1816806 (Refugee)

[2019] AATA 4984

1816806 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 4984 (18 June 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1816806

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Iran

MEMBER:Paul Millar

DATE:18 June 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 866 (Protection) visa.

Statement made on 18 June 2019 at 5:02pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – cancellation – protection visa – Iran – religion – non-Muslim – Christian – ethnicity – Faili Kurd – credibility issues – inconsistent evidence – granted protection visa based on substantially incorrect information about fundamental aspects of life and protection claims – no credible evidence regarding true circumstances except for nationality, education and military service – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 101, 107, 109 ,424A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.41

CASES
MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248



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

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 866 (Protection) visa under s.109(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).  The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that the applicant provided incorrect information. The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.  The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 8 March 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicant’s wife and three witnesses.  The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Farsi (Persian) and English languages.[1]  The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent who attended the hearing. For the following reasons, the Tribunal concludes that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be affirmed.

   [1] The applicant and his wife, at times, elected to give their evidence in English and use the interpreter when they thought that was necessary.

   RELEVANT LAW

2. Section 109(1) of the Act allows the Minister to cancel a visa if the visa holder has failed to comply with ss.101, 102, 103, 104, 105 or 107(2) of the Act. Broadly speaking, these sections require non-citizens to provide correct information in their visa applications and passenger cards, not to provide bogus documents and to notify the Department of any incorrect information of which they become aware and of any relevant changes in circumstances. The exercise of the cancellation power under s.109 of the Act is conditional on the Minister issuing a valid notice to the visa holder under s.107 of the Act, providing particulars of the alleged non-compliance. Where a notice is issued that does not comply with the requirements in s.107, the power to cancel the visa does not arise. In the present matter, the Tribunal is satisfied that the delegate had reached the necessary state of mind to engage s.107 and that the notice issued under s.107 complied with the statutory requirements.

   Was there non-compliance as described in the s.107 notice?

3. The issue before the Tribunal is whether there was non-compliance in the way described in the s.107 notice, being the manner particularised in the notice, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. The non-compliance identified and particularised in the s.107 notice was non-compliance with s.101 with respect to what the delegate found to be incorrect information provided by the applicant in his protection visa application.  To determine if this amounted to non-compliance it is necessary to examine the evidence before the Tribunal related to the applicant’s protection claims, in particular, the basis of those claims.

   Account of events on which protection claims are based as related to the Tribunal

4. To the Tribunal, the applicant related the following account on which his protection claims are based.[2] The applicant completed a full school education in his native area of Ilam.  In 2002, he commenced an advanced diploma in [subject 1] studies at a university in a different part of Iran.  He completed those studies two years later.  The applicant then undertook casual [work] for approximately two years in Ilam and Tehran, where he stayed with a [sibling].  After that, he commenced a bachelor’s degree in [subject 1] at a different university.  He completed that degree in approximately 2007.

   [2] Broadly the same account is advanced in submissions from the representative of 10 July 2018 and 1 March 2019 and in the applicant’s statutory declaration of 26 February 2018 and his written statement of 8 May 2018.

5. The applicant then undertook compulsory military service which he had to complete to be awarded his university degree.  His period of service lasted approximately [number] months and was completed in approximately 2008.  After that, the applicant undertook casual [work] in Ilam or Tehran, wherever he could find that work.  He could not obtain work in [subject 1] because he was not given his degree. To be awarded his bachelor’s degree, the applicant had to obtain marks above a very high threshold. In addition, he had to present a document to the university indicating that he had completed military service and paid certain education fees. 

6. The applicant fulfilled all of those requirements, but, still could not obtain his degree. The university did not give him any reason for failing to award him his degree.  The applicant thought that he undertook casual [work] for approximately two years after completing military service and before leaving Iran.  The last location where the applicant worked before leaving Iran was in his native area of Ilam.  At that time he was living at home with his mother and siblings.  He left Iran and came to Australia because of an incident that occurred involving his friend X.

7. The applicant and X used to sell goods on the street.  X, at the time, was in a relationship with a woman (‘X’s girlfriend’).  Through this couple, the applicant met a woman who became his girlfriend (‘the applicant’s girlfriend’).  They would go on dates together.  One day X told the applicant that they would meet their respective girlfriends in the home of the parents of X’s girlfriend.  The two couples met there but, at a later stage, the father of X’s girlfriend was seen approaching the house.  X shouted to the applicant that they had to leave straight away.  The applicant understood that being in the house with their girlfriends was against the law in Iran.

8. The applicant and X ran out of the house through the back door and caught a taxi to a nearby mountain area.  After staying there for approximately [a number of] days, they decided that the situation may have settled down and people might not be chasing them.  On that basis, they planned that they would go home and get some money to then go away and hide in some other place in Iran.  However, after leaving their hiding place, they were apprehended by a group of men including the fathers of their respective girlfriends.   The men took hold of X and shouted that they would rape him as he had raped his girlfriend.

9. They also tried to take the applicant and made the same threat to him.  After struggling with them, he was able to run away.  The applicant went back into the mountainous area where he remained until leaving Iran.  Shepherds in the area gave him the news that everyone had heard about the incident.  He heard that X was taken somewhere, raped and murdered.  The people responsible threatened that they would do the same thing to the applicant.  The applicant also suspected that a false file was made against X alleging that he was opposed to the government and killed for that reason.

10. In addition, the applicant was told that people were continuously going to his family home shouting and abusing them because of what had happened.  He was also told that his mother was trying to find a way for him to escape somewhere.  From his hiding place, the applicant went to Tehran where his [sibling] made arrangements for him to flee from the country using an Iranian passport issued in the name of another person.

11. With respect to his family, the applicant gave the following evidence to the Tribunal.  The applicant’s father died when the applicant was [a certain age].  After the applicant fled from Iran, his family was displaced because the authorities were going to them asking about him, shouting at them and breaking property. His mother now lives in Tehran with [his siblings].  He has another [sibling] who is married and lives in that same city.  In Tehran, his [sibling] was trying to open a business but the authorities took everything from him including his car.  This was partly due to the applicant and due also to them as a family.  Two of the applicant’s [siblings] attended university when he lived in Iran. After he left Iran, another [sibling] attended university.

12. When asked if he had a [sibling] living in Australia, the applicant said that was correct. They had the same parents but the applicant did not call [him/her] a [sibling].  When asked why that was, the applicant said that this [sibling] always caused him trouble due to their different views about religion; his [sibling] being religious. His [sibling] did not recognise him as a member of the family and they did not like each other. They would fight at home and for the period of approximately [a number of] years before the applicant left Iran, he and his [sibling] were not speaking to each other.  He said that, in Australia, they had not spoken to each other for approximately [a number of] years.  They did live with each other for a short period in Australia but they had the same problems with each other as before. They are not friends on social media because his [sibling] hates what the applicant posts and since 2011 his [sibling] ‘blocked him’ on social media.

13. With respect to his difficulties in Iran before the incident in which he had to flee from the home of X’s girlfriend, the applicant gave the following evidence.  He had difficulties in Iran with everyone.  When asked by the Tribunal what those difficulties were, the applicant said that he was not religious and he had anti-religious and anti-Islam ideologies and beliefs.  When he was in school he was pressured and put under a lot of stress to do his prayers.  He never wanted to do them.  While in school, one day he read the Koran and thought that it was nonsense.  At school, although required to attend prayers, the applicant would always be late, claiming to be ill or have an excuse for not attending.  For this, the applicant would always be punished by being given insults and beatings.

14. When asked what difficulties he had at the universities he attended, the applicant said that at both universities the disciplinary section took him a few times, interrogated him and told him that they had heard that he had anti-revolutionary and anti-government ideologies. They said that he was not undertaking fasting or prayers.  At one of the universities, the applicant was renting premises with another person who reported to the authorities that the applicant was avoiding religious programs held on different nights each week.  The applicant thought that perhaps this led to a ‘bad mark’ on his file and that was why he was not awarded his bachelor’s degree. 

15. When asked what other difficulties he had at these universities because of his attitude toward Islam, the applicant said that he had difficulties because of the way he did his hair, the way he dressed and the way he would talk to people, the applicant referring to his right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.  He said that he was a top student in his studies and scored the highest marks in his exams, but, was awarded lower marks.  When the applicant questioned this with teachers, he was told that whoever knows everything is God, so the highest mark belongs to God and the next highest belonged to the teacher.  The applicant understood that he was awarded lower marks because of his views on Islam.

16. When asked what difficulties he had while performing military service because of his views on Islam, the applicant said that if the authorities found out that he was not attending prayers or fasting he would not be granted any leave.  In addition, he would be made to perform shifts in the middle of the night when it was not his turn for that.  Apart from that, they humiliated him, punished him and subjected him to imprisonment.  In this respect, on many occasions, the applicant would be held in a room at the military base and not given food for [days].  When asked if this was because of his views on religion, the applicant said that it was because of his views, his race, where he came from, ‘everything’.  He then said that it was mainly due to his views on religion.

17. The Tribunal asked the applicant what other difficulties he had once he completed military service.  In response, the applicant said that he would be harassed and bothered for not participating in religious ceremonies and rituals.  When applying for employment, as well as seeking payment of salary, he was refused.  In this respect, prospective employers would ask the applicant where he was from.  The applicant would tell them and this raised a big question mark.  He would then be asked what his religion was and whether he prayed.  If he ‘denied that’ then he would either not have work, or, if he did, would not be paid, or, not be paid properly.

18. The applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal about his activity on social media in Australia related to his views.  In this respect, the applicant said that a few days before the hearing he posted content on a social media website critical of Islam and less than 48 hours later he received a ‘call’ from Iran in which he was told that he would be caught, his family would be caught and if the content he posted was not deleted his family would be harmed.  He thought that this was a further instance of being chased by the regime because of his views. 

19. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his use of social media while in Australia.  The applicant said that after he arrived in Australia he did have a page on a social media website but had to deactivate it because someone was threatening him.  He re-opened the page in a different name (‘AA’).  When he first opened the page on the social media website after arriving in Australia, the content he posted was what others normally posted such as photographs of him going to different places.  He deactivated the page after receiving threats from other users of that website using false identities.  The threats related to what the applicant did in Iran, his ideas and the content he was posting that was critical of the Iranian government.  When asked if he knew who made these threats, he said that he did not know, but, they knew him.

20. He deactivated that original page in approximately 2012 and opened up a new page in the name of AA.  On that page, he said that he posted ‘normal content’ until he met his future wife who told him not to cause trouble for himself, to keep his ideas to himself, that even in Australia people were too religious and would hate him because of his ideas.  The applicant, from that time, continued to post content but was not as active as before. 

21. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether therefore he met his wife after closing down the original page that was in his own name. In response, the applicant said that was not correct; he closed the page after that.  The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he closed that page because of threats related to what he had done in Iran and the content he was posting on the page.  In response, the applicant said that was correct.  Then someone advised him to close the page and not post the content he was posting or use a false name.

22. [Some] months ago he reopened the page in his family name as he felt mentally strong enough to have a page in his own name. When asked if he perceived threats after doing so, the applicant referred to the threat he received before the Tribunal hearing and less than 48 hours after posting anti-government content.  He continues now to post content critical of the Iranian government.  When asked if he had used the social media website with his family in Iran, he said that only recently they started using a different social media website which cannot be filtered by the Iranian government unlike the one used by the applicant which was not secure. 

23. The applicant gave the following evidence to the Tribunal about holding an Iranian passport.  As stated above, the applicant said that he left Iran using an Iranian passport issued in the name of another person. When asked if he held a passport when he lived in Iran, the applicant said that he did not and he never applied for one when he lived there.  He said that he did have a driver’s licence when he lived in Iran. 

24. The Tribunal put to the applicant that according to the Department, he had reported to the police in Australia that he had lost a passport.  In response, the applicant said that his mother had a very bad illness and he decided to return to Iran to see her in any way possible.  For that reason, he called the Iranian Embassy in Australia and said that he needed a passport.  The embassy official he spoke to asked him if he had a passport and the applicant said that he did not.  The official asked the applicant if he ever had a passport and the applicant said ‘No’.  The official then said to the applicant that if he was ‘going to give these answers’ and was going to go to Iran ‘very quick’ and visit then he should just call the police, ‘do a report’, ‘bring that number’ and the embassy would give him a passport.  The applicant told the Tribunal that in fact he never lost a passport and never left Australia.  He did get an Iranian passport by this means but never used it. 

25. The Tribunal put to the applicant that he was saying that an official at the embassy told him to go to the police and say that he had lost a passport. In response, the applicant said that was correct.  He asked the official what he should say when telling the police that he had lost a passport.  The official asked the applicant if he had ever changed addresses in Australia and the applicant told the officials that he had.  The official said that in that case he should mention to the police ‘the old place’ and mention that in the new place he did not find the passport, ‘that’s it, we need a number’.  Then he called the police and told them that he had lost a passport. He then returned to the embassy to obtain an Iranian passport and they issued one to him.

26. The Tribunal asked the applicant when it was that the embassy issued this passport to him.  In response, the applicant said that he could not remember.  The official he dealt with to receive the passport came from the applicant’s native city and was a Kurd.  This person told the applicant not to use the passport and not to go to Iran.  The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he could remember even the year that he obtained this passport.  In response, the applicant said that he could not remember. He was struggling with his ‘mental issues’.  He did not use the passport and did not travel to Iran.  He then said that he obtained the passport because he remembered that his mother was young when his father died and she raised him and his siblings by herself.  She did not re-marry.  He therefore thought that he should go back to Iran to see her, thinking that even if the people he fears killed him he would still be able to see her for the last time.

1. The Tribunal asked the applicant what changed his mind and made him decide not to return to Iran at that time.  In response, the applicant again referred to the advice given to him by the embassy official who gave him his passport.  He remembered his trouble in Iran and his [sibling] (in Iran) also told him not to return or he would be killed.  His [sibling] told him that his mother would be alright but if the applicant came and the authorities killed him, his mother would have a heart attack. 

2. The Tribunal put to the applicant that according to the Department, it was in June 2012 that he advised the police that he had lost his passport in June 2011 one year earlier.[3]  In response, the applicant said that the official at the embassy told him to tell the police the time when he moved from one place to the next place and that he was unable to find the passport in the new place.  He then recalled that in June 2011 he did change his place of residence so he told the police that he lost the passport at that time.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that if he reported a lost passport to the police in June 2012 then he must have been considering returning to Iran at that time.  In response, the applicant said that when he made the report to the police, he was going to go back to Iran. 

   Credibility discussion

   [3] This evidence related to the applicant reporting a lost passport and obtaining one in Australia is set out in the delegate’s decision and in submissions from the representative of 1 March 2019. 

3. At the hearing, the Tribunal put to the applicant that he was granted a protection visa, in essence, on the basis that he was stateless and that, for that reason, he suffered discrimination, for example, he could not go to school or find employment.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that he was now claiming that in fact he is a citizen of Iran (was issued an Iranian passport) and not only attended school but also university in Iran.  In addition, the Tribunal put to the applicant that, originally, he did not declare (and later denied) having a [sibling] in Australia.  In contrast, the applicant now claims that he does have a [sibling] in Australia.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that this was, in a sense, the incorrect information that the Department alleges that the applicant has provided in applying for a protection visa.

4. In response, the applicant said that he was advised to keep his identity separate from his [sibling] who had also left Iran.  He was told that if he provided any sort of identity document he would be deported to Iran and killed.  He referred to the boat journey before arriving [in Australia], without drinking or eating anything.  He was then given a piece of paper and told to write but his English was not good and he needed an interpreter to help him.[4] 

   [4] Broadly similar explanations were advanced in submissions from his representative of 10 October 2016, 10 July 2018 and 1 March 2019.

5. The Tribunal put to the applicant that for a long time he maintained that he did not receive an education in Iran beyond a few years of school due to being stateless.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that now he was claiming to have completed a full school education and, in addition, undertaken studies at two different universities.  The Tribunal asked the applicant why he initially withheld the evidence that he now puts forward about his education in Iran.  In response, the applicant said that it was due to his fear of being sent back to Iran. The Tribunal asked the applicant how putting forward that account when he applied for protection, placed him at risk in Iran.  The Tribunal also asked the applicant, why, in addition, he did not also raise, when he applied for protection, the claims that he now makes about all of the difficulties he suffered in Iran due to his views on religion.

6. In response, the applicant said that the interpreter used at [the detention centre] told him that if he was to give that account about his education he would be sent back to Iran including if he had Iranian documents.  He was told that this would affect not only him but all of the other people in detention in his situation.  The interpreter told the applicant that these other people would also be deported like him.

7. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it was concerned that the account he advanced at the hearing about the difficulties he suffered because of his views on religion, was not advanced when he applied for protection.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that the basis of his original protection claims was that he was stateless and he encountered difficulties on that basis.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that he did not advance at that early stage the claims he now makes about the difficulties he suffered because of his views on religion.  In response, the applicant said that he could not trust people then and the interpreter at the Tribunal hearing was a Muslim and he was afraid. 

8. The Tribunal put to the applicant that, notwithstanding the interpreter’s religion, to that point in the hearing, he had already given a lot of evidence about his views on religion and the difficulties he claims to have suffered.  In response, the applicant said that with respect to the basis of his original protection claims, he had to find a way not to be deported.  Therefore it was better to claim that he did not have any documents.  He said that if he did not have documents he could not possibly claim to have gone to university.  He could not originally advance protection claims based on his views of Islam as there were too many other Moslems with him in detention who were praying every day.  His English was not good and he always needed help with interpretation.  He was afraid that anybody who assisted him might see claims related to his views on religion and that would lead to harm.

9. At the hearing, the Tribunal put to the applicant that it had difficulty accepting this account of how he obtained an Iranian passport and that officials of the Iranian embassy would behave as he claimed.  In response, the applicant said that the scenario was that ‘by the rule’ you have to present an old passport or you report to the police that you have lost one.  The official who told him to make a report to the police was not the same official who told him not to return to Iran.

10. Pursuant to s.424A, by letter dated 18 March 2019, the Tribunal put to the applicant that, with respect to his application for a protection visa, according to his evidence to the Department, the applicant claimed protection, in essence, on the basis that he was stateless.  In this respect the applicant made the following claims.[5] His parents were born in Iraq and later came to live in Iran. Because he was stateless, the applicant received only a few years of school education. Apart from holding a ‘green card’, as a stateless person, the applicant did not hold any other form of documentation. He therefore had to work illegally and, for doing so, received harassment from the Basiji.  He was not called up to perform military service because it was compulsory only for Iranian citizens. In his evidence for the Independent Merits Review the applicant made similar claims.

    [5] The reference to the applicant’s evidence to the Department is a reference to the applicant’s

11. The Tribunal put to the applicant that this information was relevant because it appeared to be inconsistent with other evidence before the Tribunal about the applicant and the grounds on which he claims protection.  In this respect, in October 2011, the applicant made a request to the Department to amend his personal records stating that his parents were born in Iran and changing his ‘status’ from stateless to Iranian. The applicant produced a driver’s license in his name issued by authorities in Iran. In June 2012, the applicant reported to police in Australia that in June 2011 he lost his passport. In his written statement dated 8 May 2018, the applicant, in effect, stated that he was a citizen of Iran and retracted his claim to being stateless.

12. Finally, to the Tribunal, the applicant maintained these positions and, further, advanced claims for protection, in essence, on the basis that he disagreed with Islam and suffered harm in Iran on that ground. In contrast to his earlier evidence to the Department, he made the following claims about his life in Iran. He received a full school education and attended two universities. He performed [a number of] months of military service. During his education and in military service, the applicant suffered harm at the hands of Iranian authorities due to his views on Islam and unwillingness to participate in religious events such as regular prayers.

13. In its letter of 18 March 2019, the Tribunal also put to the applicant that, with respect to his application for a protection visa, according to his evidence to the Department, he declared having [siblings who live] in Iran and did not declare having a [sibling] in Australia. When interviewed by an officer of the Department in December 2017, the applicant denied having a [sibling] in Australia.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that this information was relevant because, to the Tribunal, the applicant said that he did have a [sibling] in Australia. His evidence on this matter, therefore, appeared to be inconsistent.

14. In response, in a statutory declaration made on 27 March 2019, in essence, the applicant said that his claims in his protection visa application that he had minimal education, could not perform military service and did not have a [sibling] in Australia, were claims advanced because he was afraid he would be persecuted in Iran because of his ethnicity and because he does not follow Islam.  To support his assertion about being persecuted on those grounds, the applicant annexed to his declaration a report about human rights practices in Iran.  With respect to his original claim to have had minimal education, the applicant said that this claim was also advanced on arrival at [the detention centre] because an interpreter told him to do so.  The applicant said that he was issued with an Iranian passport by the embassy in Australia.  However, he claimed that he did not have a passport in Iran and used a false passport to leave the country.  While the embassy issued him with a passport, the applicant said that he regards himself as stateless because he was treated as less than a third class citizen in Iran and there is a state of ‘Kurdistan’.

15. The Tribunal has carefully considered this response from the applicant and also his responses recorded above where the Tribunal put to him its concerns about his credibility.  In essence, the applicant claims that when he originally applied for protection, he withheld the truth about his circumstances in Iran because he was afraid that he could be sent back there and suffer harm. At [the detention centre] he was not thinking properly after his boat journey.  He also claims that an interpreter advised him to withhold the truth.    Further, he feared revealing the truth could adversely impact on others in detention.  Other explanations include being in fear in detention, not trusting people and being afraid that other Muslims in detention might harm him if he said that he was anti-religious.  With regards to having a [sibling] in Australia, the applicant also claims that he did not recognise this person as his [sibling] because of their different views about religion.  Further, while issued with an Iranian passport, he still regards himself as stateless.

16. The grounds on which the applicant now claims that he needs protection are significantly different from the grounds on which he originally applied for protection.  None of the responses he advances for this satisfactorily explain the significant inconsistency in his accounts.  The Tribunal does not believe that a fear of being sent back to Iran and the circumstances under which he applied for protection truly caused him to advance a false account about fundamental aspects of his life in Iran and fundamental grounds for claiming protection.  As stated in the Tribunal’s letter of 18 March 2019, as late as December 2017 the applicant still maintained that he did not have a [sibling] in Australia. Whether or not the applicant liked his [sibling], in no way explains why he would claim not to have a [sibling] in Australia.[6]

    [6] The Tribunal similarly disbelieves a claim made by his representative in submissions of 10 July 2018 that the applicant lied about having a [sibling] in Australia under the instructions of an interpreter at [the detention centre] lest his [sibling’s] case be tied to [their] protection application fail if the applicant’s own protection visa application was rejected.

17. No matter the applicant’s views about the treatment of Kurds in Iran and perceptions that they are treated such as to be stateless, the evidence before the Tribunal clearly indicates that the applicant is a national of Iran and he is not stateless.  The applicant’s willingness to maintain throughout the determination of his application for protection that he is stateless only demonstrated his willingness to advance false evidence.  The applicant’s account of obtaining an Iranian passport confirms that.  The Tribunal does not believe that officials of the Iranian Embassy would tell the applicant to falsely claim to police in Australia that he had lost a passport if he had never been issued with one in the first place.  His claims about what he was told by these officials struck the Tribunal as far-fetched and fanciful.

    Finding on whether there was incorrect information such that there was a ground for cancellation

18. Considered cumulatively, the Tribunal’s concerns about the applicant’s credibility lead the Tribunal to find that he is not a witness of truth.  The Tribunal finds, based on the evidence before it, that the applicant is a citizen of Iran.[7] The Tribunal also finds that he is, as he claims, Faili Kurd.   The Tribunal will also accept that the applicant received a full school education and attended two universities in Iran as his [siblings] have done.  Because he is not a witness of truth, the Tribunal disbelieves all of the applicant’s claims about being anti-religious or anti-government and having difficulties in Iran on those grounds.    That includes the difficulties he claims he encountered at school, university and while performing military service. This includes rejecting his claims that on this or any basis he was denied employment in Iran.  The Tribunal finds that it has no credible evidence about the applicant’s attitude towards Islam and, accordingly, the Tribunal disbelieves all of his claims about expressing anti-government and anti-religious views over social media and receiving threats from others in relation to that.[8] 

    [7] So far as a ‘green card’ he submitted to the Department with his original protection visa application is meant to be evidence that the applicant is stateless, the Tribunal does not give weight to it in the light of the substantial concerns held by the Tribunal about the applicant’s credibility.

    [8] In a statutory declaration of 26 February 2018 the applicant’s wife stated that the applicant’s social media account was closed in 2013 by him and that his opposition to Islamic law and rule would be public knowledge in Iran.  Those claims do not outweigh the substantial concerns the Tribunal holds about the applicant’s credibility and the Tribunal remains of the view that it has no credible evidence about the applicant’s social media activity and his attitude towards Islam.

19. Because the applicant is not a witness of truth, the Tribunal finds that it has no credible evidence about how the applicant left Iran and whether he did indeed, use someone else’s passport or a false passport for that purpose.  Because he is not a witness of truth, the Tribunal also disbelieves his claim about the incident he claims occurred just prior to leaving Iran in which he and a friend were being pursued by the families of two women.  The Tribunal does not believe this incident occurred and, so, disbelieves the applicant’s evidence about his family suffering harm as a result.  The Tribunal finds that there is no credible evidence that the applicant or any member of his family suffered harm in Iran.  There is no credible evidence before the Tribunal that the Iranian authorities or anyone in Iran seeks to harm the applicant.  There is no credible evidence before the Tribunal as to why the applicant left Iran and why he does not want to return there.

20. For all of these reasons, the Tribunal agrees with the delegate that the applicant advanced incorrect information when he applied for protection.  For all of these reasons, the Tribunal finds that there was non-compliance with s.101 by the applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice.

    Should the visa be cancelled?

21. As the Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance in the way described in the notice given to the applicant under s.107 of the Act, it is necessary to consider whether the visa should be cancelled pursuant to s.109(1). Cancellation in this context is discretionary, as there are no mandatory cancellation circumstances prescribed under s.109(2).

22. In exercising this power, the Tribunal must consider the applicant’s response (if any) to the s.107 notice about the non-compliance, and have regard to any prescribed circumstances: s.109(1)(b) and (c). The prescribed circumstances are set out in r.2.41 of the Regulations. Briefly, they are:

    ·     the correct information

    ·     the content of the genuine document (if any)

    ·     whether the decision to grant a visa or immigration clear the visa holder was based, wholly or partly, on incorrect information or a bogus document

    ·     the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred

    ·     the present circumstances of the visa holder

    ·     the subsequent behaviour of the visa holder concerning his or her obligations under Subdivision C of Division 3 of Part 2 of the Act

    ·     any other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder known to the Minister

    ·     the time that has elapsed since the non-compliance

    ·     any breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches

    ·     any contribution made by the holder to the community.

23. While these factors must be considered, they do not represent an exhaustive statement of the circumstances that might properly be considered to be relevant in any given case: MIAC v Khadgi (2010) 190 FCR 248. The Tribunal may also have regard to lawful government policy. The relevant policy is set out in the Department’s Procedural Advice Manual) PAM3 ‘General visa cancellation powers’, which refers to matters such as the consequences of cancelling the visa, international obligations and any other relevant matters.

    Factors related to the non-compliance [9]

    [9] Factors related to what was the correct information; what was the content of the genuine document; was the visa grant based wholly or partly on incorrect information; the time elapsed since non-compliance; the circumstances under which non-compliance occurred (how or why did it occur).

24. The applicant was granted a protection visa based on substantially incorrect information about fundamental aspects of his life and protection claims.  This ‘non-compliance’ occurred in the determination of that protection visa application in 2010 and 2011.  However, as noted above, as late as December 2017 the applicant was still advancing incorrect information, denying that he had a [sibling] in Australia.  To the Tribunal the applicant again advanced false information in the respects discussed above.  His reasons as to the circumstances under which his non-compliance occurred, including his fear at the time that he could be sent back to Iran, as discussed above, do not satisfy the Tribunal.  Because he is not a witness of truth, the Tribunal has no credible evidence as to the applicant’s true circumstances beyond accepting that he is a national of Iran, who attended school and university there and who performed military service. 

    Factors related to the applicant’s other or subsequent behaviour [10]

    [10]  Factors related to the subsequent behaviour of the applicant; other instances of non-compliance and their seriousness.

1. With respect to these factors, the Tribunal put to the applicant that it had to consider whether he had breached any other laws (beyond the incorrect information he advanced in support of his application for a protection visa).  In response, the applicant said that he had not breached any laws in Australia or done anything wrong to anybody.  In the decision of the delegate, mention is made of the applicant being charged for certain offences in 2018 but the outcome of those charges are not recorded.  Accordingly, the Tribunal disregards that information.  The Tribunal determines this review on the basis that the only instance of non-compliance with Australian law by the applicant is his use of incorrect information to apply for and gain protection.

   Factors related to the applicant’s circumstances [11]

   [11] Factors related to the present circumstances of the applicant; International obligations potentially breached; best interests of the child and family unity; hardship caused to the applicant, his wife and child; non-refoulement obligations such that the applicant is not returned to serious or significant harm; consequences of cancellation, rendering the applicant being in Australia unlawfully and subject to detention; any  inability to make another visa application without Ministerial intervention; cancellation leading to others losing their visa entitlement and the applicant’s contribution to the community.

2. To the Tribunal, the applicant said that, in 2012, through the social media website on which he had a page, he met his wife.  The Tribunal asked the applicant what religion his wife followed at the time they first met. In response, the applicant said that she went to church and she was a Christian.  She had Christian pictures put up in their house.  When asked if she was born a Christian, the applicant said that her background was Zoroastrian.  The Tribunal asked the applicant when his wife left that faith and became a Christian.  In response, the applicant said that she did that before she met him.  She had ‘a personal issue’ that he was not sure about and had not asked her about. He said that ‘back years’ she asked Jesus for help and she got what she wanted.  She then followed Christianity and attended church.  He was not sure whether the issue arose in Australia or when she lived in Iran. 

3. As to her family, the applicant said that her father was deceased and her mother was still alive. His wife’s mother is an Australian citizen who comes and goes between Australia and Iran.  The mother stays in Iran for [a number of] months then goes to [Country 1] where she has [children].  The Tribunal put to the applicant that records held by the Department indicated that since her first arrival in 2009, his wife had travelled in and out of Australia on a number of occasions, most recently in late 2018.  In response, the applicant said that was correct and this travel was due to a ‘family issue’ in Iran. When asked what that was, the applicant said that his wife’s mother ‘has something’ and his wife asked him if she could go.  The issue related to the estate of his wife’s late father.  Before the father died, he put his possessions into the name of the applicant’s wife and so, if anybody wanted them, she was responsible for them.  When she made trips back to Iran she stayed in her own property there alone, with her mother or her brother.

4. The applicant has never met the [siblings] of his wife.  No member of her family came to the wedding reception of the applicant and his wife.[12]  He met his mother-in-law for the first time when his child turned [a certain age].  He said that his mother-in-law lived in the same city in Australia as him.  When asked about his family’s feelings towards his wife, the applicant said that his family was very religious and they wished that he could have married a Muslim. However, he told them that it was his choice and he did not consider himself to be a Muslim.  Later on, they met his wife in Tehran and now they ‘love’ her.  They speak on the phone or over another social media device.

   [12] He repeats this claim in his written statement of 8 May 2018.

5. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether his wife’s family were also Christians. In response, the applicant said that they followed Christianity. When asked why they became Christians, the applicant said that he had never met them so he did not know.  He said that his wife has [a number of siblings] and her mother in Australia, a [sibling] in [Country 1] and one brother in Iran.  She had another [sibling] in [Country 1] but [the sibling] passed away.  He said that he had met his wife’s mother and (only) one of her [siblings] in Australia a few times. 

6. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he ever asked his wife why her family became Christians.  In response, the applicant said that he respected his wife’s beliefs and he never asked her a personal question like that.  It was her business. She had tried to get the applicant to go to church but he never did.  The applicant also said that he looks after his wife and child. Although he does not believe in God, he always dropped off his wife at church and picked her up.  He did not ever ask her why she went to church and gave her freedom to do what she wanted to do.  She had religious pictures at home but he never questioned her about that.

7. In her evidence to the Tribunal, the applicant’s wife said that she left Iran to come and live in Australia in 2009.  The applicant’s wife completed high school and a university degree in Iran.  She then remained at home living with her parents in Tehran for another six years until she left Iran.  She remained at home because she could not find employment that would have been appropriate or interesting for her.  The applicant’s wife was previously married to an Iranian citizen when she lived in Iran.  She was subsequently divorced and then married an Australian national. 

8. In terms of family in Iran, the applicant’s wife has one brother who lives in Tehran.  He holds a university degree and works for the government. The applicant’s wife said that her mother lived for periods in Australia, Iran and [Country 1].  The Tribunal asked the applicant’s wife what religion she followed when she lived in Iran.  In response, the applicant’s wife said that she was Zoroastrian and her former husband in Iran was also Zoroastrian.

9. The Tribunal put to the applicant’s wife that according to the applicant she was a Christian.  In response, the applicant’s wife said that was correct.  She said that when she was a child in Iran she would go to church with her parents.  When reminded that she said that she was Zoroastrian, the applicant’s wife said that people who followed that religion were very much fond of Christianity and followers of Christianity. She said that the two faiths were vehicles to each other.  When asked what sort of church she attended in Iran, the applicant’s wife said that it was a Jehovah Witness association.  She kept attending church until she came to Australia.

10. The Tribunal asked the applicant’s wife whether the only reason she left Iran was because of her marriage to an Australian national.  In response, the applicant’s wife said that was not correct. She said that she left Iran because she had no freedom.  Iran is not made for women.  She said that women suffer discrimination from the government and there is inequality between men and women. She said that she could not be forced to wear a headscarf or follow Islamic regulations.  

11. When asked by the Tribunal if she was ever arrested or detained, the applicant’s wife said that it happened several times because of her ‘hejab’; she was not wearing it properly and she had nail polish.  She said that she was caught, put into a van and taken to the police office.  This was [where] she was photographed.  She told the officials that she was not a Muslim but they said so long as she lived in a Muslim country she had to follow their regulations.  In total, there were [a number of] such incidents.  On one occasion she was held [because] it was during Ramadan and there was no judge available to hear her case.  She was held [for some time].

12. The applicant’s wife then said that the family owned a [business] in another city in Iran which she described as religious.  She said that when she came out of the [business] two people forced her into a van because she was wearing [a certain piece of clothing].  She was detained [until] the judge came [who] said that she must pay a fine [for her appearance].  The applicant’s wife said that this incident occurred approximately six years ago on a return visit to Iran, when she was coming and going between Australia and Iran.  She told the officials that she was an Australian citizen and they said that made her situation worse.  They said that perhaps she had come to spread news about her religion.

13. The Tribunal put to the applicant’s wife that she made a number of trips back to Iran almost every year since she first came to Australia in 2009, staying there for periods up to six months.  In response, the applicant’s wife said that when she first came to Australia she was unfamiliar with the country and she missed Iran a great deal.  She then said that her father gave her things to take care of such as houses and properties.  She returned to Iran for that reason as well.  In addition, from her marriage in Iran she had a daughter and her former spouse took her away when the child was one and a half years old.  The applicant’s wife had not seen her daughter and she would go to Iran to look for and see her child but her former spouse would not allow that.  She would return hoping that she could go to the government or the courts and receive visitation rights to be able to see her daughter but they would refuse saying that her daughter belonged to her former spouse.

14. The applicant’s wife said that she returned to Iran most recently in November 2018 for six weeks.  She stayed in Tehran.  When asked what she did in that period, the applicant’s wife said that there were many things she had to attend to.  In addition, her brother had [a medical condition] and she had to go and say farewell to him.  After her brother died her mother became ill.  Except for her one brother, all other family members live outside Iran.  She then said that her brother passed away before she went back to Iran.  On this occasion she stayed with her mother who was ill.  She and her siblings made an arrangement that they would take turns staying with and taking care of their mother.

15. The Tribunal asked the applicant's wife whether, on this most recent trip back to Iran she attended church.  In response, the applicant’s wife first said that she did not do that as she was afraid.  She said that she could not leave home and she was afraid of losing her child given her previous bad experience. In addition, she was very scared because it is not safe in Iran with lots going on there.  She would catch a taxi from her building to where ever she was going.  When asked if she took her child with her to Iran, she said that she always did.

16. When asked what she did to look after the various properties for which she was responsible, the applicant’s wife said that even though her brother was her power of attorney to take care of the properties he told her that for some things she still needed to be present.  She gave the example of having to go to the bank when it would not accept her brother’s representation.  She gave another example of a tenant refusing to vacate one of the properties and the court requiring her to come and be present in relation to that dispute instead of her brother.

17. The Tribunal asked the applicant’s wife when the last time she attended a church in Iran was.  In response, the applicant’s wife said that was in 2017 when she went there with her son because she wanted to show him to her friends there.  When asked why she had not been back to church since that occasion, the applicant’s wife said that she did not have enough time when she was there. In addition there were not always ceremonies or things happening that one could attend. Sometimes there were weekly programs but sometimes the church said one would have to wait until an occasion arises.  The applicant’s wife then said that there were only three churches and not everyone could go to them all of the time.  If everyone attended at the same time the church would be too crowded.

18. The Tribunal questioned the applicant’s wife about her religious practice in Australia.  The applicant’s wife said that she attends different churches here because she has friends at each church. She said it did not matter to which particular church she attended. The applicant’s wife said that each week friends come to her home and they pray together.

19. The Tribunal then asked the applicant’s wife whether she had any comments to make about the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.  In response, the applicant’s wife said that she had already had the experience of losing a child and she did not want to lose another child.  She asked how she could raise her child without the applicant.  When she went to Iran so much happens to her child.  The first time she took him to Iran he did not eat for a whole week.  For a month he did not have anything except milk because he was missing the applicant.  He would cry and she would tell him that they had come there to have a good time and he should eat something. She said that her child was very much dependent on the applicant who is very kind to his son. 

20. The Tribunal asked the applicant’s wife why she and her child could not go back to Iran with the applicant and live with him while he applied for a visa to come to Australia on the basis of being married to her. The Tribunal also asked the applicant’s wife why, failing them all living together in Iran, she and her child could not visit and stay with the applicant for periods, while he applied for a visa to come to Australia.  In response, the applicant’s wife said that in Iran all of the power was held by men. If the applicant took her child and did not give him back there was nothing she could do.  She would not go back even for a short visit because she is too afraid of the applicant or the government taking her son away from her.  The applicant knows that as long as he stays in Australia he knows that under Australian law a child belongs to the mother and he has to comply with that.  If the applicant is forcibly sent to Iran their marriage would collapse and the applicant would not see his son again.

21. The applicant’s wife does not work in Australia.  She said that before becoming an Australian citizen she would bring money from Iran to support herself because her Australian spouse was an alcoholic.  She suffered in that marriage and then they divorced. At one point she gave up hope and wanted to go back to Iran.  However, once she got divorced, she thought that she should study.  The applicant’s wife has undertaken [studies].  However, once she fell pregnant she could not undertake work. The applicant’s wife studied [in] Iran and found there was no available employment in that field in Australia. She wanted to apply to study [in a different field].

22. In his evidence, the Tribunal asked the applicant what he was afraid would happen if he went back to Iran.  In response, the applicant said that whatever they did to his friend X they would also do to him.  When put to him that the incident involving X occurred almost ten years ago, the applicant said that the situation was worse because he had been fighting the authorities through social media and through the community in Australia which had been ignoring him because of his anti-religious ideas.  When asked what else he was afraid would happen to him in Iran, apart from the harm he feared in relation to what happened to X, the applicant said that his main reason was his anti-religious beliefs and ideas.  For the reasons given above, the Tribunal rejects the applicant’s claims about holding anti-religious views, expressing them on social media and the harm he claims to have suffered in Iran as a result.  The Tribunal has no credible evidence about the applicant’s religious views.  For the reasons given above, the Tribunal disbelieves the applicant’s evidence about the incident involving X.

23. The applicant also said that as a Faili Kurd no one would support him in Iran. He knew just how much problems Faili Kurds faced in Iran and many had come to Australia.  He worked as a [Occupation 1] and received many calls to help them and so he knew of the problems they had.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that according to available country information ethnic minority groups in Iran suffer discrimination and that includes Faili Kurds.[13]   However, the applicant had received a full education and could attend university.  This suggested that the risk of the applicant suffering serious harm because he is Faili Kurd is remote.  In response, the applicant said that he suffered systematic abuse referring to being awarded marks lower than he had actually scored in examinations.  He was not given his university degree.  If he applied for work and said he was a Kurd from Ilam he would be treated adversely.  Even if he had been a very good Muslim he would still be maltreated.  The Tribunal rejects all of these claims and does not believe the applicant suffered harm in Iran due to his ethnicity or on any ground.

    [13] See DFAT, Country Information Report Iran, 7 June 2018.  At 3.6 DFAT states:

    “DFAT assesses that members of ethnic minority groups face a moderate risk of official and societal discrimination, particularly where they are in the minority in the geographic area in which they reside. This may take the form of denial of access to employment and housing, but is unlikely in most cases to include violence on the grounds of ethnicity alone. The risk to members of ethnic minority groups who are involved (or are perceived to be involved) in activism is higher.”

    With respect to Faili Kurds, DFAT states at 3.13:

    “Faili Kurds in Iran typically reside either close to the Iraqi border, including Khuzestan, Lorestan, Kermanshah, and Ilam provinces, or in major cities.   They are distinguishable from other Iranian Kurds by their religion (most are Shi’a), location, and distinctive dialect.    …..   DFAT is not aware of specific instances whereby authorities have singled out Faili Kurds for mistreatment.”

24. The Tribunal put to the applicant that according to available country information the Iranian authorities do not hold any adverse interest in Iranian citizens for going to a western country and applying for protection.[14]  Based on that country information, an exception could be a person with a past history as an outspoken activist.  The Tribunal also put to the applicant that according to available country information the Iranian authorities do not hold any adverse interest in nationals who, while overseas, post anti-government content on social media websites.[15]  The Tribunal put to the applicant that the risk of him suffering serious harm on these grounds, therefore, was remote. 

    [14] See DFAT, Country Information Report Iran, 7 June 2018.  At 5.20 DFAT states:

    “Millions of Iranians travel into and out of Iran each year without difficulty, including the large Iranian diaspora residing in North America, Europe, Asia and the United Arab Emirates.”

    At 5.25 DFAT states:

    “According to international observers, Iranian authorities pay little attention to failed asylum seekers on their return to Iran. Iranians have left the country in large numbers since the 1979 revolution, and authorities accept that many will seek to live and work overseas for economic reasons. International observers report that Iranian authorities have little interest in prosecuting failed asylum seekers for activities conducted outside Iran, including in relation to protection claims. This includes posting social media comments critical of the government – heavy internet filtering means most Iranians will never see them – converting to Christianity, or engaging in LGBTI activities. In such cases the risk profile for the individual will be the same as for any other person in Iran within that category. Those with an existing high profile may face a higher risk of coming to official attention on return to Iran, particularly political activists.”

    [15] Ibid, at 5.25.

1. In response, the applicant said that he received news from a particular group that did not believe in God.  They shared some pictures about religion criticising a particular passage from the Koran.  The applicant shared that content on his social media website making a comment agreeing with the criticism.  He then received a telephone call from an individual from Iran he claimed worked [in] Australia telling him to remove that content straightaway and that he knew the applicant’s family, the applicant’s wife and child, that she visited Iran and the applicant’s situation.  This person threatened that something could happen to his wife and child when they went back to Iran.  This was the incident that he said occurred a few days before the hearing.  The Tribunal rejects these claims as, for the reason given above, the Tribunal finds that it has no credible evidence about the applicant’s social media activity and disbelieves his claims about that and the threats he claims to have received from it.

2. The Tribunal suggested to the applicant that he, his wife and child could, together, go back to live in Iran.[16]  In response, the applicant said that his wife and child could not go to Iran because they are Christians.  The applicant’s child goes to church in Australia with the applicant’s wife.  The people in Iran who the applicant fears want revenge on him and so they would kill his wife.  The applicant then said that on her last trip to Iran his wife could not even have a little holiday.  She just stayed in her property going out to only do what is necessary and then coming straight back.  She was afraid she would be harmed not just because of the applicant’s circumstances but because she is Christian.  The applicant then said that a woman who gave evidence at the hearing (see below) comes every week to see his wife, teaches her the Bible and they go to church.  However, this was kept a secret in the local community because the Iranian government has people in Australia watching the community and what they do.

   [16] In his statutory declaration of 26 February 2018 the applicant said that his wife and child are Australian citizens.  He indicates that his wife and child are also Iranian citizens stating that when her brother died his wife applied for Iranian passports for her and her child.  In her statutory declaration of 26 February 2018 the applicant’s wife also makes a similar claim.

3. The Tribunal put to the applicant that according to available country information a Muslim man can marry a Christian woman in Iran[17] and Christians who simply practice their faith in a low-level way do not suffer serious harm.[18]  Based on that information, an exception would be those who were outspoken and more public in their faith and therefore likely to come into conflict with the authorities. However, the evidence before the Tribunal about the applicant’s wife’s practice of Christianity indicates that she is not such a person.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that this was further reason why his wife and child could return to Iran with him and live together while he applied for a visa to come to Australia as the husband of an Australian citizen. 

   [17] Department of Home Affairs, Standard Q and A Report, Iran / Iraq: CI180807155916535 – Orthodox Christians – Kurds – Interreligious Marriage -  Conversion to Islam, 17 August 2018, at p 9, citing ‘Gender Inequality and Discrimination: The Case of Iranian Women’ Nayeri, M H, Iran Human Rights Documentation Centre, 8 March 2013, 24 CIS25511.

   [18] See DFAT, Country Information Report Iran, 7 June 2018.  At 3.23 DFAT states as follows:

   “Article 13 of the Constitution states that the Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian religions are the only recognised non-Muslim faiths in Iran. It gives adherents of these religions the freedom (within the limits of the law) to perform their own religious rites and ceremonies, and to comply with their own canon in their personal affairs and religious education. Adherents of the three recognised religions are permitted to hold religious services, run places of worship and religious schools, and celebrate religious holidays.”

   At 3.24, DFAT states that ‘[d]espite the protections afforded to them through their constitutional recognition, members of the recognised religious groups face significant official and societal restrictions’.  DFAT describes this as restrictions on employment in certain capacities, for example, the judiciary, security services and being at a disadvantage compared to Muslims in seeking employment in the public sector (at 3.24).    At 3.25, DFAT states that ‘many Christians have ethnically-distinct names that can identify them as Christian’ and that ‘[t]his can result in low-level societal discrimination such as the loss of employment opportunities, but is unlikely to result in violence’.  In terms of observance of laws with respect to the recognition of these religious groups, DFAT states as follows at 3.26:

   “Community leaders associated with the recognised churches have reported that authorities respect their religious rights, and their communities are able to act freely in their own spaces (including holding mixed-sex gatherings, using alcohol for ceremonial purposes, and allowing women to uncover their heads) without government interference.”

   In terms of discrimination against such groups, DFAT states at 3.29:

   “DFAT assesses that members of recognised religions face a low risk of official discrimination. While they enjoy the benefits of official recognition, the structure of the Islamic Republic inevitably favours the Shi’a Muslim majority to the exclusion of others. The risk of societal discrimination, including violence, is low, but may be heightened at times when external factors come into play.”

   At 3.31, DFAT also notes that ‘Iran nevertheless has a significant and growing unrecognised Christian population’.   At 3.33 DFAT states that ‘Iranian authorities have interpreted the growth in house churches as a threat to national security’ and they have ‘periodically cracked down on [them], focusing particularly on the leaders of churches that actively broadcast, proselytise, or seek out new members’.  DFAT assesses that risk of harm is based on this very public declaration of faith and evangelism.  For example DFAT states at 3.34 and 3.35:

   “International observers advise that Iranians who convert to Christianity outside the country are unlikely to face adverse attention from authorities upon return to Iran, provided they have not previously come to the attention of authorities for political activities conducted in Iran, maintain a low profile and do not engage in proselytisation or political activities within the country.

   DFAT assesses that small, self-contained house church congregations that maintain a low profile and do not seek to recruit new members are unlikely to attract adverse attention from authorities beyond monitoring and, possibly, low-level harassment. Members of larger congregations that do engage in proselytisation and have connections to broader house church networks are more likely to face official repercussions, which may include arrest and prosecution. The leaders of such congregations are at particular risk in this regard.”

4. In response, the applicant said that no woman could marry a Muslim man unless she converted to Islam.  The Tribunal rejects that claim as it is contrary to country information.  He also said that he could not go to Iran for any period because the people he fears would call him, his wife and his child.  They would do that because of the incident related to X, his own difficulties in Iran related to his views on religion and due to his ‘fight’ here.  He said that whoever leaves Islam is beheaded under Sharia law.  The Tribunal rejects these claims as it does not believe his evidence about the incident related to his friend X, his claims about his religious views and any other basis he claims to have suffered or to be at risk of suffering harm in Iran.

5. In her statutory declaration of 26 February 2018, the applicant’s wife repeated her disapproval of the regime stating that she had no intention of living in Iran and once her family estate was finalised she would renounce her and her child’s citizenship of that country.  While the applicant’s wife makes these claims, for a number of years she has made regular return trips to Iran and stayed for periods that could be seen as relatively lengthy. The fact she has done so causes the Tribunal to reject these claims that she would not live in Iran to be with the applicant and would even renounce her citizenship knowing that could make reunion with the applicant more difficult.

6. Pursuant to s.424A of the Act, by letter dated 18 March 2019, the Tribunal put to the applicant that, according to Department records, since she first came to Australia, his wife had travelled out of the country every year except 2014.  She remained away from Australia for periods ranging from, approximately, six weeks to six months.  Her most recent absence was for a period of approximately six weeks in late 2018.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that since his child’s [birth], his child had also travelled out of Australia every year except 2016.  His child was away from Australia for periods ranging from, approximately, six weeks to two and a half months.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that it understood from his and his wife’s evidence at the hearing that, in the periods mentioned, his wife and child were in Iran.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that this could suggest that his wife and child could live with him in Iran, or, at the very least, visit him there.   

7. In response, in his statutory declaration of 27 March 2019, the applicant said that the travel to Iran made by his wife before he met her in 2012 was, as far as he was concerned, irrelevant to him and he knew nothing about those trips.   The applicant then conceded that his wife did travel to Iran from 2013 until 2018, noting that, in 2018, she made two separate trips, remaining in Iran for a total of [number] days.  He said that, following the birth of their [child], his wife took the child with her on subsequent trips to Iran in view of his very young age.  The applicant said that the purpose of this travel was to attend the funerals of the family members, visit her sick mother and attend to family business concerning the estate of her late father for which she was appointed executrix.  On one of these trips, she remained in Iran for a longer period to renew her passport.  Her travel to Iran in 2013 was to meet the members of the applicant’s family in anticipation of their wedding in November that year.  Another purpose of this travel over these years was for the applicant’s wife to see a daughter from her first marriage to whom custody was granted to her former spouse.

8. In his declaration, the applicant added that his wife sees Australia as her permanent home and she intends to remain here with their child and have him educated here. He also said, in terms of his return to Iran, that he would have to go into hiding to avoid persecution and that would mean that he could not work to support his wife and child. In addition, it would not be possible for him to apply for a visa to return to Australia on the basis of his marriage because the application fee would cause financial hardship. In addition, he understood that determination of the application could take 18 months which would be a ‘massive imposition’ on him, his wife and child to stay in Iran for that period. He speculated that to get a visa would require a waiver of certain conditions under the Migration Act and he was not confident such a waiver would be granted.[19]

   [19] At the hearing the representative made a similar submission as did the applicant’s wife in her statutory declaration of 26 February 2018.

9. The Tribunal has carefully considered these submissions from the applicant as well as the evidence discussed above relevant to the issue of the applicant’s wife and child living with him in Iran either permanently or temporarily for visits.  The Tribunal accepts as credible that the applicant’s wife is by descent, Zoroastrian, and that she follows and practices Christianity.  The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the applicant’s wife about being briefly detained on [different] occasions in the past in Iran in relation to her objection to the dress code.   The Tribunal understands the last occasion to have occurred in 2013, given the applicant’s wife said it occurred six years ‘ago’ and she did not travel to Iran in 2014. While the applicant’s wife complained about the treatment of women in Iran, the Tribunal notes that, according to her evidence, she completed school and was able to attend university.  While she said she did not work after that, she said that this was because she did not find work that was of interest to her as opposed to simply being denied employment altogether.

10. Although the applicant’s wife made these claims about how she was treated in Iran, she has nevertheless returned there a number of times.  The Tribunal accepts that this has been, essentially, for family reasons.  While she claimed that she fears for her safety in Iran, she is nevertheless willing to return there and, as stated above, the last occasion on which she was detained was in 2013.   According to her evidence, she attended church when she lived in Iran and has attended church there subsequently, taking her child to church in 2017.  While initially referring to her safety, the applicant’s wife subsequently said that she did not attend church after that because she did not have time and she had to be there when ceremonies were being held.  The applicant claimed that the Iranian government watched Iranians in Australia and so his wife’s practice of Christianity was kept secret.  Regardless of that claim, the applicant’s wife has not had difficulties with authorities in Iran since 2013. Overall, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s wife and child can practice Christianity in Iran if they were to live or visit there. 

11. The Tribunal is also satisfied that given the applicant is allowed to marry a Christian woman or Zoroastrian, there will be no adverse repercussions for any of them on that ground such that the applicant’s wife and child could not be expected to spend time in Iran with the applicant.  While she said that her child was upset on the first occasion she took him to Iran, she has since subsequently taken him back there.  While her family appear not to have approved of her marriage to the applicant, the applicant made clear in his evidence that his family have come to accept her.  The Tribunal can appreciate any distress she may feel about having access to a child from a former marriage, but, that has not prevented her from spending time in Iran.   While the applicant’s wife claimed that the applicant would be granted custody of their child if they were all in Iran and their marriage failed, at the same time, they are both seeking for them all to remain together as a family.

12. The applicant claimed that if he returned to Iran he would have to hide to avoid persecution and so could not work to support his family.  For the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds there is no credible evidence that the applicant suffered harm in Iran and that anyone in Iran seeks to harm him so his submission is rejected.  The applicant’s wife said that her marriage would end if the applicant was sent to Iran and she could not raise her son alone.  While the applicant’s wife said that she does not work in Australia, she clearly has financial means to undertake travel to Iran.  The applicant can seek work in Iran to also support his family.  The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s wife will also have the emotional support of those here with whom she practices Christianity to help her adjust to impending separation from the applicant for however long that may be.  They both said that they want to raise children and have them educated in Australia; the pair are hoping to have another child.  While that may be so, the applicant’s wife and child can still be expected to spend time with the applicant in Iran and they can seek to have their child enrolled in school there.

13. The Tribunal acknowledges that an application for a visa to return to Australia will involve expense, but, that expense and the time it takes to process the application, do not make unreasonable the expectation that the applicant’s wife and child spend time with the applicant in Iran.  While the applicant submits that any application he makes would be unsuccessful, the fact remains that he has that option available to him.  The Tribunal cannot predict the outcome of that application and is not required to do so in order to determine this review.  The fact remains that it is an application he can make in Iran if he wants to return to Australia and live here.

14. The applicant told the Tribunal that he [had a medical condition] and dealing with ‘mental issues’.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that it was aware that he had been in an accident in November 2016 and was seeing a psychologist (see the discussion below).  The Tribunal put to the applicant that according to available country information the applicant could access health care (including mental health care) in Iran.[20]  In response, the applicant said that he could not obtain health care in Iran.  He said that his mother could not afford to purchase a kilogram of potatoes to eat.  The applicant said that this was due to many issues.  He said that he was taking different types of [medication]. 

    [20] See UNICEF Media Centre, Iran’s Excellent Primary Health Care System, CIS27902 Mental Health Atlas 2011 Iran (Islamic Republic of), World Health Organization, 1 April 2014.

15. When asked why he would not receive that care in Iran, he said that it was because of his background and the difficulties that he had in Iran.  The Tribunal reminded the applicant that he said that his mother had been very sick causing him to obtain a passport to return to Iran.  The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she did not receive healthcare.  In response, the applicant said that she probably received private health care but he did not know how the costs of that care were paid.  Whatever care he could get in Iran would not be the care he would get in Australia.  The Tribunal rejects the applicant’s submissions on this issue.   There is no credible evidence the applicant was harmed in Iran due to his ethnicity or on any ground.  The Tribunal does not accept the applicant will be denied health care in Iran.  The possibility that the standard of that care may be lower than the standard in Australia does not constitute a ground for him remaining in Australia.

16. The Tribunal put to the applicant that there was evidence before it as to his involvement in the local Kurdish community and asked him whether he wished to say more about that.  In response, the applicant said that he kept things secret when he came to Australia because of his fear.  In Australia he had done nothing wrong to harm the community.  He had undertaken and completed [studies] to receive a diploma as an [Occupation 1].  In that role he helped many new migrants to resettle in Australia.  If anything those skills and experience should enhance his ability to find employment on return to Iran.  While the applicant has involvement with the local Kurdish community in Australia, whatever benefit that involvement has given that community, it does not justify the applicant remaining in Australia. 

    Formal finding on whether visa should be cancelled

17. The applicant’s non-compliance is very serious as it goes to the grounds on which he was allowed to remain in Australia.  The Tribunal finds that the applicant can be expected to return to Iran and there is no credible evidence that anyone in Iran seeks to harm him.  In line with the discussion above, the risk of him suffering serious or significant harm, or indeed harm of any severity and on any ground, including his ethnicity, is remote.  Certainly, there is not a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm in Iran. There is not a real risk that he will suffer significant harm there.  The applicant will be held in detention pending his removal from Australia but the period of that detention can be brief if the applicant complies with necessary arrangements to return to Iran. 

1. With respect to international obligations related to his child and family unity, the Tribunal finds that these will not be violated and the best interests of the applicant’s child not compromised by having the applicant return to Iran where he is free to apply for a visa to return to Australia on the basis of his marriage.  This is particularly so when, in line with the discussion above, his wife and child can live with him in Iran for the period it takes for any visa application to be determined (or beyond that period).  In line with the discussion above, they can also visit Iran as they have been doing and stay with the applicant temporarily as a family.  Those visits will alleviate hardship caused through separation from each other due to the applicant’s failure to comply with Australian immigration laws.

2. In reaching these findings the Tribunal took into consideration submissions made by the current and former representative.[21]  It was submitted that the applicant, his wife and child will be harmed in Iran because his wife and child are Christians and the applicant will be regarded as having strayed from Islam and become an apostate.  In support of this submission, the representative submitted country information relating to the treatment of Christians and (former Muslim) converts in Iran. 

   [21] In this respect, the submissions referred to by the Tribunal comprised submissions made orally at the Tribunal hearing by the current representative, submissions made in writing by letters dated 1 March 2019, 10 July 2018 and 7 May 2018 (which are identical to the submissions of 10 July) as well as submissions made in writing by a former representative by letter dated 10 October 2016.

3. The Tribunal held reservations about this country information.  First, some of the sources relied on were dated on this issue.  Second, this country information made broad, somewhat emotive claims that Christians face ‘tremendous persecution’, but, failing to substantiate this with further detail.  Where such details were provided, it was clear that the position conveyed by this country information was the same as that reflected in the country assessment from DFAT which is relied on in this decision.  That position is that those most at risk are Christians, be they converts or otherwise, who evangelise and have some public profile as Christians, such as pastors of unofficial Christian churches.  

4. The applicant’s wife and child are Christians, but, they have spent time in Iran and not suffered harm on that basis.  The applicant’s wife did not at any stage claim to want to evangelise in Iran nor make her faith public in that sense. The Tribunal, for the reasons given above, has no credible evidence about the applicant’s religious beliefs and attitude towards Islam.  As stated above, the country information provides that a Muslim man can marry a Christian or Zoroastrian woman in Iran.  The Tribunal finds that the applicant, his wife and child will not suffer harm because he is a Muslim married to and living with a Christian (originally Zoroastrian) woman raising their child as a Christian.  The Tribunal does not accept as the representative purports to claim that for marrying a Christian woman and living with her the applicant would be considered as having abandoned Islam.

5. The country information provided by the representative also contained claims that Christians and religious minorities in Iran can suffer discrimination but the applicant’s wife made no claim to have been discriminated against when she has been in Iran because she is a Christian. Her last conflict with the authorities was in 2013 and, even if that involved religion in some way, that incident is far too remote in time to indicate that she, the applicant or their child will suffer harm in Iran.

6. The representative also submitted country information about the manner in which Iranian nationals obtain passports in relation to a submission that although leaving Iran unlawfully is a crime it is not impossible.  Those submissions and country information do not assist the applicant because, for the reasons given above, the Tribunal has no credible evidence about the manner in which the applicant left Iran. On his own account, he was issued with an Iranian passport in Australia. 

7. The representative then referred to what he claimed to be generalised violence and a deterioration in security in Iran without providing any country information about that or linking that to how the applicant, his wife and child would be at risk in Iran.  The representative submitted country information about the treatment of ethnic minorities, Kurds and Faili Kurds in Iran.  According to this information, Kurds have a lower standard of living, are treated more harshly in detention and that particularly applies to those who are activists or separatists.  It was noted in this information that the majority of Kurds in Iran are Sunni Muslims whereas Faili Kurds are Shia.  The representative made broad claims about the Shia Islam followed by Faili Kurds being different to that followed by the majority of the population as well as the difficulties they encounter in obtaining citizenship.

8. None of these submissions and country information assist the applicant because the Tribunal, for the reasons given above, finds that it has no credible evidence the applicant suffered harm in Iran based on his ethnicity.  The applicant was able to attend two different universities and, as stated above, he was issued with an Iranian passport in Australia.  The representative then turned to the risk of the applicant suffering harm due to the incident involving his friend X and their respective girlfriends, the representative submitting country information related to the behaviour of the Basiji.  For the reasons given above, the Tribunal disbelieves the applicant’s claims about that incident and so these submissions and country information do not assist him.

100.   The representative also submitted that the applicant would suffer harm in Iran because he is a failed asylum seeker from a western country.[22]  However, these submissions were predicated on the applicant having already been of adverse interest to Iranian authorities based on what he claims were his experiences when he lived in Iran.  For the reasons given above, the Tribunal disbelieves the applicant’s claims about his experiences in Iran and, in line with the country assessment by DFAT, finds that the risk of him suffering serious harm or harm of any kind because he applied for protection in Australia is remote. 

[22] The country information put forward contained an assertion that Iranian dual nationals and citizens are at risk of being accused of being western agents for being in a western country, but, the applicant is not a dual national or citizen and the source mentioned provided no further detail to substantiate the assertion being made.

101.   Some of this country information made reference to Iranians suffering harm on return to their country because of political activism carried out while out of the country including online activism.  For the reasons given above, the Tribunal disbelieves the applicant’s claims about his social media activity and finds that it has no credible evidence about this.  Accordingly, the Tribunal remains of the view that the risk of the applicant suffering serious harm or harm of any kind because he has been in Australia and applied for protection is remote.

102.   The representative also provided country information about human rights practices generally in Iran referring to flaws in the justice system, its unfairness and corrupt nature, the use of torture, arbitrary arrest and poor prison conditions.  It is notable that the victims referred to were political prisoners or activists, and some were evangelical Christian pastors.  The applicant and his wife do not fall into any of those categories.  Therefore, this information does not assist the applicant.

103.   The representative argued that the applicant was a member of particular social groups made up of failed asylum seekers from western countries; those targeted by the Basiji (in relation to the incident concerning his friend X) and Faili Kurds.  There is no need for the Tribunal to determine whether these claimed particular social groups exist because the Tribunal has considered the risk of the applicant suffering harm on any of these grounds and that risk is remote.

104.   In submissions of July 2018, the representative claimed that had the applicant advanced what he now says are his true protection claims he would have been granted protection anyway.  The Tribunal rejects that submission because the Tribunal finds the applicant’s new protection claims, for the reasons given above, to be false.  In submissions made in October 2016 by the applicant’s former representative, it was claimed that the rights of children in Iran are violated, women are disadvantaged, suffer violence and must comply with the dress code.  Country information was put forward on the treatment of women in Iran. It was also asserted that a Muslim man can only marry a non-Muslim woman if she converts to Islam but no country information was provided to support that assertion. 

105.   As stated above, the applicant’s wife and child have travelled to Iran a number of times without being harmed in recent years.  That includes travel to Iran notwithstanding the objections of the applicant’s wife to the position of women in Iran and the way they are to dress.  While women may be disadvantaged in Iran, the applicant’s wife was able to receive full education, a university education and she has accommodation available where she stays on return to Iran.  The risk of the applicant, his wife and child suffering harm or serious harm in Iran on any of these grounds is remote.

106.   With his statutory declaration of 29 March 2019, the applicant annexed the annual report on Iran for 2017/2018 issued by Amnesty International.  The report is broad in its coverage and makes particular mention of repression of dissent. Its coverage of harm related to religion is brief.  The Tribunal prefers the country assessment produced by DFAT as offering a more substantiated analysis of risk of harm based on the grounds that arise in this case, namely, the applicant’s ethnicity, the religion of his wife and child and the fact he has been in Australia and applied for protection.

107.   At the hearing, the applicant said that he had a ‘mental issue for which he saw a psychologist.  To the Department and the Tribunal, the applicant has submitted reports from psychologists related to him and his wife.[23]  According to the most recent assessment, the applicant has a severe case of depression with anxiety, panic attacks and post-traumatic stress disorder.  The applicant’s wife suffers from depression, anxiety and panic attacks.  Earlier reports issued in 2018 contain similar findings.  

[23] Report dated 1 February 2019 relating primarily to the applicant but also discussing his wife's mental health (folios 37 – 39, 114 -115 of the Tribunal file); report dated 4 May 2018 relating to the applicant's wife (folios 90 - 91 of the Tribunal file); reports dated 2 May 2018 relating to the applicant and his wife (folios 85 - 89 of the Tribunal file); report dated 21 October 2016 relating to the applicant  (folios 83 - 84 of the Tribunal file) and report dated 12 October 2016 relating to the applicant (folios 80 - 82 of the Tribunal file).

108.   The Tribunal notes that, in the most recent assessment, the diagnosis of the applicant’s mental state is said to be based on his fears of returning to Iran due to what he claims occurred to him when he lived there.  Similarly, assessments made in 2016 again make statements about the applicant’s mental health based on his claims as to what happened to him in Iran. Both his and his wife’s mental states are also said to be based on concerns about his immigration status.  One psychologist, in assessing the applicant’s wife, states that the applicant and his son are close and the applicant’s presence benefits his child.  In their evidence, the applicant and his wife have made similar claims.

109.   The applicant’s mental state as assessed by these psychologists does not explain or excuse the concerns the Tribunal holds about his credibility.  The applicant and his wife appeared well able to comprehend the questions put to them by the Tribunal and could meaningfully participate in the hearing. As discussed above, country information indicates that any healthcare the applicant or his wife may need in relation to his mental state is available in Iran.  In saying this, the Tribunal notes that with his immigration status resolved, the applicant’s mental state may well improve.  Further, the Tribunal is sceptical of diagnoses based on what the applicant reports to the psychologists about his experiences in Iran.  For the reasons given above, the applicant’s claims about his experiences in Iran are disbelieved. 

110.   The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s return to Iran will cause upheaval for him, his wife and child.  However, as discussed above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s wife and child are free to join him in Iran for periods or permanently.  It is clear from the evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant’s wife has a social circle here in Australia based on her practice of Christianity.  She can turn towards those people for emotional support while she is here in Australia.

111.   The applicant also submitted documents related to injuries [sustained] from a [accident] in November 2016.[24]  According to one of these reports, the applicant has reached ‘maximum medical improvement’, his condition has ‘stabilised’ and he has [details deleted]. Brief references are also made in these materials to the applicant having some history of [a medical condition].  As discussed above, country information indicates that health care is available in Iran for whatever care the applicant needs with respect to this issue.  The Tribunal does not understand applicant’s condition in this respect to prevent him from seeking employment on return to Iran. In his statutory declaration of 26 February 2018, the applicant himself says that his condition has improved.

[24] See two reports dated October 2017 from a [medical professional] (folios 107 – 113 of the Tribunal file) and a letter dated [in] April 2018 from a lawyer assisting the applicant in relation to compensation for this incident ([Document number]).

112.   The Tribunal has also taken into consideration the oral evidence of three witnesses at the hearing.  One of these witnesses stated that she was a Christian who had met the applicant’s wife through her practice of Christianity. She said that she and others go to the home of the applicant’s wife to study the Bible with her.  She added that the applicant’s wife attends different Christian churches.  The witness thought that the separation of the family or the family going to live in Iran could be difficult for all.  The other two witnesses said that they were friends of the applicant and they made claims which are also reflected in a number of letters of support provided to the Department and the Tribunal, those being letters from the applicant’s friends, a Kurdish community group and his landlord.[25]

[25] See folios 92 – 106 of the Tribunal file; [department document numbers].

113.   Those claims can be accurately synopsised as assertions that the applicant is a good person, spouse and father; he has been involved in and helped with the local Kurdish community; he has undertaken courses in Australia and worked here and he and his family are anxious about his immigration status.[26]  Similar claims are made by the applicant, his wife and representative.[27]   The Tribunal acknowledges all of these claims.  However, for the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds that that the applicant’s wife and child can join the applicant in Iran for periods of time each year or permanently.  The applicant’s involvement in the local community, his work and study here do not outweigh the fact that this family has the option of remaining together in Iran.

[26] In one of these documents, the writer asserted that the religious regime in Iran was against the applicant’s beliefs and way of life.  This assertion does not cause the Tribunal to overlook its concerns about the applicant’s credibility and the Tribunal remains of the view that it has no credible evidence as to the applicant’s religious beliefs.  His claims about his difficulties in Iran on that ground are false. 

Documents related to the applicant’s study, work and voluntary work in the Kurdish community appear at [department document number] and folios 97 – 98 of the Tribunal file.

[27] See submissions from the representative dated 10 October 2016 and 10 July 2018 and the statutory declarations of the applicant and his wife made on 26 February 2018.

114.   In written submissions of 1 March 2019, the representative provided the telephone numbers of some of the individuals who had provided supporting letters which have been considered above.  The Tribunal put to the representative that it could see no purpose in taking evidence over the telephone from these people when whatever evidence they could provide had already been given in their supporting letters. The Tribunal gave the representative the option of providing further written statements from these people if he thought that they had any further evidence to give that would assist the applicant.

115.   The Tribunal told the representative that if further statements were provided the Tribunal would determine whether it was necessary to reconvene the hearing to take evidence from these people over the telephone.  No further statements or letters were provided to the Tribunal and the Tribunal saw no purpose in telephoning these various individuals to have them repeat, essentially, the claims they made in their supporting letters and which have been considered above.

116.   For all of the reasons given above, the Tribunal has decided that there was non-compliance by the applicant in the way described in the notice given under s.107 of the Act. Further, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, as discussed above, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.[28]

[28] For the sake of completeness, the Tribunal records that the Department issued a certificate restricting the disclosure of a document on the Department file -  see Department file –[document numbers].  There was no need to raise this with the applicant because those parts of this document that are relevant to the grounds on which this review has been determined have already been disclosed to the applicant as indicated in the decision of the delegate and also in the letter sent to the applicant by the Tribunal pursuant to s.424A of the Act.  The remainder of the contents of the document are not relevant to the grounds on which this review has been determined.  The Tribunal also records that it had access to a number of Department files as listed on the first page of this decision.  Contents from those files relevant to the grounds on which this review has been determined are mentioned above in this decision.

DECISION

117.   The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 866 (Protection) visa.

Paul Millar
Member

evidence when interviewed on 12 June 2010, by an officer of the Department, about his protection

claims; the applicant’s evidence in forms related to his request for a ‘Refugee Status Assessment’ made on 30 July 2010; his statutory declaration made on 30 July 2010; his evidence at an interview with the delegate held on 2 August 2010 for which there is an audio recording and to which the Tribunal has listened and his evidence in forms related to his application for a protection visa made on 6 May 2011.