1816266 (Refugee)

1816266 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 1201 (3 March 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1816266
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Iran
MEMBER:Nora Lamont
DATE:3 March 2022
PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the following directions:
(i)that the first named applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act; and
(ii)that the other applicant satisfies s 36(2)(b)(i) of the Migration Act, on the basis of membership of the same family unit as the first named applicant.

Statement made on 03 March 2022 at 1:00pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa – Iran – race –Arab Khamseh ethnicity – victim of domestic violence perpetrated her father – divorced/separated Khamseh Arab female living in Iran without family support – divorced single mother – lesbian – gender-based violence – applicants have a well-founded fear of persecution – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 91, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, 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 16 May 2018 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicants who claim to be citizens of Iran, applied for the visas on 8 February 2017.
The primary applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 15 February 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Farsi and English languages.
The applicants were represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
Summary of Delegate’s decision Record
The delegate found that the first named applicant (‘the applicant’) had provided evidence that was inconsistent, evasive, and unconvincing in significant aspects, and found that key aspects of her evidence in support of her claims had not been credible.
The delegate did not accept the applicant’s claims about her father and other family members threatening her or inflicting violence on or against her in the past and did not accept she genuinely fears serious harm at the hands of her father or other family members if she returns to Iran. As the applicant no longer claimed that she would be the victim of violence at the hands of her former husband, the delegate did not accept she had a genuine fear he will harm her for any reason should she return to Iran. The delegate also did not accept her claims about fearing harm due to being a woman in Iran, finding that the applicant had not provided genuine, probative evidence to support this claim, similarly finding that she does not genuinely fears being persecuted for reasons of her membership of particular social groups defined as ‘single women in Iran’, ‘single mothers in Iran’, ‘Khamseh Arab women in Iran’ or ‘women with tattoos in Iran’.
The delegate was prepared to accept that there is more than a remote chance that the applicant may face low-level harassment, a warning or a fine from the Iranian authorities in relation to her tattoos and piercings but did not find that these consequences constituted ‘serious harm’ for the purposes of paragraph 5J(4)(b) of the Act. The delegate referred to their discussion with the applicant during the SHEV interview concerning her claimed fear due to her being of Khamseh Arab ethnicity, and that the applicant had abandoned this claim stating that her main source of fear was her father and the Iranian authorities for political reasons. Therefore, the delegate did not accept that she genuinely believe that she would be persecuted in Iran for reasons of her Khamseh Arab ethnicity.
Similarly, the delegate did not accept the applicant genuinely believed that the Iranian authorities would persecute her for imputed political reasons because of her association with her ex-husband nor because of her imputed membership of a particular social group defined in terms of her marriage to him. The delegate did not accept the applicant’s claim to fear being persecuted by the Iranian authorities because they had tortured her brother for political reasons, as they found her evidence had been vague and scant and that she would have devoted more attention to this claim during her SHEV application process if this were true. The delegate did not accept that the applicant was of adverse interest to the Iranian government. The delegate did not accept that the applicant was of adverse interest to the Iranian Government for reasons of political opinion before she departed Iran and having considered the country information available, and the applicant’s circumstances did not accept that there was more than a remote chance the Iranian Government would perceive her to be politically opposed to the Iranian regime because she applied for asylum and/or resided in Australia.
In relation to the second name applicant, the delegate found that as they had made adverse credibility findings against her mother, the applicant, they did not accept as genuine the claim that the second name applicant would suffer the same violence that the applicant had experienced in Iran and considered it speculative that the second named applicant would be the victim of family violence or any other form of violence in Iran. The delegate also did not accept that being forced to wear the hijab would constitute serious harm for the purposes of paragraph 5J(4)(b) of the Act. The delegate found that there was no more than a remote chance that the second name applicant would be persecuted by family members or the Iranian authorities for any reason if she returned to Iran.
On 26 October 2021, the applicant appeared before the current Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Persian and English languages. The applicant was represented at this hearing and in relation to the current review by his registered migration agent.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Background
The applicant is a Khamesh Arab female born in Kerman, Iran. She transited through [other countries], before she arrived in Australia. She did identify upon arrival as being a Shia Muslim. She claims to speak, read, and write in the Persian language, and speak basic English.
Her family consists of her father, mother, [siblings] who mostly currently reside in Iran, aside from two sisters who reside in Australia and one brother and one sister who are deceased. Her estranged husband also resides in Australia, but they have been separated since [July] 2011. She has no employment history. She as completed Primary and Middle School and withdrew from High School in [year].
The second named applicant (the daughter of the Primary applicant) is a Khamseh Arab female born in Kerman, Iran.
Country of reference
The applicants provided the Department with certified copies of their Iranian birth certificates on application, the original of which was sighted at the Protection Visa interview and satisfied the delegate as to their identities. I also sighted their birth certificates and am satisfied of their identities.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept that the applicants are citizens of Iran and as such their protection claims will be assessed against Iran as the country of reference and ‘receiving country’ respectively.
I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence before me that the applicants do not have a right to enter and reside in any other country and, therefore, I find that they are not excluded from Australia's protection obligations under s.36(3).
Migration History
The applicants arrived in Australia on [date] December 2010. They made their applications for SHEV on 9 February 2017. In their applications, they claimed that they resided in Iran until around November 2010, and then in [Country 1] from November to December 2010. They claimed that they had not resided in any other countries other than Iran, [Country 1] and Australia.
The applicant claimed that she arrived with her daughter (the second named applicant) and her then husband, [name deleted]. On or about [date] September 2011, the applicant advised the Department that she was seeking a divorce from her husband, and that he was the biological father of her daughter. The applicant’s sister, [name deleted] arrived in Australia on the same boat as the applicant and her immediate family.[1]
Claims
[1] Department Refusal Decision Record, p.2.
The applicants’ claims for protection are summarised in the delegate’s decision record, and extracted below: [2]
[2] Department Refusal Decision Record, pp.3-4.
[The applicant] (primary applicant)
In her SHEV statement, the applicant made the following claims:
•If there are discrepancies or omissions in the entry interview when compared with the SHEV application, then the entry interview may not be correct.
•When aged [age] years, her cousin raped her. She did not tell her parents about it because she feared her father would kill her.
•From about that age her father became increasingly violent towards the applicant and his other daughters. He beat them and threw boiling water on them.
•Her father cut her shoulder with a machete-type knife after which the applicant and one of her sisters ran away from home. When the police returned them home, their father chained them up and later beat them with the chain. On the following day, both her father and mother poisoned the applicant and that sister.
•When the applicant was aged about [age] years, she and this sister ran away from home again. After they returned home, their father beat them every day and did not allow them to go to school.
•Her father inflicted violence on her mother and her brother.
•Her maternal uncle and other uncles participated in beating her family members with her father’s approval.
•As a result of her father’s violence towards her, the applicant has [permanent injuries]. Her father broke her brother’s leg and arm.
•Her father’s violence towards his family was not reported to the police in Iran because the police would have dismissed it as a family matter; and reporting him would have led to more beatings.
•The applicant fears her father will kill her if she returns to Iran.
•The applicant is of Arab Khamseh ethnicity. According to Arab Khamseh culture, a woman who is separated or divorced is considered a disgrace to herself and her family. The applicant fears she would be subjected to cruel and degrading treatment if she returned to Iran for this reason.
•The applicant is ashamed of her Arab culture and has done all she can while in Australia to dissociate herself from it. She prefers to be identified as ‘Persian’.
•Since her arrival in Australia, the applicant has obtained tattoos and body piercings that would be seen as un-Islamic in Iran.
[Miss A]
In her SHEV statement, the applicant made the following claims on behalf of [Miss A]:
•The applicant fears that, if her daughter returned to Iran, she would be subjected to the same violence the applicant had experienced there.
SHEV Interview
The applicant attended an interview at the Department on [date] March 2018, accompanied by her representative. At interview, the applicant claimed that her main fear about returning to Iran was her father. The delegate noted that the applicant had previously provided evidence that she had resided with her father when her former husband was in trouble with the Iranian authorities and asked how long she had resided with him. The delegate stated that the applicant provided evasive answers and appeared to be fabricating evidence when claiming she had lived with her father on and off and had also stayed with friends. She told the delegate that she was afraid of staying in her marital home, even though her former husband had moved away to evade Iranian authorities, as she believed she was at the same risk of being arrested as her former husband. When the delegate asked why she was afraid to remain in her marital home, the applicant told the delegate that the Iranian authorities could have taken her into custody, arrested her, beaten her or tortured her to discover her former husband’s whereabouts. Conversely, the delegate noted, she also told the delegate that she was not at risk for being charged for political reasons. When it was put to the applicant that the authorities could have just as easily located her at her father’s home if she was of interest to them, she responded that she was not with her father the entire time and moved from place to place. She told the delegate she had spent a total of two weeks out of the three weeks at her father’s home before she travelled to Australia.
The delegate questioned the applicant as to why she would not be able to reside elsewhere than her father’s home if she was returned to Iran. In what the delegate claims was a contradiction of having spent a period residing with various friends before travelling to Australia, the applicant responded that she had no choice about where she could live in Iran and cited her Arab ethnicity and her family being highly religious and strict about women as the reasons. The delegate also noted that the applicant had provided the IPAO reviewer information that her sister had resided with and worked with her father after her divorce. At interview, the applicant the contradicted this, and stated that her sister had never been married while living and working with her father. She stated that her father may kill her and will not accept her as a divorced woman. The delegate referred the applicant to her entry interview, where she provided her father’s contact details as her emergency contact and stated that this was inconsistent with the examples of violence she claims from her father. The applicant responded that she did not remember giving this information.
The delegate had further concern’s regarding the applicant’s entry interview that they discussed at the SHEV interview. The delegate noted that the applicant had stated during her entry interview that the Iranian police or intelligence agencies had not affected her daily life in Iran. This, the delegate stated, was in direct contradiction to the claims made in her SHEV statement that she and her sister had attempted to run away from home but had been caught by the Iranian Police and returned home. The applicant stated that she had been very stressed and did not know how to answer the entry interview questions, that she had not previously felt free to talk, and that she had not experienced an interview before arriving in Australia.
In relation to her claim of being a victim of domestic violence perpetrated her father, the delegate noted that the applicant did not raise these concerns during her ITOA interview, which took place four years after her arrival in Australia. The delegate put to the applicant that they had difficulty accepting the truth of her account of her father’s violence in these circumstances, noting that she had failed to tell the IPAO review (a female) about this claim. The applicant responded that she did not raise these claims about her father as she was afraid and did not know how the Australian Government would treat her if she raised these claims.
The delegate questioned the applicant about why she got tattoos and body piercings after she arrived in Australia, and the applicant stated that she liked them and wanted freedom after all the years of being restricted by her family. She agreed that if she was to return to Iran that she could take out the piercings and conceal the tattoos, but stated that her father would not accept them, and that it would be very difficult to hide or cover the tattoos from her father if she lived with him.
In relation to the Department’s online data breach concerning asylum seekers in detention, the delegate put to the applicant that even if the Iranian authorities had become aware of her identity, they doubted she would have an adverse political profile as a consequence. The applicant stated that the Iranian government would see her as someone who had turned her back on Iran, and that this was seen to be a serious political offence in Iran, and it would be on her profile indefinitely. The delegate stated that this response appeared to be rehearsed.

The applicant claimed to have been depicted in photographs of asylum seekers arriving at Christmas Island and stated that the Iranian Government records information about asylum seekers and uses it to persecute them. The delegate put to the applicant country information which suggested that the Iranian Government only monitors Iranian nationals who had adverse political profiles before departing Iran and would only monitor other Iranians abroad if they engaged in significant adverse activity against the Iranian Government. The applicant responded that her former husband had a very high political profile where they were in Iran, and that because she was married to him, she was at the same risk of persecution as him, as her divorce would not be considered legal in Iran. The delegate again put to the applicant that she had provided to the IPAO that she was not targeted by the Iranian authorities before she left Iran, and that the IPAO reviewers had not accepted that her husband had a high political profile in Iran. The delegate asked the applicant to explain why she had provided inconsistent information, and the applicant responded that her main fear of returning to Iran was due to her father, rather than the Iranian Government, and that she was pretty sure her father would kill her if she returned home.
The delegate put to the applicant that the information in the IPAO recommendation was to the effect that the applicant did not face persecution or significant harm in Iran on the basis of her Arabic ethnicity, and that they found this information persuasive. The applicant responded that it seemed that no one was believing her claims and that her father is the main source of fear for her, but that she also feared the Iranian authorities because they had tortured her brother, and they would perceive her to be still married to her former husband.
The applicant told the delegate that her daughter (the second named applicant) cannot return to Iran under any circumstances as she does not speak Farsi and will be doomed. She stated that her daughter likes living in Australia and that this is her country. The applicant’s representative submitted that the second name applicant would likely be subjected to a forced or arranged marriage in Iran, and that Arabs are more like to engage in arranged marriage and honour killings than other Iranians. The applicant followed on by stating that her daughter would not have freedom of choice in Iran and that her daughter is against women wearing the hijab.
Post-Interview Submissions
The applicants’ representative also provided post-interview written submissions on 27 March 2018 to the Department further stating the applicants’ claims for protection. The content of these submission was summarised in the delegate’s decision record, and extracted below: [3]
•The applicant fears being persecuted if she returns to Iran on the basis of her:
•Khamseh Arab ethnicity.
•Imputed political opposition to the Iranian Government because of her former husband’s political activities in Iran.
•Her membership of the following particular social groups: “divorced/separated Iranian female”, “divorced and/or separated Iranian female of Khamseh Arab ethnicity”, “Iranian female with tattoos”, and “failed asylum seeker who has been identified in media coverage”.
[3] Department Refusal Decision Record, pp.7-8.
He submitted the applicant identified her potential persecutors in Iran as the Iranian authorities, her father, close relatives, and family members of her former husband.
Further, the applicant’s migration agent argued that the applicant no longer has the support of her father or former husband, she has never worked, and she has limited education; and, in these circumstances, she would not be able to earn a living independent of her family in Iran. He submitted she would suffer severe economic hardship because of her status as a divorced/separated Khamseh Arab female living in Iran without family support.
In respect of [Miss A], the migration agent submitted she faced persecution in Iran at the hands of Khamseh Arab relatives because of her membership of a particular social group in Iran defined as “Khamseh Arab female child at risk of forced marriage”.
Tribunal Hearing
I found the applicant to be engaging with my questioning and whilst she appeared nervous, she was open and honest about her life in Iran and her life since arriving in Australia. She had some support persons with her in the background and she occasionally smiled at them, but they otherwise did not engage with the Tribunal. Her representative was on camera and spoke at the end of the hearing.
We spoke about her childhood and how she only attended the first year of high school and that she stayed home for a year before she married her first cousin (arranged marriage). She said she didn’t know her husband prior to the arranged marriage. I asked her to explain to me what involvement he had in the Green Movement and she said she didn’t know as he was on the run. She lived with her parents for a time and when they got married, she said it was around the election time and the community was divided but she didn’t really remember much. She said he left first, and they met up with him in [Country 1]. I asked how her parents felt about her coming to Australia and she said her father was more than happy and told her you must die with your husband.
I took the opportunity to address why she put her father down as an emergency contact given that her claims were mostly about him and his abuse. She said she has an Arab background, and they are strict with females, very religious and her father always made all the decisions. As for why she put him down as an emergency contact, she said it was a stupid thing to do. I found that her references to her father’s abuse and control may explain why she out him down as a contact as her had so much control over her, it seemed obvious when she had just arrived that his name be put down as the contact.
We spoke about her religion and I asked her if she considered herself to be religious or a Shia Muslim. She said, “no way”. I asked her if her mother knew she doesn’t practice her religion? She said I don’t want them to know as I don’t want them to interfere in my life. I asked her about her divorce from her husband and remarked how brave it was after only being in Australia for a short period of time. She said she wanted to divorce him in Iran and when she found out they were coming to Australia she wanted to protect her daughter.
She then went on to say that she doesn’t have an ongoing relationship with her ex-husband and that he now has custody of her as she went through a really hard time. They stopped her Centrelink and she had to give up the place where she was living. She said she is still not in a good place. I asked if her ex-husband was as patriarchal as her father or was, he more modern. She said he was an Iranian man with Arabian ways, He said you have to control your daughter.
She said her daughter doesn’t speak much Farsi and that she was raised here so she knows very little about Iran. I asked her if there was anything else, she wanted to tell me about her daughter and she said that she has been raised here in Australia and she can’t even speak Persian, so we need to be able to live here.
After one hour we took a break. When we resumed, I asked her to tell me about her father and his abuse. I asked her what happened when he hit her with a machete and attacked her? She said she wouldn’t know as he was sick and controlling and like a jealous person. I asked if he was that way with all her siblings and she said with everyone. She said she still has the marks and she still has nightmares. I asked if she spoke with her sisters about this and she said we don’t, and she doesn’t like to speak about it. She did see a psychologist, but she hasn’t spoken to anyone in over a year.
I asked if she returned to Iran would she fear her father? She said she would and his relatives they live everywhere. I asked about her mother and asked if she was involved in the abuse? She said she was and that she really didn’t want to speak about it. She hates them.
I said I read in her statutory declaration about a lesbian relationship with a woman named [Ms B] and I asked her how she met [Ms B]. She said that after she got to Australia, she sent her messages on [social media]. She said she was in the relationship for two years. She said she saw her almost every day. I asked her why she didn’t tell the Department that she was in a relationship at her 2017 interview? She said she was scared and worried that people wouldn’t believe her. It was a difficult situation she was in a bad mental state and had nightmares and she couldn’t organise her thoughts.
I asked about her daughter and how she felt about the relationship and she said she was worried about it and her daughter just didn’t understand. After she was in the relationship for 1.5 years, she was not accepting of it to be honest. She ended her relationship with [Ms B] and started a relationship with another woman, but that relationship ended over a year ago.
I asked her about her feelings towards other women and when she first noticed them. She said when she was a teenager, she liked being around other girls and she didn’t understand being a lesbian it was something that was never spoken about. She said you know when you have girlfriends, and I had a lot of friends but there was one girl I really likes I said I wanted to marry her it was just a funny thought.
She has been involved in [Organisation 1] [4] for about a year now. According to their website [Organisation 1] is:
[Details of support for LGBTQI].
She doesn’t come there that often, but she does participate in events and she is on the LGTBIQ [social media] where she is most active. She said her sisters know she is a lesbian and it’s her private life, so they accept that.
[4] [Source deleted].
I asked her what would happen to her if she was to return to Iran? She said they would do terrible things to her. I asked her who would do terrible things. She said her father, the police, relatives, and the government. I asked her about the data breach and if she thought the government of Iran knew about it to which she said they would have access to it. I also asked her about the photos she claims were taken of her at Christmas Island. She said she didn’t remember except that people told her they were online. She has not seen them herself.
Findings
I have looked at all the claims made individually and cumulatively, and they are as follows:
·Khamseh Arab ethnicity
·Abusive, violent, and controlling father who was strict and religious.
·Husband who was politically active and involved in the Green Movement/imputed political opinion
·Rejection of Islamic faith.
·Divorced single mother.
·Tattoos.
·Data Breach and public photos.
·Lesbian.
·Daughter is an Australian now after being here so long.
·Returnee from the west.
I accept that the applicant is of Khamseh Arab ethnicity however, there was no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant had been discriminated against or persecuted for her ethnicity during her time in Iran. DFAT concludes:
DFAT assesses that Arab-populated parts of the country have traditionally been the subject of economic neglect. DFAT assesses that Arabs are not specifically targeted for discrimination on the basis of their ethnicity, including in their ability to access government services, and are afforded the same state protections as other ethnic minorities. [5]
[5] DFAT Country Information Report Iran 14 April 2020 page 25
I have concluded that given the evidence both oral and written that she was in fact abused by her father and had a terrible childhood and then at a young age was forced to marry her first cousin. I agree with the Representative who stated that her evidence is consistent with a woman in Iran who has no control over her life or decisions. I accept that the applicant was abused and beaten by her father and that she was in an arranged marriage.
I have looked back at her entry interview and it was clear that she only had her husband’s claims, and she was not certain of what they were or what had occurred, so I do not accept the claims of the ex-husband’s involvement in the Green Movement as they are not relevant. I note that again she was not free to give her own claims given that her ex-husband is also controlling. DFAT assesses that those who participated in the Green Movement would be unlikely to be imprisoned or harassed by the authorities. [6]
Security forces arrested hundreds of demonstrators and beat and harassed thousands more during and after the 2009-10 Green Movement protests. At least 30 people were reportedly killed, and some died in prison (see Deaths in Custody). Others associated with the Green Movement fled the country (in numbers likely to be in the hundreds), a small number of whom were handed sentences by Iranian courts in absentia.
Many prominent Green Movement activists were imprisoned following ‘show trials’ in which they confessed on television to crimes against the nation. The Green Movement’s leaders – Mir Hossein Mousavi, Zahra Rahnavard (Mousavi’s wife) and Mehdi Karroubi (who, like Mousavi, contested the 2009 presidential election) – have been under house arrest without formal charge or trial since 2011. The Green Movement has little profile in Iran today. Neither the movement nor its supporter base played a significant role in the 2017-18 or 2019 protests. Local sources told DFAT that ordinary participants in the Green Movement are not of interest to the authorities. One source noted that a family member who had been briefly detained and arrested for their participation in the Green Movement, and had subsequently secured asylum abroad, returns to Iran regularly without experiencing any harassment.
Given the period of time that has elapsed, DFAT assesses it would be highly unlikely that those arrested at the time for simply participating in the Green Movement protests would remain imprisoned or be the subject of continuing surveillance or harassment, including being prevented from accessing employment in either the public or private sector. Nevertheless, the 2009-10 protests represented a major challenge to the authority of the Islamic Republic. Given authorities’ sensitivity to such challenges, DFAT assesses it likely that those who had a more active organisational role in the Green Movement and therefore have a higher profile are more likely to face continuing official attention and possible monitoring and harassment. This includes family members of the Green Movement’s leaders. DFAT assesses that Green Movement participants who were arrested but then released without prosecution are unlikely to be of ongoing interest to the authorities. Those who acquired criminal records as a result of their involvement in the Green Movement may face discrimination when applying for government employment, particularly if they played prominent, high-profile roles in the movement. The authorities would generally not have records of, nor interest in, participants who avoided arrest at the time. DFAT assesses that ordinary participants who avoided arrest face a low risk of official discrimination.
[6] DFAT Country Information Report Iran 14 April 2020 page 40-41
I accept that she has no interest in being a Muslim nor any interest in practicing that religion. According to DFAT there are no real risks for her as a non-practicing Muslim, but she does face a risk from her conservative family:
Local sources told DFAT that secularism is widespread, particularly in the major cities and among younger and wealthier Iranians. A significant proportion of the population does not attend mosque or pray on a regular basis, and alcohol consumption is common. Official sources told DFAT that religion was a private matter — that, beyond the expectation that people do not eat in public or hold parties during the holy Muslim month of Ramadan, how one wished to observe Islam was an individual choice and was not a matter for the state. DFAT heard anecdotally that many Iranians do not observe Ramadan strictly, including by eating, drinking liquids and smoking at home. Most restaurants are closed during Ramadan, although many (especially in Tehran) reportedly serve food discreetly. Those caught eating in public during Ramadan run the risk of arrest and prosecution.
A Muslim who renounces Islam and becomes atheist is considered apostate and risks state persecution and, potentially, the death penalty (see Religiously Based Charges). DFAT is unable to verify what proportion of the population is atheist. According to local sources, atheists are discreet about their non-belief beyond their close family and friends. Unless they widely publicise their non-belief, atheists are unlikely to come to the attention of the authorities. Atheists from conservative families might face familial pressure and potential ostracism if their atheism were revealed but would generally not be subjected to physical harm. Local sources told DFAT that atheists from more liberal families and parts of the country, like north Tehran, would face no such pressure. DFAT is unaware of individuals being prosecuted for atheism.
DFAT assesses that non-practising Iranian Muslims face a low risk of official and societal discrimination, particularly in the major cities. DFAT assesses that atheists who are open about their nonbelief face a moderate level of official and societal discrimination. [7]
[7] DFAT Country Information Report Iran 14 April 2020 page 36
I accept that she is a divorced single mother who had custody of her daughter until recently and that’s she would be unable to return to Iran as a single, divorced mother with no support from her family, and with no way to subsist. I have also considered that her family would disapprove and that her father would harm her.
I accept that the applicant got tattoos as an expression of her own free will and tattoos are not acceptable in Iran.
DFAT assesses that authorities are far more likely to target women than men for dress code violations. Where there have been incidents of harassment of men for violating the dress code, DFAT assesses these were most likely the result of either over-zealous enforcement by individual security authorities in particular locations (particularly outside of major cities) or because the individual had come to the attention of the authorities for other activities, particularly political activism. DFAT assesses that the restrictions the dress codes place on men do not amount to discrimination. DFAT is not aware of the authorities targeting people on the basis of a ‘Western’ appearance or for having visible tattoos. While such appearances may be frowned upon by more conservative Iranians, DFAT assesses that people of ‘Western’ appearance, including people with visible tattoos, face a low risk of official and societal discrimination. [8]
[8] DFAT Country Information Report Iran 14 April 2020 page 51
I accept that there was a data breach, and that the applicant may feel she is at risk if she was to return to Iran. I do not accept that there were photos online as there is no evidence and the applicant’s own evidence was vague.
I accept that the applicant is a lesbian, and she has been able to express herself since divorcing her husband and throwing off the shackles of her former life. Country information demonstrates that lesbians in Iran must hide or repress their sexual identity: [9]
While the Penal Code’s punishment for sexual conduct is less harsh for lesbians, human rights observers report that their social and economic situation is significantly more restrictive than that of gay men. The restrictions already imposed on lesbians as women in Iranian society are compounded by the discrimination they face because of their sexual orientation. Financial and social survival for lesbians depends on their ability to repress or hide their sexual identity, particularly from family members. ‘Honour killings’ of lesbians by male kin reportedly occur (see Honour Killings), as do beatings and other physical and psychological abuse. Most often, lesbians find themselves abandoned by their families, a situation that can compel them to engage in sex work in order to survive. This leaves them further vulnerable to abuse, harassment and possible arrest.
The prevailing view among Iranian healthcare professionals is that homosexuality is a psycho-sexual illness. Official ‘treatment’ for gay men and women includes prescription medications (such as Valium) and gender reassignment surgery (GRS). International observers report that private and semi-governmental psychological and psychiatric clinics offer ‘corrective treatment’ for LGBTI persons. These clinics allegedly use electric shock therapy on the hands and genitals of LGBTI persons, prescription of psychoactive medication, hypnosis and coercive masturbation to pictures of the opposite sex. One such clinic, The Anonymous Sex Addicts Association of Iran, reportedly has branches in 18 provinces. In March 2016, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed concern at reports that children identifying as LGBTI had been subjected to electric shocks and the administration of hormones and psychoactive medications as forms of cure. Men whose homosexuality or transgenderism has been established (through an intrusive medical examination) are exempted from military service and given the designation ‘mentally ill’ on their military cards (see Military Objectors), which can lead to later difficulties when seeking employment.
There is a strong societal taboo against homosexuality, particularly among older, more conservative Iranians — one local source said it was impossible for Iranians, as Muslims, to accept homosexuals. While official rhetoric against homosexual individuals and practices has reduced since the Ayatollah Khomeini era, high-level officials (including Ayatollah Khamenei) have continued to issue derogatory statements about homosexuality. The government censors all materials related to LGBTI issues, including blocking websites or content within sites that discusses such issues. NGOs are unable to work openly on LGBTI issues. The law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and no criminal justice mechanisms exist to prosecute those accused of committing hate crimes against LGBTI persons. Authorities
have reportedly expelled individuals from university for alleged same-sex relations. It is not possible for an LGBTI person to seek state protection, as doing so would be an act of self-incrimination and leave them vulnerable to arrest and prosecution. Given the criminalised and hidden nature of homosexuality, harassment of and discrimination against LGBTI persons is under-reported. Local sources told DFAT that younger Iranians, particularly in more progressive parts of major cities, are increasingly more tolerant, but that, on balance, homosexuality is not openly discussed, and gay people face severe discrimination. This includes abuse and harassment from family members, work colleagues, religious figures, and school and community leaders. Ostracism from one’s family is common, particularly in the case of conservative families. DFAT heard anecdotally that gay men and lesbians face considerable societal pressure to enter into a heterosexual marriage and produce children.
International observers report that homosexual and bisexual persons who do not openly reveal their sexual orientation and keep a low profile are able to move freely within society, particularly in larger cities that offer greater anonymity. It is not uncommon in Iran for people of the same sex to live together, although this is not necessarily associated with homosexuality. The rise of social media means activities such as dating now largely take place online in chat rooms, dating sites and via social media platforms rather than in established ‘beats’ (areas frequented by gay men, where sexual acts may occur), although these continue to exist, particularly in major cities. Local sources told DFAT that there are two gay-friendly parks in Tehran — Daneshjoo Park and Honarmandan Park (in central Tehran). The parks are patrolled by the police (sometimes in plain clothes), although contacts were not aware of any recent arrests there. DFAT heard anecdotally that one can observe same-sex couples holding hands in these parks, although couples show greater discretion today given the known police presence. There are no gay bars in Iran. While intelligence services have the capacity to monitor the behaviour of individuals, human rights observers report that security agencies do not usually seek to identify or punish individuals solely for engaging in same-sex relations.
[9] DFAT Country Information Report April 2020

Further, as a woman and a single divorced woman from a conservative family the applicant and her daughter would face gender-based violence given the family narrative as outlined by the applicant. DFAT states: [10]
DFAT assesses that most Iranian women face persistent societal discrimination and the threat of gender-based violence. Legislation, longstanding traditional values and gender roles continue to restrict the participation of women in the workforce and community. Activists attempting to promote women’s rights face a high risk of official discrimination. This may include arrest, monitoring, harassment, smear campaigns and travel bans. Women perceived by the authorities to be pushing Iran’s moral boundaries face a high risk of arrest and severe punishment.
[10] DFAT Country Information Report April 2020 page 50
I accept that her daughter would struggle to fit into Iranian society should she be retuned and that she has spent her formative years here in Australia. Further as country information above indicates women face persistent societal discrimination and the threat of gender-based violence.
I have cumulatively looked at all aspects of the applicants claims and her fear of being a returnee from the west is one aspect. While DFAT states that Iranian authorities do not look for refugee returnees unless they have a political profile [11] the applicant and her daughter would be entering into Iran without a male, a divorcee, with tattoos and I consider they may be targeted for these reasons.
Conclusion
[11] DFAT Country Information Report April 2020 page 70
In the circumstances of the applicant, I consider that the subjective fear that she has for the future is objectively made out on the available country information. The country information demonstrates that the applicant faces harm based on her sexuality. I consider that the violence the applicant faces should she return to Iran not only from the government and society but from her immediate family does constitute serious harm. I therefore consider, based on the evidence before me, that the applicant has a real chance of serious harm arising from her membership of a particular social group of lesbians in Iran.
I note that the assessment of protection is in fact a forward-looking assessment, about what would happen to the applicant on her return to Iran. Past experience can be a guide as to what could occur in the future, but it is only one aspect of the consideration. I have considered all aspects of the applicants claims and overall, I consider that her chance of being harmed can be described as being real, and the harm that would be experienced would be serious.
I note that I note that the provisions of s.5J(3) of the Migration Act which relevantly states:
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 (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following ….(vi) alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
The applicant’s sexual identity is hers and hers alone. It is fundamental to her identity. I find that the applicant upon return to Iran would conflict with her identity, she would be forced to conceal her true sexual identity.
Overall, I find that the applicant has a real chance of serious harm on return to Iran as a lesbian. I find that she has a well-founded fear of persecution for this reason.
I have considered whether the applicant has the ability to avail herself of state protection. I note that in my considerations the actors causing the harm in this instance include state actors, and that they can be said to have a real chance of seriously harming the applicant in the future. Therefore, she cannot avail herself of state protection.
With respect to the consideration of relocation, I note that she as an Iranian citizen can live wherever she wants and there is no restriction on her movement. However, since I have concluded that the state is responsible for the serious harm in this instance there is no location within Iran where the applicant can safely return to or relocate to.
I find that the applicant has a real chance of serious harm arising from her membership of a particular social group lesbian in Iran. I find that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for this reason.
I find that the secondary applicant is a member of the same family unit and therefore entitled to a protection visa.
For the reasons given above the Tribunal is satisfied that the first named applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and satisfies the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a).
The Tribunal is satisfied that the primary applicant’s daughter is a member of the same family unit as the first named applicant for the purposes of s 36(2)(b)(I). As such, the fate of her application depends on the outcome of the first named applicant’s application.
It follows that the other applicant will be entitled to a protection visa provided the criterion in s 36(2)(b)(ii) and the remaining criteria for the visa are met.
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the following directions:
(i) that the first named applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act; and
(ii) that the other applicant satisfies s 36(2)(b)(i) of the Migration Act, on the basis of membership of the same family unit as the first named applicant.
Nora Lamont
Member

Document List – 1816266 – [Applicant surname]
Tribunal File – 1816266
1. Protection Visa Decision Record – dated 16/5/2018
2. Notification of refusal of application for a Safe Haven Enterprise (subclass 790) visa – dated 16/5/2018
3. Email from Representative – dated 4/12/2020
i.Letter from [a] Health Service – dated 1/7/2020
ii.Discharge Summary – dated 21/12/2012
iii.Department of [deleted] Admission – dated 23/2/2012
iv.Transfer of Care Form – dated 2/3/2012
v.Medical Progress Notes
vi.Psychiatric Assessment PEN – 21/2/2012
Department File – BCC2016/1814669
Department File – [deleted]
1. Notification of Refugee Status Outcome – dated 17/5/2011
2. Refugee Status Assessment Record – dated 17/5/2011
3. Email from Representative to Department – dated 2/5/2011
4. Invitation to provide information regarding the unauthorised access to personal information – dated 5/9/2014
5. Invitation to accept assistance through the Primary Applicant and Information Service – dated 10/6/2016
6. Email from Representative to Department – dated 8/2/2017
7. Acknowledgement of a valid application for a Safe Haven Enterprise (subclass 790) visa – dated 27/2/2017
8. Health Examinations List – dated 27/2/2017
9. Request to attend interview – [the applicant] – dated 9/2/2018
10. Independent Merits Review Statement of Reasons – Report dated 4/5/2012
11. Entry Interview for [the applicant] – dated 6/1/2011
12. Email from Representative to Department – dated 12/3/2018
13. Form 956 – dated 29/9/2016
14. Copy of original Iranian Birth Certificate produced at PV interview – [the applicant]
15. Email from Representative to Department requesting IMR Decision – dated 19/3/2018
16. Email from Department to Representative with IMR Decision attached – dated 19/3/2018
17. Email from Representative to Department containing post-interview submissions – dated 27/3/2018
18. Email from Representative to Department – Currency check of negative RSA – dated 28/10/2011
19. Representative submission: Response to Invitation to provide information regarding the unauthorised access to persona information – dated 29/9/2014
20. Protection Visa Decision Record – dated 16/5/2018
21. Notification of refusal of application for a Safe Haven Enterprise (subclass 790) visa – dated 16/5/2018
22. IAAAS Interview Cover Sheet dated 23/2/2011
23. Form 80 – [the applicant] – dated 23/2/2011
24. Statutory Declaration of [the applicant] – dated 23/2/2011
1. Notification of Refugee Status Assessment Outcome – dated 17/5/2011
2. Refugee Status Assessment Record – dated 17/5/2011
3. Email from Representative to Department – dated 2/5/2017
4. Internal Department email – dated 29/4/2011
5. Email chain between Representative and Department – dated 19/4/2011 to 26/4/2011
6. Photograph of the applicants
7. IAAAS Interview – Cover Sheet
8. Statutory Declaration of [the applicant] – dated 23/2/2011
9. UNHCR Consent to Share and Release Information – dated 23/2/2011
10. Authority to seek personal information in relation to effective (prior) protection – dated 23/2/2011
11. Form 80 and attachments – [the applicant] - dated 23/2/2011
12. Form 815 – [the applicant] – dated 23/2/2011
13. IAAAS Client Information Leaflet- signed by applicant on 23/2/2011
14. Form 956 – dated 23/2/2011
15. Request for RSA and Statement of Claims – dated 23/2/2011
16. Entry Interview of [the applicant] – dated 6/1/2011
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.
…

[2022] AATA 1201

3 March 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Standing

Statutory Construction

Remedies