has there been any action taken against the woman in question. The applicant claimed that he had no idea what happened to the woman – although I note that the applicant claimed that he had to leave Iran in a hurry for his own safety it is quite strange that he appears to have no subsequent interest in finding out what her fate was. I do not accept that the lack of legal action was because the policeman wanted to keep this a private matter. It is difficult to believe that if such an event had occurred that a police officer would not seek at least to punish his wife through the courts.
There is a range of information from groups and individuals who try to shine a light on Iranian legal practices as they relate to women, such as capital or hudud (Islamically decreed) punishments, including Amnesty International[2]. And while access to information coming from Iran may be more difficult than in many other countries, information on these issues is relayed, so the absence of any account of this woman’s punishment does little to assuage the tribunal’s concerns as the truthfulness of the claim.
Political Activity
[2] Iran must not execute woman spared stoning death by any means - Amnesty International, accessed 1 December 2021
I do not accept that the applicant was ever politically active in Iran, because of participation in political protests in 2009 or as a consequence of printing anti-regime literature. To begin with he made no mention of any political activity in his original protection visa application in October 2009. Not only did he not mention it, he answered ‘no’ to the question ‘Were you involved in any activities or protests against the government’ as part of his initial entry questions. Given that the rest of the questions he answered about his personal details appeared to have been filled out accurately, I do not accept that this could be put down to an erroneous transcription error. Rather, it reflects the truth at the time – that he had never been politically active in Iran prior to coming to Australia.
He was also inconsistent with respect to his account of taking part in political protests. In his 2015 protection visa application, he claimed that ‘he was also in danger because of my known participation in political protests’, yet in an earlier post-hearing submission dated 18 October 2011 he claimed that ‘I was never an active protestor’.
I have taken into account copies of documents that the applicant had provided to previous reviewers that he claimed was a summons relating to his work printing anti-government pamphlets. I lend them no weight for a number of reasons. Firstly, country information indicates that paper-based documents such as Iranian court documents and summonses are relatively easily to obtain through fraudulent means.[3] The document that he presented is a photocopy of a document with handwritten entries and therefore in the opinion of the Tribunal could have been easily fabricated. The same concerns regarding the purported court verdict and sentence, and the lawyer’s letter.
[3] DFAT Country Information Report – Iran, 14 April 2020, p 72.
Secondly, his account of the issue of the summonses appears both coincidental and implausible. The document that he provided stated that it was the final court summons and it was dated [in] December 2009. Country information indicates that several summonses may be issued before a trial starts in absentia, and that these will normally be delivered to the accused’s home address and can be signed for by a relative.[4]
[4] Refworld | Iran: Court summonses and arrest warrants, including issuance procedures, methods of delivery, description of the documents and the information they contain; prevalence of fraudulent court documents, accessed 1 December 2021
This being the case, there should have been several other earlier summonses than the one provided, and that if he had really been summoned to court, the applicant’s family would have been aware well before [date] December 2009 that this was the case. Yet the first that the Australian authorities were told about the summons (and subsequent court case) was 1 March 2010 in a letter sent by the applicant’s new adviser. I note that this was after he had received a negative RSA that had been affirmed by an IMR. I do not accept the applicant’s claim in his post-hearing submission of 18 October 2021 that he had told an unnamed DIAC officer on [immigration detention centre] after his initial entry interview but that this person failed to pass this information onto the RSA officer. This relies entirely on the applicant’s uncorroborated oral testimony which I have found lacks credibility, and does not explain why he never mentioned it during his first IMR interview or why it wasn’t included in his adviser’s submission for this IMR.
I have also taken into account letters purportedly from his lawyer about the legal case and his mother in which she claimed the police had attended their home numerous times questioning them about the applicant and his brother however I lend them little weight. The lawyer’s letter appears to be handwritten and could have been produced by anyone – I have already noted concerns regarding the ease with which fraudulent documents can be obtained in Iran. Regarding the mother’s letter, as a close family member she is not an objective source and I lend more weight to the concerns about the applicant’s account already raised.
His lack of political activity in Iran prior to his departure but his willingness to provide fabricated evidence of such activity in response to negative decisions regarding his protection visa application also informs the Tribunal’s view of his subsequent alleged online anti-government political activity.
I also do not accept that the applicant would be imputed with an anti-government political opinion because he had protested [at the] Immigration Detention Facility. The media reports presented by the applicant that identify and name him only indicate a religious persona exhibited through the cross and [message] written on what looks like a [specified material]. I have already noted that the applicant had no political profile in Iran and if he were to return to Iran, I am satisfied that this [protest] against their continued detention by Australian authorities that occurred more than a decade ago would not mean that he would be imputed with an anti-government political profile in Iran. Country information indicates that Iranian authorities have little interest in prosecuting failed asylum seekers for activities conducted outside Iran and, given the applicant would return to Iran as a failed asylum seeker this lack of interest on the part of the Iranian authorities would apply.[5]
[5] DFAT Iran Country Report, op cit, p 70.
With respect to the online platforms that he provided, he claimed that he commenced an [Social Media 1] account while in detention however he claimed that he began writing anti-regime comments ‘parallel with the time the plane went down killing hundreds of people’. I take this to be the time when Iranian air defences mistakenly shot down a Ukrainian airliner leaving Tehran airport – this occurred on 8 January 2020.
He had never mentioned this account previously, it is a private account and according to him the entries disappear 24 hours after they have been posted. Although he claimed that the account was originally public I do not accept that this was the case as there was no evidence provided to support this, and it relies entirely on his oral testimony which I have found lacks credibility. The applicant also claimed that he operated a [Social Media 2] account from the same time as his [Social Media 1] account and had posted some anti-government content there but that he had been cyber-hacked and they were removed. He provided no evidence to support this claim.
Given the lack of evidence provided by the applicant that he is posting anti-government content on his [Social Media 2] account or that it has been hacked, I do not accept that either occurred nor that he is, or would be imputed to be anti-regime because of his [Social Media 2] activity. And, regarding the applicant’s [Social Media 1] account I note the particular timing of his claim that he began to post anti-regime content on it from July 2019 or thereabouts and, given that he last received a negative migration decision in 2018, I am satisfied that it has been for the sole purpose of strengthening his refugee claim and in accordance with s 5J(6) of the Act I have disregarded it.
I also do not accept that the applicant targeted the regime by entering their official sites and doing his activities. He has not provided any evidence regarding the manner by which he was able to do this given he does not appear to have any advanced computer skills that would allow him to do this, nor had he mentioned this previously in his written or oral submissions.
Christianity Claim

I do not accept that the applicant has genuinely converted to Christianity, or that he would be perceived to have done so in Iran. Determining whether someone has a genuine religious identity that is sufficiently robust that they will wish to give voice to it back in their country of origin, or that they are simply adopting one to further a refugee claim can be a difficult issue to determine. In the case of the applicant however, he has been in the country for a long enough period for the Tribunal to determine to its satisfaction that his religious identity is not genuine.
To begin with, the Tribunal must take into consideration the fact that it has found the applicant not to be a witness of truth. Having determined that he has fabricated other claims in order to advance his refugee claim, it therefore does not take a great leap of logic to consider that his religious claim may also be another claim he has adopted in order to achieve his desired migration outcome.
I have noted the history of his religious claims identified by him and also taken into account statements from various people that he has put forward in support of his claim to be a genuine Christian. Although they have undoubtedly given these statements in good faith I lend these statements little weight for a variety of reasons. In order to get a better idea of the timing of his religious actions with respect to his protection visa claims, it is best to put them into a timeline:
a.November 2009 – RSA refusal
b.January 2010 – IMR affirmed refusal
c.[Date] May 2010 – Applicant baptised in Pentecostal church, [City 1]
d.[Date] January 2011 – Letter from [Church 3, an] Anglican church member talks of applicant’s bible study, that he will follow Jesus ‘for the rest of his life’
e.[Date] February 2011 – Letter from Hillsong member describes applicant as an ‘evangelistic Christian’
f.April 2011 – 2^nd IMR affirmed refusal
g.[In] April 2011 – Took part in a [protest] in which he carried a home-made cross and a [message at] the detention centre. The ITAO assessor found there to be no religious or spiritual basis for such an action and that it was simply an extension of his efforts to strengthen his refugee claim.
h.August 2011 – FMC upheld IMR decision
i.April 2015 – Apply for TPV
j.February 2016 – Released from detention
k.January 2018 – TPV denied by delegate
l.June 2018 – Begins attending English language classes at [Church 2] Anglican church at [Suburb 2]. The pastor there, [named] writes on 1 October 2021 that he met the applicant in late 2021 at English classes and that he later went on to attend their evening services and occasionally their morning service.
I do not accept that the applicant was actively pursuing a Christian faith on his release from detention, and his failure to do so is at odds with the earlier statements made by others that he would follow Jesus for the rest of his life and that he was an evangelising Christian. His lack of rigour in attending any faith gatherings is also inconsistent with his actions at the [protest] and lends weight to the ITAO assessor’s belief that this was staged in order to strengthen his refugee claim.
The applicant lived in [Suburb 4] and [Suburb 5] after his release from detention yet never sought out any churches or faith groups. I do not accept that he kept touch with his faith because his landlord was religious and had books, or that he didn’t speak English well enough or that he was unfamiliar with the area. This relies entirely on his uncorroborated oral testimony which lacks credibility, and does not explain why he didn’t contact Farsi-speaking Christian groups in order to practice his faith, or ask his religious landlord about the location of suitable local churches where the applicant could practice the faith to which he had allegedly been drawn.
The first time he began attending church then is sometime in 2018 and, as the timeline indicates above, this was after his TPV had been rejected. I do not accept that he was going to the [Suburb 3] Anglican church prior to the rejection of his TPV where there was a Farsi-speaking service. The applicant’s adviser contacted the senior minister there about a support letter for the applicant however he declined because he said that given the time that had passed, it would be difficult for anyone to write such a letter.
Although the applicant claimed that his friend who took the service there had gone to the US, no supporting statement was ever provided from that person now in the United States that would corroborate the applicant’s claim, nor was any explanation given as to why that person could not be contacted nor why any other members of the Farsi church group could not provide supporting statements. The person referred to by the adviser in her email to [Church 3] as the person who ran the service was a person called [Mr J], who I take to be [Mr J] an Anglican minister then at [Church 3] who had written in support of the applicant in June 2015.
I note however in this letter that [Mr J] refers to the applicant as an ‘Olympic medal winner’ which is patently not true and raises questions about the objectivity or accuracy of any evidence he may have provided. Regardless, in the absence of any evidence about prior attendance I find that his attendance at church following his release from detention commenced after the refusal of his TPV.
I have taken into account other support letters written by people in 2015, 2017 and 2021 although I again cannot lend them much weight in establishing the sincerity of the applicant’s claimed conversion to Christianity. Most are really character references while another author ([Mr K] for example who wrote three letters) talked about the applicant suffering greatly in Iran which the Tribunal found is not the case - the author also stated that he believed fabricated claims regarding apostasy never occur. The reality is that any reading of numerous past decisions made by this Tribunal would indicate that such claims have on occasion been found to have been fabricated. The statement that such claims are never fabricated indicates at best a lack of objectivity on this author’s part. I have also taken into account a letter from the applicant’s brother where he attests to the applicant’s Christian identity and his willingness to give bibles as gifts to people but again lend it little weight. He is not an objective source and I give more weight to the applicant’s overall lack of credibility and his church attendance and public displays of Christian iconography such as a cross that appears to be geared towards establishing a profile rather than as a genuine illustration of his spiritual commitment.
I have also taken into account the claim that he had a [Social Media 3] profile called ‘[Name 3]’. It is not in his name and has been inactive since COVID began. A copy of the page was sent post-hearing and the adviser claimed that the applicant’s photo could be seen in the bottom right hand corner. It is small and difficult to make out and I am not satisfied that, even if anyone saw the page they would know the applicant from the photo. The applicant said that he was the administrator of the page and would be known if one went through his personal [social media account], yet there appears to only be one photo of Jesus on his personal [social media account] with no link to the ‘[Name 3]’ [social media account] page.
The Tribunal is unable to confirm when the [Social Media 3] page was started however I also note the applicant had never previously mentioned the existence of it. This privacy regarding Jesus’ word is again somewhat at odds with the previous description of him as an evangelising Christian. Regardless, given that country information indicates that Iranian authorities have little interest in prosecuting failed asylum seekers for activities conducted outside Iran, including converting to Christianity or social media activity, I am satisfied that the presence of this page, even in the unlikely event it was known to the Iranian authorities, would not be of interest to them.[6]
[6] DFAT Country Report, op cit, p 70
Because the applicant is not genuinely Christian, it follows that he will not seek to practise this faith on return to Iran. The applicant claimed in his post-hearing statement of 12 October 2021 that it didn’t matter whether his Christian conversion was genuine or not, the issue was that he would be perceived to be as a result of the publicity given to his [protest] in 2011 and the Iranian authorities would take this matter of apostasy very seriously if he were to return to Iran. He cited the findings of the January 2012 ITOA in support of this, and also included an August 2011 letter from UNHCR saying that the applicant may have sur place claims as a consequence of the publicity he received during the protest at [immigration detention centre].
The Tribunal takes a different view. While it has found him not to be a genuine Christian convert, it also accepts that his identity would be known to the Iranian authorities as a consequence of the publicity the protests received and the naming of the protestors. Where the Tribunal differs with the ITOA and the UNHCR letter is in the Iranian government’s approach to the issue. The ITOA assessment was written nearly a decade ago and the UNHCR letter more than a decade ago, and more information is known about Iranian government attitudes towards failed asylum seekers.
Country information indicates that Iranian authorities have little interest in prosecuting failed asylum seekers for activities conducted outside Iran, including converting to Christianity.[7] Given the applicant’s overt display of a Christian cross during his [protest], the applicant’s lack of any Christian religious profile in Iran prior to leaving that country, the Tribunal’s finding that his Christian identity is not genuine and the Iranian government’s knowledge that he is an asylum seeker, I am satisfied that the government would not impute him with being truly Christian but rather as someone who adopted the persona on occasion for the purposes of a refugee claim. As the country information indicates they would have little interest in prosecuting him on return to Iran for doing this.
Public Profile and Data Breach
[7] Ibid
I accept that his protest, arrest and subsequent sentencing for affray at [the immigration detention centre] is a matter of public record and did attract some media attention. I therefore accept that there is a real chance that his name would be known to Iranian authorities.
I do not, however, accept that there is a real chance that he would face serious harm on return to Iran because of it. He has not provided any country information that indicated he was protesting about the Iranian government. The Tribunal notes that the Iranian Foreign Minister himself was also critical of Australia’s immigration detention of Iranian citizens, saying during a visit to Australia in March 2016 that ‘We don’t like some aspects of the way Australia treats Iranians who have been basically lied to by human smugglers who come to Australia…they live in unconscionable conditions.’[8] This would indicate that the Iranian government was sympathetic to the reason the applicant protested – his continuing detention by the Australian government – and hence would not impute him with anti-Iranian views simply as a consequence of the protest.
[8] ‘Iran’s foreign minister Mohammed Javad Zarif criticises Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers’, Sydney Morning Herald, 17 March 2016.
I do not accept that the applicant’s mother was detained on her return to Iran because of her son’s (the applicant’s) [protest]. This relies on the applicant’s oral testimony as well as corroboratory letters from the applicant’s sister and mother. I lend the letters little weight though, given they are close family members who seek the same migration outcome as the applicant and are not therefore objective sources. I also note that the alleged interest exhibited by the Iranian authorities was approximately a decade ago and current country information indicates that the Iranian authorities have no interest in someone with the applicant’s profile.
What it also means is that I am not satisfied that there is a real chance that the 2014 data breach would result in any problems, let alone serious harm for the applicant. I note that the applicant could not recall having made the claim however there was no indication that the data had been accessed from Iran in the time it was up, nor are any credible reports of people mistreated in Iran because of the breach known to the Tribunal. Regardless, it is a moot point as the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s name is known to the Iranian authorities - however for the reasons already mentioned there is not a real chance that the applicant will face serious harm because of it.
Other Issues
I do not accept that the applicant was caught drinking by the police or that he had a tattoo of a cross on his [body part] burnt off by the police and was then beaten by them. He not only never mentioned these incidents in his original protection visa application, he said that the police did not impact on his life in Iran and that he had never been detained by the police when asked in his entry questionnaire. These claims were only presented following a negative assessment. They were also not raised in his present protection visa application.
Not only does this rely entirely on his uncorroborated oral evidence which I have found lacks credibility, there was also no explanation as to why someone who had no interest in Christianity prior to coming to Australia would have a tattoo of a cross on his [body part], why he never mentioned them in his entry questionnaire and why he travelled to [Country 3] with [a group of other Iranians] following these events and voluntarily returned to Iran.
The issue was raised with the applicant under s 424AA during the hearing and I am satisfied that he was given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the concern over this issue. A response was provided as part of his post-hearing submission in which he claimed that such treatment by authorities was normal and he didn’t realise until he left detention that this was considered degrading treatment. I don’t accept that he would consider the forcible removal of a tattoo by police burning his skin to be normal behaviour and not worth mentioning and hence find this reasoning implausible – I am satisfied that this incident never occurred. Although the Tribunal did not view the scar there could be any number of day-to-day why a person may have a scar on their [body part].
As the applicant hasn’t raised any other claims to fear persecution and, having had regard to all the evidence, and the applicant’s claims both singularly and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for any 5J reason either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Complementary Protection
I do not accept that the applicant has genuinely converted to Christianity, has or would seek to practise or promote Christianity in Iran, or that the applicant will be imputed with being a Christian and/or apostate through his baptism, church attendance, or activities such as displaying a cross during a [protest] at [an immigration detention centre].
I also do not accept that he ever had an adulterous affair with the wife of a police officer in Tehran, that he took part in any political protest or printed any anti-government pamphlets, that he has written anti-government remarks on his [Social Media 2] account that was subsequently hacked, or that he was detained, beaten or had a tattoo of a cross on his [body part] burnt off by security authorities.
Although I have disregarded the applicant’s entries on his [Social Media 1] account for the purposes of the applicant’s refugee claims, I have had regard to them in assessing his claims relating to s.36(2)(aa). Given that they are on a private page I am not satisfied that he will come to the attention of the authorities for writing anti-government, anti-Islam or pro-Christian sentiments on the site, but even if they did given his status on return to Iran as a failed asylum seeker I am not satisfied that he would be imputed as an anti-regime activist by the Iranian authorities or that they would seek to prosecute him.
And while I accept that the applicant’s identity as an asylum seeker in Australia would be known by Iranian authorities, I do not accept that the applicant would be prosecuted as a voluntary returnee or for seeking asylum.
Because of these reasons I am not satisfied that there are any substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm.
As a consequence I also do not accept 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 the applicant will suffer significant harm on the basis of these claims as outlined in the complementary protection criterion in s.36(2)(aa).
CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS
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 s.36(2)(a).
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).
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
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Rodger Shanahan
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.
…

[2021] AATA 5475

22 December 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Remedies

Natural Justice