1805993 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an Iranian citizen seeking a protection visa in Australia. The applicant arrived in Australia in November 2011 and had undergone multiple assessments and judicial reviews regarding his claims for protection. His most recent application for a Safe Haven Enterprise Visa was refused by the Department on 12 February 2018, leading to the current review by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under sections 36(2)(b) or (c) of the Migration Act 1958. Specifically, it needed to ascertain if the applicant was a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who held a protection visa, or if he was a refugee himself due to a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. The applicant's claims of fear were based on his alleged employment in a prohibited occupation in Iran, which he contended put him at risk of arrest and prosecution by the Iranian government.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not claimed to be a member of the same family unit as a person who met the criteria for a protection visa, thus failing to satisfy sections 36(2)(b) and (c). Furthermore, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's claims of fear stemming from his employment. It noted inconsistencies in his evidence and observed that he had departed Iran legally without issue. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's assertion of political criticism of the Iranian government while outside the country and his status as a Christian convert, but concluded that these claims appeared to be made solely for the purpose of strengthening his refugee claim. The Tribunal applied the principles of assessing a well-founded fear of persecution, including the requirement that the reason for persecution must be the essential and significant reason, and that the harm must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. It concluded that the applicant had not established that he was owed protection under the Migration Act 1958.