1819348 (Refugee)

[2019] AATA 5298

1819348 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 5298 (17 April 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1819348

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Iran

MEMBER:Jason Pennell

DATE:17 April 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 17 April 2019 at 12.36pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Iran – imputed political opinion – relationship to people smuggler – particular social group – mental health issues – substance abuse – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 36, 65, 499, 501
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

CASES
Applicant A v MIEA (1997)190 CLR 225
Chan v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and McIllhatton v Guo Wei Rong and Pam Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445

MIEA v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259  

MIMA v Y [1998] FCA 515
MZZIA v MIBP [2014] FCCA 717
Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
Saliba v MIMA (1998) 89 FCR 38

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 on 3 July 2018 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Temporary Protection (Class XD) Subclass 785 visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2.The visa applicant applied for the visa on 16 March 2015. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant is not a person in respect to whom Australia has protection obligation under s.36(2)(a) and s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.

3.The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 27 February 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic (Standard) and English languages.

4.The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

5.For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

RELEVANT LAW

6.The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the 'refugee' criterion, or on other 'complementary protection' grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

1. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.

2. A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country.[1] In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country.[2]

   [1]  s.5H(1)(a) of the Act

   [2]  s.5H(1)(b) of the Act

3. Pursuant to s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a 'well-founded fear of persecution' and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

4. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) ('the complementary protection criterion'). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B) of the Act.

Mandatory considerations

1. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and relevant country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

Character Test Requirements

1. In addition to satisfying the criteria the applicant must also satisfy the character test requirements as set out in the public interest criterion (PIC) 4001 in Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the regulations) and s.501(6) of the Act for the grant of a protection visa. This test rests with the Minister. The Tribunal’s review of his application for a protection visa is confined to a consideration of the s.36 of the Act and does not include an assessment of whether the applicant satisfies the character test requirements.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

1. The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the criteria set out in either of s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa). For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

The applicant’s migration history

1. The applicant arrived in Australia at Christmas Island by boat [in] December 2010. The applicant was held in detention from the date of his arrival until [January] 2015. On 22 January 2015 the applicant was granted a bridging visa and lodged an application for a protection visa on 16 March 2015.

Country of Reference

1. In his application the applicant claimed that his name was [Variant 1 of Applicant’s name]. He claimed that he was born on [DOB 1] in Kuwait and that he was stateless being an ethnic Bidoon. The applicant also claimed that he was also known as [Variant 2 of Applicant’s name] born [DOB 2] and [Variant 3 of Applicant’s name] born [DOB 3].    

2. However, the applicant’s evidence to the department[3] and the Tribunal[4] was that his name is [Applicant’s name deleted], he was born in Kuwait on [DOB 4] and that he was a citizen of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The applicant provided the Tribunal with a number of identity documents in support of his claimed identity, including a copy of his father’s birth certificate and Iranian passport which included the applicants name and photo.[5]  

   [3] Protection Visa Decision record dated 3 July 2018, AAT File 1819348@ f4

   [4] Statutory [Declaration], AAT File 1819348@ f49

   [5] AAT File 1819348@ f24-28

3. Accordingly, based on the applicants oral evidence together with the documents provided to the Tribunal and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal accepts and finds that the applicant was not born on [DOB 1] in Kuwait and that he is not an ethnic Bidoon and not stateless. Rather, the Tribunal finds that he was born in Kuwait on [DOB 4] and is a citizen of the Islamic Republic of Iran and, as such, his protection claims will be assessed against Iran as the country of reference and 'receiving country' respectively.

The applicant’s protection claims

1. The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the criteria set out in either of s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Act. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

2. The applicant’s written claim for protection are set out in his application dated 16 March 2015. The applicant’s protection visa application and the evidence in support of his these claims are contained in Department File No [file number deleted]. The applicant initially claimed he feared being persecuted in Kuwait as a stateless Bidoon. However, he subsequently recanted this claim and advised the department that in 2017 he had been informed by his parents that he was an Iranian citizen born on [DOB 4]. He advised the department that he did not want to remain in Australia and that he did not fear being seriously harmed or significantly harmed on returning to Iran. [6]

   [6] Delegates decision dated 3 July 2018; AAT File 1819348@ f3-4

3. The applicant confirmed to the Tribunal that he no longer maintained his claim being persecuted in Kuwait as a stateless Bidoon. Having found that the applicant a citizen of Iran and not a stateless Bidoon, the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence and finds that the applicant was not persecuted in Kuwait as a stateless Bidoon.

4. However, his evidence to the Tribunal was that he now has serious concerns about returning to Iran which include his mental health issues arising out of his period in detention and homelessness.[7] The applicant claims that:

   [7] Statutory [Declaration], AAT File 1819348 @ f49

   (a)he spent 5 years in detention due to an adverse security assessment by the Australia Security and Intelligence Organisation (ASIO).

   (b)in or about 2018 he was homeless for many months and living in his car.

   (c)the applicant was arrested in November 2018, a result of which he no longer has possession of his car and all his possessions.

   (d)upon the applicant’s release from detention he suffered from homelessness and substance abuse.

   (e)the applicant claims that his [Relative 1] conducted people smuggling operations out of Indonesia. He claims that he was exploited by his [Relative 1] when conducting the smuggling operations and as a result has a poor relationship with his [Relative 1].

   (f)the applicant and his family returned to Iran from Kuwait for approximately 18 months in the late 1990’s but then returned to Kuwait. The applicant claims that he has no recollection of returning to Iran.

   (g)as a result of his prolonged detention and subsequent homelessness the applicant claims to have suffered from serious mental health issues and addiction issues. The applicant claims that in the event he returns to Iran there will be no one to help him and when he is under stress he will face similar issues that he experienced in Australia. The applicant states that in Iran there is no support for individuals with substance abuse and drug addiction issues.

   (h)in or about 2017 the applicant attended the Iranian Embassy in Canberra for the purpose of arranging the necessary documentation to travel to Iran. The applicant states that he was informed that he needed an Immicard or other photo identification with his Iranian name on it so they could search their records.[8] The applicant states that he requested the department to provide such a document to the Iranian Embassy.

   [8] OpCit @ [7]; AAT File 1819348 @ f48

   (i)the applicant claims that he was then informed by the Iranian Embassy that he needed to arrange for the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (‘the MFA’) to issue him with an identity number and that an Iranian citizen (preferably a family member)needed to the contact the MFA on his behalf to arrange the identity number. In or about May 2018 the applicant’s [Relative 1] arranged to have an ‘old friend,’ [Mr A], contact the MFA on the applicant’s behalf and the applicant was issued with an identification number.[9]

   [9]    OpCit @ [8]; AAT File 1819348 @ f47

   (j)The applicant was invited to attend an interview in relation to his application for a protection visa. The applicant declined to attend the interview due to the fact that he intended to return to Iran. The department refused the applicant’s application for a protection visa on 20 June 2018.[10]

   [10]   OpCit @ [9]; AAT File 1819348 @ f47

   (k)The applicant claims that sometime later [Mr A] left the applicant a voice mail message advising that he had been asked to attend another interview with the MFA about the applicant. The applicant claims that [Mr A] attended the interview and was asked a lot of questions about the applicant including how he knew the applicant and his family and why he was helping the applicant. The applicant claims that he and his family have attempted to contact [Mr A] many times but he has not answered their calls.[11]

   [11]   OpCit @ [10]; AAT File 1819348 @ f47

   (l)The applicant claims that about the time he received the message for [Mr A] he was contacted by the Iranian Embassy and told that he needed to provide a lot more information, including why he had received an adverse assessment from ASIO and what information he had provided ASIO.

   (m)The applicant claims that he never provided information to the Iranian Embassy about his dealings with ASIO and that he feared the department may have informed the Iranian Embassy of his dealings with ASIO. The applicant claims that if he returns to Iran he will be questioned in detail about why he lived in Indonesia, why he spoke with ASIO and about his [Relative 1]’s smuggling activities in Indonesia.[12]

   (n)The applicant states that if he returns to Iran he will face a very real risk of serious harm or alternatively significant harm because:[13]

   ·    his [Relative 1]’s profile with the Iranian authorities;

   ·    he was born in Kuwait;

   ·    the length of time he has lived outside of Iran, in particular Indonesia and Australia;

   ·    he has been in contact with ASIO;

   ·    he has been convicted of criminal offences in Australia

   (o)In addition the applicant claims that if he returns to Iran he will face a very real risk of serious harm or alternatively significant harm by reason that he will be required to undertake military service.[14]

   (p)Finally, the applicant claims that if he returns to Iran he will face a very real risk of serious harm or alternatively significant harm as a result of succumbing to his mental health problems, substance abuse and homelessness.[15]

   [12]   OpCit @ [12]; AAT File 1819348 @ f47

   [13]   OpCit @ [13]; AAT File 1819348 @ f47

   [14]   OpCit @ [14]; AAT File 1819348 @ f46

   [15]   ibid

COUNTRY INFORMATION

1. In accordance with the Ministerial direction No 56 made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal in considering the applicants claims, had regard to the country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). In particular, the DFAT report on Iran dated 7 June 2018 (‘the DFAT Report’) notes the following:

   ‘Health[16]

   2.18 Article 29 of the Constitution states that every Iranian has the right to enjoy the highest attainable level of health. The Ministry of Health and Medical Education is responsible for planning, monitoring, and supervising health-related activities for the public and private sectors. Health care and public health services are delivered through a nation-wide network, based on a referral system that starts at primary care centres in the periphery and proceeds through secondary-level hospitals in provincial capitals and tertiary hospitals in major cities. While the government remains the main provider of primary health care services across the country, the private sector also plays a significant role in health care provision, mostly through secondary and tertiary health care in urban areas. Numerous NGOs are active on health issues, particularly in specialised fields.

   2.19 Health care is a major government priority, with expenditure accounting for 6.9 per cent of GDP in 2014. Iran has good health indicators by regional standards. According to the World Health Organization, life expectancy for both sexes increased by four years between 2000 and 2012. In 2017, the CIA World Factbook estimated life expectancy at 74 years (72.7 years for males and 75.5 years for females). Iran has achieved significant reductions in the rates of both under-five and maternal mortality. All Iranian citizens are entitled to basic health care coverage provided by the government, and 90 per cent have health insurance. In 2014, the country introduced a Health Transformation Plan aimed at improving efficiency, equity and effectiveness, particularly in poorer and rural areas.

   2.20 Iran ratified the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities in 2009. Although there are no reliable recent official statistics on the numbers of people living with disabilities, the Iranian Disability Support Association (IDSA) estimates that as many as 12 per cent of Iranians have a disability of some kind. The Comprehensive Act of Supporting the Disabled (2004) commits the government to providing resources to meet disability needs and rights. The Ministry of Cooperatives, Labour and Social Welfare is the responsible department, while a number of other related ministries and NGOs also work in the area.

   2.21 ………………………………………………………………………..

   2.22 Illicit drug use is a serious and growing problem in Iran. According to the UN Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Iran has one of the gravest addiction crises in the world. Health Ministry officials estimate 2.2 million Iranians (2.75 per cent of the population) are drug addicted; doctors and NGOs working in the field believe actual numbers are much higher. Drug abuse occurs across social classes and across genders. A wide range of drugs is readily available, including crystal methamphetamine, painkillers, synthetic hallucinogens, heroin and opium — the latter two trafficked from neighbouring Afghanistan where drug production has risen in recent years. According to local NGOs, a range of factors has contributed to the increase in drug use, including availability (particularly given Iran’s role as entrepot for the trafficking of Afghan heroin to Europe), economic and social frustration, increased urbanisation, greater use of social media, a lack of early intervention programs in schools, and insufficient public awareness of the issue. Drug use has contributed to an increase in the rate of HIV/AIDS.

   2.23 Social taboos against drug addiction inhibit efforts by authorities and NGOs to address the problem. Families frequently ostracise drug users, particularly women who may resort to prostitution to survive. Authorities have focused on reducing the supply of drugs, seizing huge quantities and executing drug smugglers (see Death Penalty). However, these actions have failed to deter the trade. Local NGOs report that police do not generally victimise or harass drug addicts, but occasionally receive orders to round them up. Treatment options for drug users are limited. A December 2016 news bulletin stated that the Health Ministry had authorised 8,000 rehabilitation clinics to begin methadone maintenance therapy, and noted the existence of many private rehabilitation ‘camps’. The news report described some of the latter as resembling minimum security jails. According to NGOs, however, few services are available to assist drug users outside Tehran, and those working in the field have little financial support…………………………………….’

   [16] DFAT report @ p.11

1. The Islamic Republic of Iran Report[17] on mental health care states:

   [17]   Nationwide integration of mental health into primary care, strong commitment of the Ministry of Health and Medical Education in prioritizing health sector reform, together with the government’s control of pharmaceutical pricing and quality assurance and its national capacity to produce most basic medicines, are major strengths and opportunities.[18]

   [18]   Geneva, World Health Organization, 2006 ( Report 2006

   Mental health

   The point prevalence of mental disorders in the Islamic Republic of Iran is estimated to be around 22%,affecting more women than men and having increased considerably according to a recent national survey. An epidemiological study of substance abuse estimated the number of opioid users at more than 3.7 million (i.e. 5% of the population), among which 2.5 million suffer serious social and health problems and at least 1.1 million are dependant. An increasing proportion of drug users are switching from opium to heroin and from smoking to injecting, thereby increasing their risk of contracting HIV/AIDS and hepatitis. A National Mental Health Programme was formulated in 1986 and adopted by the Ministry of Health and Medical Education in 1988. Strong links between mental health professionals and senior ministry administrators were central to the formal adoption of the programme and its subsequent implementation. A national policy and plan for mental health has been in place during the last 19 years, and was recently amended to expand and improve the programme in urban areas. A disaster/emergency preparedness plan for mental health is available and was revised in 2004, following the Bam earthquake. There is a lack of comprehensive and coherent mental health legislation. Many areas such as involuntary hospitalization are not addressed in current laws.

   Primary care and integration of mental health

   The basic unit of health provision in rural areas is the health house. Each health house serves a population of 1000 to 1500 people (usually 2 or 3 villages), and is within a one hour walk for its catchment population. At least one male and one female behvarz (a local person from the same village) work in each health house. Behvarzes have a general education up to secondary school level and two years training in health care, including one week of formal training in mental health. Most also attend refresher courses on health issues. They are a stable presence, remaining in the same health house throughout their careers; hence they acquire a deep insight and knowledge of the health of their catchment population. The next level of care is the health centre (urban or rural), each serving a population of 5000 to 15 000 people. The 2322 rural health centres are staffed by up to three general practitioners, one disease control technician, one family control technician, and in some cases one nurse. General practitioners are highly mobile; they typically stay between 6 and 18 months in a rural health centre before moving elsewhere. The rapid turnover of general practitioners has been a major impediment to successful implementation of integrated programmes. All cities have urban health centres. They are usually larger than their rural counterparts and serve a population of around 12000 people. Staffing and responsibilities are similar to those of rural health centres. At the central level, 317 district health centres typically serve populations of between 20000 and 200000 people. In some populated areas, district health centres serve up to one million people. The district health centre is the smallest autonomous unit in the Iranian health service, and is responsible for the planning, management, implementation, and supervision of activities within its district health network of rural and urban health centres, and health houses.

   Mental health

   Nationwide expansion of primary care during the 1980s provided a good opportunity for integration of other health programmes.13 In 1989, mental health was integrated as a component of primary care, long before many other diseases. In some districts, one psychiatrist is available to provide specialist mental health services. Otherwise, a specially-trained general practitioner provides mental health coverage. The district health centre accepts mental health referrals from urban and rural health centres, but sometimes refers difficult cases to the provincial health centre. There are 40 health centres in 30 provinces – some provinces have more than one medical university, which are responsible for both health services in the catchment area and medical education. The mental health units in these services are staffed by one psychiatrist and one psychologist, who are responsible for the technical, organizational, and administrative management of the services in the periphery. There are also specialist mental health services, mostly based in psychiatric hospitals or psychiatry wards of general hospitals, that provide mental health services to patients referred from district health centres and other urban services.

   Best practice

   An important feature of the Iranian integration of mental health has been its national scale, especially in rural areas. This best practice example therefore examines the nationwide growth of the service and the factors that made this possible.

   Description of services offered

   General practitioners in rural and urban health centres diagnose mental disorders and provide treatment as needed and if within their level of training and expertise. They provide mental health care as part of their general health responsibilities and patients therefore receive integrated and holistic services. General practitioners accept referrals from behvarzes, who have been trained to identify mental disorders. If problems are complex, general practitioners refer patients to district or provincial health centres. General practitioners also provide training to health workers at lower levels of the health system, such as disease control technicians and behvarzes.’

   Military Objectors

   3.101Article 151 of the Constitution commits the government to providing a program of military training for all of its citizens to ensure that they will be able to engage in the defence of the country. Military service is compulsory for men above the age of 18, and most complete between 18 and 24 months of service in a variety of positions. No alternative to military service exists and the government does not recognise conscientious objection. Conditions for conscripts are often poor, with low pay, poor living conditions, malnutrition, and frequent physical and psychological abuse by senior officers all contributing to low morale. However, military service conditions can vary considerably depending on individual placements and circumstances.

   3.102 Article 144 of the Constitution states that the military must be Islamic, must be committed to Islamic ideals, and must recruit individuals who are committed to the objectives of the Islamic revolution. The law does not provide for exemptions from military service based on religious affiliation. The law prohibits non-Muslims from holding positions of authority over Muslims in the armed forces, thus preventing members of religious minorities from making a military career beyond their compulsory military service (although DFAT understands that there are some Sunni officers). The UK Home Office cites reports of harassment and abuse of conscripts due to their faith, which have led in some cases to suicide or self-harm.

   3.103 Authorities can grant an individual exemption from military service on several grounds. These include (but are not limited to) medical reasons, being the only son in the family, having elderly parents, and having a brother currently serving in the military. Homosexuality or a designation as a transsexual are regarded as medical and psychological conditions that warrant an exemption. Those dismissed from military service due to their sexual orientation receive special exemption cards indicating the reason for their dismissal, which may become the basis for later discrimination (see Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity).

   3.104 Wealthy families can purchase exemptions for their sons through paying absence fines. This practice is common: in June 2016, the chief conscription officer for the armed forces told a local newspaper that more than 10,000 people had applied to pay absence fines in the past month alone. The amount of the fine reportedly differs based on levels of education, with those with a higher education liable for higher fines than those without. According to an October 2016 UK Home Office report, absence fines start at approximately USD 6,500 and can run to over USD 13,000.

   3.105 Draft evaders are liable for prosecution. A person who deserts from the military must complete his service on return if he is under the age of 40. Evading military service for up to a year during peace time or two months during war can result in the addition of between three and six months to the total length of required service. More than one year’s draft evasion during peace time or two or more months during war may result in criminal prosecution. Draft evaders may lose social benefits and civic rights, including access to government jobs or higher education, or the right to set up a business. The government may also refuse to grant draft evaders drivers licences, revoke their passports, or prohibit them from leaving the country without special permission. Iranian authorities periodically crack down on draft evaders. In June 2016, the chief conscription officer for the armed forces announced that authorities would intensify the process of identifying and arresting those who had attempted to avoid their military service. DFAT understands that the desire to evade military service is a key motivating factor for the emigration of middle –class families with teenaged sons.

   3.106 DFAT assesses that most (but by no means all) Iranian males will undergo military service. Obtaining an exemption from military service is possible, but depends heavily on individual and socio-economic circumstances. Religious minorities face a moderate risk of harassment on the grounds of their religious faith while undergoing military service. Those seeking to avoid military service are likely to face arrest and restricted access to a wide range of social benefits and civic rights, which may include the ability to leave the country.

Exit and Entry Procedures[19]

[19]  DFAT Report @ p.48

5.20 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. The government does not generally require citizens to possess an exit permit for foreign travel. However, in some cases citizens do require special permission to obtain a passport (see also Passports). This includes: minors under the age of 18, who require the permission of their [Relative 1]/ custodian; males of any age who have not completed their military service, who must present authorities with their military service exemption or the written permission of the Public Military Service Department; married women, who require their husband’s permission. Once in possession of a passport, this group are free to leave the country without obtaining an exit permit to do so. Those whose skills are in particular demand (such as staff at the Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation) and/ or who were educated at government expense are reportedly required to post bond to obtain an exit permit. Iranian citizens residing abroad who are not under the obligation of military service can apply for the issuance of a multiple exit permit through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They are required to provide completed forms detailing their place of residence and requesting a multiple exit permit, evidence of the completion of, or exemption from, military service, the original and photocopies of their existing passport and photocopies of pages related to their previous travel to Iran, a photocopy of their residence permit, and two passport photographs.

5.21Authorities routinely impose travel bans on citizens. Reasons for a travel ban can include security concerns, financial debts, outstanding taxes, crimes committed abroad, and outstanding sentences awaiting enforcement. Civil and political activists are particularly likely to face travel bans. In some cases, individuals must obtain the permission of others to leave the country: the husbands of married women and [Relative 1]s of unmarried women and underage children can request travel bans against their dependents. MOIS and the IRGC have the power to impose travel bans without recourse to the judiciary. Iranians under travel bans are often unaware of their status until they reach passport control at the airport and are prohibited from leaving the country. The presence of security organisations in all Iranian airports, particularly those with border checkpoints, enables authorities to determine whether or not any Iranian citizen can leave the country by air.

5.22 DFAT assesses that leaving Iran through irregular means is more likely to be achievable overland (particularly in rugged mountain areas) than via air or sea, including for registered and unregistered refugees. Under Iranian law, however, smuggling people into or out of Iran is a crime punishable by up to ten years’ imprisonment. The law against people smuggling applies to all Iranian nationals, including those outside the country.

Conditions for Returnees[20]

5.23 Iran has historically refused to issue travel documents (laisser passers) to allow the involuntary return of its citizens from abroad. On 19 March 2018, however, Iran and Australia signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Consular Matters that includes an agreement by Iran to facilitate the return of Iranians who arrived after this date and who have no legal right to stay in Australia.

5.24 The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) runs a program to assist voluntary returnees to Iran, in cooperation with the country from which they are returning. Iranian authorities cooperate with the IOM in this regard. In cases where an Iranian diplomatic mission has issued temporary travel documents, authorities will be forewarned of the person’s imminent return. Authorities will usually question a voluntary returnee on return only if they have already come to official attention, such as by committing a crime in Iran before departing. DFAT is not aware of any legislative or social barriers to voluntary returnees finding work or shelter in Iran, nor any specific barriers to prevent voluntary returnees from returning to their home region.

5.25 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.

National Identity Cards (NID)[21]

5.29 Every permanent resident of Iran over the age of 15 (including non-citizens) must hold a National Identity Card (NID). NID are compulsory for a range of activities, including obtaining passports and driver’s licences and using a bank. ONOCR[22] (also known as Vital Records) initially issues applicants with temporary cards upon receipt of a completed application form, an original copy and photocopy of all pages of the applicant’s shenasnameh, and two photographs. Applicants must present all of this documentation in person at either a local branch of the ONOCR or an Iranian diplomatic mission abroad. The ONOCR then issues a permanent card with a seven-year validity. The front of the NID includes the bearer’s photograph, National Identity Number, full name, date of birth and shenasnameh number. The reverse features the bearer’s residential numerical code, validity date, and the numerical identifier of the issuing office.

5.30 There is no requirement for Iranians to carry either or both of their shenasnameh or NID at all times. They are required only when it is necessary to prove identity – not having them will prevent individuals from being able to complete their business. Different offices require different forms of identification: banks require only NID, while notary public offices require both NID and shenasnameh. Iranians generally check with offices ahead of time to see which form of ID is required, or carry both as a means of security.

[20]  DFAT Report @ p.49

[21]  DFAT Report @ p.50

[22]         ONOCR refers to the National Organisation for Civil Registration

Drugs

24.An Amnesty International report sets out the following relevant information:[23]

[23]   Amnesty International report ‘Addicted to Death: Executions for Drug Offences in Iran dated December 2011, use of crude opium (teriak) and a refined form (shireh), often smoked or drunk, stretches back hundreds of years in Iran. In common with many other countries, in recent decades Iran has seen an explosion in addiction to heroin, often called “crystal” on account of its white powdered or crystalline form, which is usually injected. Most is smuggled into Iran, particularly from Afghanistan. Consumption of other illegal drugs such as crack cocaine and, more recently, amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) such as methamphetamine (“crystal meth” or shisheh) – much manufactured inside Iran - has also grown in recent years.

As well as having one of the world's highest consumption rates of illegal narcotics at over two per cent of the adult population, Iran is also an important transit country for trafficking elsewhere, owing to its long borders with Afghanistan and Pakistan. An estimated 145 metric tonnes of heroin were trafficked into Iran from those two countries in 2009, with most of it trafficked onwards, especially towards Europe. In 2008, over 1,000 metric tonnes of opium, some 450 metric tonnes of which were consumed domestically, are estimated to have been trafficked into Iran.……

Since 2009, Iran also appears to have become a significant location for the clandestine manufacture of methamphetamine, some of which is consumed domestically, but increasing amounts are trafficked to Malaysia, Indonesia and other countries in Asia.

In 2009, the opiate market in Iran was estimated at around US$3 billion.

The majority of the profits went to Iranian criminal groups and, to a lesser extent, foreign drug traffickers based in the country.

Drug use has a devastating effect in Iran: the rate of drug-related deaths is 91 per 1 million people aged 15-64, the fourth highest rates in the world. In addition, a large majority of the over 21,000 known HIV/AIDS cases have resulted from infections arising from the use of injected drugs, according to Iran's National AIDS Committee Secretariat in the Ministry of Health and Medical Education. The first recorded case of HIV transmission through the injection of drugs was identified in 1989. By 1996, drug injection was the most prevalent way to become HIV-positive in Iran. The prevalence of HIV among prisoners is particularly high…..

The death penalty was first introduced for drug trafficking in Iran in 1959. Hundreds of people were executed for this offence under the administration of the former Shah, according to Amnesty International's estimates. The number of executions generally and for drugs offences specifically rose sharply after the Islamic Revolution of 1979. According to Iranian officials, around 18,000 individuals were held in connection with drugs offences in 1979, and hundreds may have been executed between 1979 and 1980. Executions for drugs offences continued at a lesser rate during most of the 1980s, when Iran was at war with Iraq, but rose again sharply after the ceasefire in July 1988.

By 1997, the authorities realised that their draconian approach was not working. The number of users of illegal drugs was continuing to rise and was causing a heavy burden on society, including by contributing to the spread of HIV/AIDS. With this in mind, the Expediency Council amended the Anti-Narcotics Law in November 1997, shortly after the unexpected election victory of the reformist President Khatami. The amended law maintained the death sentence for some drug-related offences. These include: planting poppies, coca or cannabis with the intention to produce drugs, on the fourth conviction; smuggling more than 5kg of opium, cannabis or grass into the country; buying, keeping, carrying or hiding more than 5kg of opium and other specified drugs, on the third conviction; and smuggling into Iran, dealing, producing, distributing or exporting more than 30g of heroin, morphine, cocaine or their derivatives. Armed drug smuggling also continued to attract a mandatory death sentence………

The 2011 Amendments to the Anti-Narcotics Law introduced the death penalty for trafficking or possessing more than 30g of specified synthetic, non-medical psychotropic drugs35 and for recruiting or hiring people to commit any of the crimes under the law, or organizing, running, financially supporting, or investing in such activities, in cases where the crime is punishable with life imprisonment.36 It also provides for a mandatory death sentence for the “heads of the gangs or networks”, although there is no definition given of a gang or network.37 A list of the 17 offences that carry the death penalty in the amended law may be found in Appendix 1 of this report.

The amended law also continues to provide measures for the rehabilitation and reform of drug addicts, rather than criminalizing them. Under Articles 15 and 16, drug addicts are required to seek treatment in authorized rehabilitation and harm reduction centres. Those with a certificate of treatment in a rehabilitation centre are exempted from punishment for offences under the law. Any addict not in possession of such a certificate will be sent to such a centre by a judicial order for six months. This period can be extended once for a further three months at the request of the centre or of the individual with the agreement of the centre. During this time, prosecution of the individual will be suspended. If the centre reports that the individual has undergone successful rehabilitation, prosecution will be dropped. However, unlike the previous law, prosecution is envisaged for addicts who fail to be rehabilitated.38 Penalties include imprisonment, fines or flogging.’

25.VOA news[24] reported in April 2018 that Iran's parliament amended the nation's drug-trafficking laws last October to restrict death sentences to traffickers convicted of carrying weapons, acting as a ringleader, or using mentally ill people and minors under age 18 in a drug crime. It also raised the minimum amounts of illegal drugs that would subject convicted traffickers to the death penalty. The changes took effect in November and were made retroactive, prompting the Iranian government to suspend executions for thousands of convicted drug offenders on death row pending a review of their sentences for potential commutation to prison time.

[24]  VOA News ‘Amnesty Reports Drop in Iran's Drug-Related Executions in 2017’ by Michael Lipin dated April 12, 2018 OF CLAIMS AND FINDINGS

Credibility

26.When assessing claims the Tribunal must make findings of fact in relation to the claims. In doing so, the Tribunal is mindful of the difficulties faced by refugee applicants, including issues related to the use of interpreters, nervousness and anxiety in a Tribunal environment, and stress caused by separation from home and family. There may also be memory issues resulting from the lapse of time, and cultural issues which affect how an applicant answers questions. The benefit of the doubt should be given to an applicant who is generally credible but unable to substantiate all of his or her claims. All this is taken into account in these findings.

1. The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is 'well-founded' or that it is for the reason claimed. Similarly, that an applicant claims to face a real risk of significant harm does not establish that such a risk exists, or that the harm feared amounts to 'significant harm'. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for him or her. It is the responsibility of the applicant to specify all particulars of the claim to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and to provide sufficient evidence to establish the claim. The Tribunal does not have any responsibility or obligation to specify, or assist in specifying any particulars of the claim, or to establish or assist in establishing the claim. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant.[25]

   [25] s.5AAA Migration Act 1958. MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70.)

2. A reasonable approach needs to be adopted when making a finding in relation to an applicant’s credibility.[26] Care must be taken not to exclude from consideration of the totality of some evidence where a portion of it could reasonably have been accepted.

   [26]   Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and McIllhatton v Guo Wei Rong and Pam Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445 per Foster J @ p482

3. If an applicant’s account appears credible, they should, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, be given the benefit of the doubt.[27] However, such a benefit should only be given when all available evidence has been obtained and checked and when the examiner is satisfied as to the applicant's general credibility. The applicant's statements must be coherent and plausible, and must not run counter to generally known facts.

Applicant’s evidence.

[27]  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, Geneva, 1992 at para 196

1. The applicant’s evidence was that he was born in Kuwait on [DOB 4]. The applicant claims that he is a Shia Muslim and a citizen of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The applicant states that his parents currently reside in Indonesia.

2. The applicant arrived in Australia at Christmas Island by boat [in] December 2010 and was held in detention from the date of his arrival until [January] 2015. The applicant’s evidence was that his [Relative 1] is currently a people smuggler in Indonesia. He said that he has [siblings] living in Indonesia. He stated that he also has a [brother] living in in Australia who arrived by boat in 2015.

3. The applicant’s evidence was that he has never attended school. However, he said that he worked in a [business] in Jakarta that was owned and operated by his family.  The applicant said that he was currently in detention and not working but said that he has worked in a [workplace] for approximately 3 months in 2015 and as [an occupation] in 2016 for approximately 12 months.

4. The applicant has been in detention since December 2018 having been placed there since serving two months in prison. The applicant’s evidence was that he was in jail as a result of having breached an intervention order. However, the documentation provided, in particular the report of Professor [B] as dated 13 March 2018[28] indicates that he was incarcerated as a result of criminal activities related to his substance abuse and homelessness.

   [28]  Professor [B] dated 13 March 2018

5. The applicant claims that he was in detention for many years after arriving in Australia in 2010 as a result of security issues arising from his [Relative 1]’s people smuggling activities in Indonesia. Other than his own testimony the applicant did not provide any evidence of his [Relative 1]’s activities in Indonesia. In addition, the applicant did not provide any additional evidence in relation to his alleged discussions with ASIO. When the applicant was questioned about the nature and content of his discussions with ASIO, he refused to provide any further evidence.

6. The applicant was released from detention in 2015 on a bridging visa and applied for a protection visa as a stateless Bidoon from Kuwait. However, in 2017 the applicant’s mother advised that, despite having been born in Kuwait he is an Iranian citizen. As a result identity documents were sent to the applicant confirming his Iranian citizenship. Based on the documents received it appears that the applicant was [aged deleted] when he arrived in Australia. The applicant’s evidence was that he had wanted to return to Iran. However, he states that Iran would not accept him without disclosing details of his interview with ASIO, which he was prevented for doing as a result of his undertaking with ASIO.[29]

   [29]        Op Cit  @ p.2

7. The applicant claims that he is concerned as to what will happen to him if he returns to Iran, given what the Iranian authorities may know about his [Relative 1] and because of his own mental health issues including substance abuse.

Applicant’s Refugee Claim

1. The applicant claims that in the event he is returned to Iran there is a real chance he will suffer serious harm by reason of the following:

   (a)his imputed political opinion of being opposed to the Iranian regime by reason of his [Relative 1]’s profile with the Iranian authorities.

   (b)his imputed political opinion of being opposed to the Iranian regime by having been born in Kuwait and having lived outside of Iran, in particular Indonesia and Australia.

   (c)his imputed political opinion of being opposed to the Iranian regime by having been in contact with ASIO.

   (d)as a member of a social group consisted of those who have has been convicted of criminal offences in Australia. 

   (e)as a member of a social group who would be required to undertake military service.[30]

   (f)as a member of a social group who would succumb to his mental health problems, substance abuse and homelessness.[31]

   [30]        OpCit @ [14]; AAT File 1819348 @ f46

   [31]        ibid

2. As a result the applicant claims that he is a person who has a well-founded fear of persecution, pursuant to s.5J(1) of the Act. That is, there is a real chance he will suffer serious harm if he returns to Iran by reason of his imputed political opinion by reason of his [Relative 1]’s profile, having been born and lived outside Iran and his contact with ASIO. In addition he states that there is a real chance he will suffer serious harm as a member of a social group as a person, who has been convicted of offences in Australia, will be required to undertake military service if he returns and that he suffers from mental health issues.

Applicant’s Relevant Grounds

1. The applicant submits that his claims falls within the scope of s.5J(1)(a) of the Act by reason of his imputed political opinion as a person who has apostatised against the Iranian regime. A political opinion need not be an opinion that is actually held by the refugee. It is sufficient that such an opinion is imputed to the applicant by the persecutor.[32] In Saliba v MIMA[33] the Court held:

   ... for Convention purposes, a claimant’s political opinion need not be expressed outright. It may be enough that a political opinion can be perceived from the claimant’s actions or is ascribed to the claimant, even if the claimant does not actually hold the imputed opinion.

   [32]    MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 571 referring to Chan v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379 at 416 per Gaudron J and at 433 per McHugh J.

   [33] (1998) 89 FCR 38 at 49.

2. In MIMA v Y[34], the Court,  when considering the ‘political opinion’ under the Refugee Convention stated that ‘[t]he words ‘political opinion’ are ordinary words of the English language and have not been the subject of judicial exposition limiting their meaning in the context of the Refugees’ Convention’.[35] The Court considered the Tribunal’s finding that the applicant’s stance against criminal activity by police was an expression of a political opinion and held:

   ‘In the context of the Refugees’ Convention, an opinion could be thought to be a political opinion if it were such as to indicate that its holder ... held views which were contrary to the interests of the State, including the authorities of the State. A person may be regarded as an enemy of the State by virtue of holding and propounding views which are contrary to the views of the State or its Government, or which are antithetic to the Government and the instruments which enforce the power of the State, such as the armed Forces, Security Forces and Police Forces or which express opposition to matters such as the structure of the State or the territory occupied by it and like matters.’

   [34]    MIMA v Y [1998] FCA 515 (Davies J, 15 May 1998) at 5.

   [35] [1998] FCA 515 (Davies J, 15 May 1998) at 4.

3. In circumstances where the applicant claims he was born and lived outside Iran, his [Relative 1] is a people smuggler in Indonesia and he has contact with ASIO, it is likely that the applicant will be imputed by the authorities with a political opinion that is contrary to the Iranian regime.

4. In addition, the applicant submits that his claims fall within the scope of the refugee criterion by reason of his membership of a particular social group.  It is necessary for the applicant to be a member of a social group that he shares a certain characteristic or element that unites him with a particular group and enables the group to be set apart from society at large. That is, not only must the applicant with his group exhibit some common element, it must unite them, making them a cognisable group within their society.[36] In this case the applicant claims that he is a member of a social group on account that he is an Iranian citizen who was convicted of criminal offences in Australia, suffers from mental illness and be required to undertake military service upon his return. In this case the tribunal accepts that he is a member of a social group on account of each of the matters raised by the applicant.

Applicant’s well-founded fear.

[36]    Applicant A v MIEA (1997) 190 CLR 225 per Dawson J at 241, McHugh J at 264-266 and Gummow J at 285.

1. In Chan v MIEA[37] the Court held that ‘well-founded fear’ involves both a subjective and objective element. That is, the definition will be satisfied if an applicant can show genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of persecution. Justice Dawson noted that the phrase ‘well-founded fear of being persecuted...’ contains both a subjective and an objective requirement. That is, there must be a state of mind (fear of being persecuted) and a basis (well-founded) for that fear.[38]

   [37] (1989) 169 CLR 379 at 396.

   [38] (1989) 169 CLR 379 at 396. See also MIEA v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 263 per Brennan CJ, Toohey, McHugh and Gummow JJ.

2. The subjective element of ‘well-founded fear’ concerns the state of mind of the applicant. That is, whether an applicant has a genuine fear is a question of fact. In this case based on the evidence of the applicant the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has a subjective fear of being harmed or of being persecuted in the event that he returns to Iran.

3. However, to hold a ‘well found fear of persecution’ on an objective basis the applicant’s claim must be more than merely plausible or credible. In Chan v MIEA, Dawson J [39]stated:

   “Well-founded” must mean something more than plausible, for an applicant may have a plausible belief which may be demonstrated, upon facts unknown to him or her, to have no foundation.’

   [39]  Chan v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379 per Dawson J at p.397

1. In MIEA v Guo, the Court stated that: ^[40]

   ‘Conjecture or surmise has no part to play in determining whether a fear is well‑founded. A fear is “well-founded” when there is a real substantial basis for it. As Chan shows, a substantial basis for a fear may exist even though there is far less than a 50 per cent chance that the object of the fear will eventuate. But no fear can be well-founded for the purpose of the Convention unless the evidence indicates a real ground for believing that the applicant for refugee status is at risk of persecution. A fear of persecution is not well-founded if it is merely assumed or if it is mere speculation.’

The Applicant’s [Relative 1]

[40]   MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 572; cf MIEA v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 293.

1. The applicant claims that if he is returned to Iran there is a real chance he will suffer serious harm by the authorities by reason of his [Relative 1]’s activities as a people smuggler in Indonesia. However, apart from the applicant’s claim there is no evidence that the applicant’s [Relative 1] is engaged in people smuggling activities in Indonesia. Despite having contact with his [family] in obtaining the necessary documentation to evidence his Iranian citizenship, save for his oral evidence, the applicant did not provide any other evidence to the Tribunal in relation to his [Relative 1]’s activities in Indonesia.

2. In addition, there was no evidence that the applicant engaged in the business people smuggling himself. Despite the applicant’s evidence was that as a child he had helped his [Relative 1], there was no evidence that he was involved in conducting business as a people smuggler.   The applicant has not been charged with any smuggling offence in Australia and travelled to Australia claiming to be a refugee passenger and not as an operator of the boat. 

3. While the Tribunal accepts that if the applicant’s [Relative 1] was a people smuggler as claimed that he would be of interest to the Australian and Iranian authorities. However, this does not mean that the applicant is imputed with the offences of his [Relative 1]. Nevertheless, the Tribunal accepts that if the applicant’s [Relative 1] was a people smuggler, as claimed, then he may be arbitrarily detained by the Iranian authorities[41] However, given the passage of time since the applicant first arrived in Australia, the fact that he was only a child at the time he is said to have assisted his [Relative 1], his relative young age when he arrived in Australia and the changed circumstances concerning the arrival of refugee boats from Indonesia to Australia,[42]  the Tribunal is of the view that any information the applicant may be able to provide would be of limited interest to the authorities. As such, if the applicant’s [Relative 1] was a people smuggler the Tribunal is of the view the applicants involvement with his [Relative 1]’s activities was so minimal and given the passage of time is now so remote that in the event he was detained the information he would be able to provide the authorities would be of little value. As such, the Tribunal finds that any such detention on the basis that his [Relative 1] was a people smuggler would not amount to serious harm.

   [41] DFAT Report @ p.42

   [42]  Huffpost ‘All The Times The UN Has Slammed Australia's Asylum Seeker Policy, It's a long, long list our politicians are ignoring’ by Josh Butler 25/07/2017, Refugee Council of Australia, ‘People whom come by Boat’ 17 May 2014 Parliament of Australia ‘Boat arrivals and boat ‘turnbacks’ in Australia since 1976: a quick guide to the statistics 17 January 2017 type="1">

4. In any event, the applicant’s evidence concerning his [Relative 1]’s activities was vague and lacking in any detail. The applicant did not provide any detail as to the [Relative 1]’s activities including where he conducted the business, how each person was charged and the number and nationality of refugees. Therefore, given the lack of evidence to support the applicant’s claim concerning his [Relative 1]’s activities the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s evidence that his [Relative 1] was engaged in people smuggling activities. As such it finds that the there is no real chance the applicant will face serious harm upon his return to Iran by reason of his [Relative 1]’s activities as claimed.

Applicant’s contact with ASIO

1. The applicant claims that he will be imputed with a political opinion of being against the Iranian regime by reason of his dealings with ASIO. The applicant claims that the Iranian Embassy contacted [Mr A] and requested that he provide further information about the applicant including why he had received an adverse assessment by ASIO.  The applicant claims that he never provided information to the Iranian Embassy about his dealings with ASIO and that he feared the department may have informed the Iranian Embassy of his dealings with ASIO. The applicant did not provide the Tribunal with any documentary evidence from the Iranian Embassy or any statement from [Mr A] in support of his claim that [Mr A] was contacted by the Iranian Embassy and his dealings with the Embassy. According, to the applicant [Mr A]’s contact with the Iranian authorities was with the MFA. As such there does not seem to be any logical reason why the Iranian Embassy would contact [Mr A] directly or even question him about the applicants dealing with ASIO. The applicant’s evidence in relation to [Mr A] contact with the authorites was at best vague and he was not able to provide any direct evidence form [Mr A] as to his contact with the Iranian authorities. As such the the tribunal does not accepts the applicants evidence that [Mr A] was contacted by the Iranian Embassy as claimed. 

2. The applicant claims that he had received an adverse security assessment from ASIO. However, the applicant’s evidence concerning his contact with ASIO was vague and lacking any detail. For example he did not provide any information concerning where or when he met representatives of ASIO, the number of meetings between him and ASIO, who from ASIO he met with or the nature or content of his discussions. Despite the Tribunal requesting the applicant provide some detail concerning his discussions with ASIO, the applicant refused to do so. He claimed that it would breach his confidentiality agreement with ASIO. The Tribunal does not accept that by proving details of his conversations with ASIO (that is, when, where and how many times) that the applicant would have disclosed any confidentiality agreement any more than he has already done so by alleging he had such discussions. Other than his oral evidence, the applicant did not provide any evidence of any confidentiality agreement between himself and ASIO any other evidence to support his claim that he had contact with ASIO.

3. Other than his evidence that his [Relative 1] was a people smuggler, which the Tribunal has rejected, the applicant did not provide any evidence to support his claim that he had contact with ASIO and that he had received an adverse security assessment from the organisation. The Tribunal notes that the applicant was [age deleted] at the time he arrived in Australia. Therefore, in the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary, it is unlikely that the applicant had the experience or knowledge to attract the attention of the authorities as claimed. Accordingly, the Tribunal rejects the applicant’s evidence and finds that he did not have any contact or receive an adverse security finding from ASIO as claimed. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the there is no real chance the applicant will face serious harm as a result of his contact with ASIO or for any adverse security findings made by the organisation as claimed.

Applicant’s Criminal Convictions

1. The applicant claims that as a result of having been convicted of criminal offences in Australia there is a real chance he will suffer serious harm by the authorities in Iran. The applicant did not provide any documentary evidence of the charges or his conviction, but states that he was convicted of charges relating to a breach of an intervention order. The Tribunal notes that Professor [B] in his report, on the instructions of the applicant’s representative, that he was convicted of charges relating to substance abuse and homelessness. Accordingly, based on Professor [B] report the Tribunal accepts that the applicant was convicted of charges relating to his homelessness and substance abuse. While no details of the charges as alleged were provided, the fact that they arise as a consequence of the applicant’s substance abuse and homelessness they appear to be on the lower end of the offending scale. That is, there is no allegation that he was convicted of any serious crime such as trafficking or violent crime.   Accordingly the Tribunal accepts and finds that the applicant was charged and convicted with the offences relating to substance abuse and homelessness.

2. The applicant states that because he has been convicted of criminal offences in Australia the Iranian authorities will be very suspicious of him and he fears that he will be detained, tortured and mistreated on his return. The applicant claims that it is not uncommon in Iran for people who have been convicted in other countries and served their prison sentences to be detained and re-prosecuted once they return to Iran. The applicant did not provide any evidence of this occurring and the country information provided did not support the application’s contention that people who have been convicted of drug charges in a foreign country and served their sentence in that country are detained and re-prosecuted upon their return to Iran.

3. In considering the applicants claim the Tribunal has had regard to the country information regarding the risk of double jeopardy which indicates that there is no real risk of double jeopardy in Iran.[43] The issue was raised with the applicant during the course of the hearing. The Tribunal indicated that it had not yet come to any view as to whether double jeopardy applied in Iran and in particular to the applicant. It invited the applicant (through his representative) to make any further submission he deemed appropriate on the issue. Save to repeat his claim and state that he believed that he would be detained and re-prosecuted for the drug crimes upon his return to Iran, the applicant did not make any further submission on the issue of double jeopardy in Iran.  

   [43]   Home Office; ‘Country Policy and Information Note Iran: Fear of Punishment for Crimes Committed in other countries (‘Double Jeopardy’ or re-prosecution)’ Version 1.0; January 2018; >

   Iran is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 14 (7) of the ICCPR states:[44]

   ‘No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted with the law and penal procedure of each country.’

   [44]   International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 14 (7).

4. Iran complies with the ICCPR to the extent that double jeopardy (or re-prosecution) is covered by Article 7 of the Iranian Penal Code (‘the Code’). It states that any Iranian national who commits a crime outside Iran and is found in, or extradited to, Iran shall be prosecuted and punished in accordance with the laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

5. Therefore, while the provision of Art 7 of the Code provides that Iranian Courts will have jurisdiction to re-try a matter which had occurred outside Iran, the principle of double jeopardy only applies to ta’zir, crimes whose specific cases and punishments are not prescribed in sharia law. Almost all ta’zir crimes are dealt with in Code and the judge may apply the punishments prescribed in the code. Crimes punishable by ta’zir include bribery, money laundering and those covered by Iran’s anti-narcotics law.[45] As such crimes involving drug trafficking will generally fall under the anti-narcotics law and will not be subject to re-prosecution unless they involve attacks on Iranian national interests (i.e. breaking into diplomatic and consular premises, physical aggression and/or assault on Iranian diplomatic and consular officers) or involve activity which is deemed to be openly hostile to the Iranian regime, that is public speeches, demonstrations or rallies.[46] There is no suggestion or evidence by the applicant that he has engaged in any such behaviour that was openly hostile to the Iranian regime.  

   [45]   Home Office; ‘Country Policy and Information Note Iran: Fear of Punishment for Crimes Committed in other countries (‘Double Jeopardy’ or re-prosecution)’ Version 1.0; January 2018 @ p.5

   [46]  Ibid.

6. Crimes punishable by Hudad, which include illicit sex and sodomy, or punishable by Qisas, for example murder, may be liable to re-prosecution in Iran in circumstances where the victim of the crime or a party who has sustained damages makes a complaint to the Public Prosecutor Office and the Penal Court. Therefore, to initiate a double jeopardy proceeding there must be a private complaint and the crime must be Hodoud or Qesas.[47] Therefore, given the limited scope of offences to which double jeopardy may apply and the specific exclusion of those punishable by ta’zir there is no real chance the applicant will be re-prosecuted for his substance abuse or homelessness offences (or a conviction for having  breached an intervention order) in Australia upon his return to Iran.[48]

   [47] OpCit p.12

   [48] OpCit p.4

7. Therefore, in circumstances where the applicant is an Iranian national having been convicted and punished of substance abuse and homelessness in Australia, the applicant cannot be punished for the same offences in Iran.[49] Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance of the applicant being re-prosecuted for the same drug offences for which he was convicted and punished in Australia.

   [49] Op Cit p.14

8. In addition, the Tribunal is mindful of the country information which indicates that people with a political profile or activity may be falsely prosecuted on drug charges.  Having found that the applicant’s [Relative 1] was not involved in people smuggling as claimed and that the applicant did not meet with ASIO or receive an adverse security report as claimed, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has the political profile that would lead the Iranian authorities to re-prosecute the applicant on drug charges. The Tribunal does accept that the applicant may be imputed with a political opinion adverse to the Iranian regime as a result of the length of time he has lived outside Iran. However, having found that the applicant does not have the political profile that would lead the Iranian authorities to re-prosecute the applicant it finds that there is not a real chance that the applicant will be detained.   

9. Finally, the Tribunal notes that the Department of Home Affairs does not disclose criminal convictions to the Iranian authorities.[50] As such, the Tribunal does not accept that the Iranian authorities will have knowledge of the applicant’s convictions in Australia.

   [50] Part VIIC of the Crimes Act 1914 (Part VIIC). Australian Government, Offcie of the Australia Information Commissioner,  >

   Accordingly the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution in the event that he returns to Iran by reason of having been convicted of drug or homelessness charges as claimed.

Applicant born in Kuwait and lived outside Iran

1. The applicant claims that there is a real chance the he will suffer serious harm by the Iranian regime by having been born in Kuwait and having lived outside of Iran, in particular Indonesia and Australia, for an extended period of time. The applicant did not provide any detail of the harm he fears as a result of having been born and having lived outside Iran.

2. Nevertheless, given the length of time he lived outside of Iran, the Tribunal accepts that upon his return to Iran he may be detained and questioned as to his circumstances of having been born outside of Iran and lived overseas. The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant has suffered for mental helath issues and homelsness as a resuly of his detention in Australia, however, based on the avalibale count ry information the tribuna is satisfied that he would be able to receive the necessary treatment for his mental health in Iran. As such, despite the chance of being detained, the Tribunal does not accept that any such detention will constitute serious harm.

3. The Tribunal has rejected the applicant’s evidence in relation to his [Relative 1]’s activities as a people smuggler and his contact with ASIO as claimed. In addition, it has found, based on the country information that there is no real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm as a result of his criminal convictions. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution in the event that he returns to Iran by reason of having been born in Kuwait and having lived in Indonesia and Australia as claimed.

Applicant’s Potential Military Service.

1. The applicant claims that in the event that he returns to Iran he will be forced to undertake Military Service. The Tribunal notes that DFAT assesses[51] that most (but by no means all) Iranian males will undergo military service.  Authorities can grant an individual exemption from military service on several grounds, including (but are not limited to) medical reasons, being the only son in the family, having elderly parents, and having a brother currently serving in the military. Obtaining an exemption from military service depends greatly on individual and their socio-economic circumstances.[52]

   [51] DFAT Report @ p.37-8

   [52] Ibid

2. Therefore, in the event that the applicant returns to Iran it is likely that he may be required to complete his Military Service. The Tribunal notes that given the applicant’s claim concerning his mental health that he may be able to obtain an exemption from completing his service.

3. Nevertheless, even if the applicant is required to complete the military service it does not constitute persecution by reason that he will be able to obtain the required medical treatment in Iran. .[53] There is no evidence to suggest that by performing his military service the applicant will be subjected to any treatment beyond norm for those completing their military service to the extent that it would be considered serious harm, including significant physical harassment or ill treatment. 

   [53] Section 5J(5) of the Act

4. Therefore, while the prospect of completing military service may not be considered ideal for the applicant, it does not, in all the circumstances’, constitute serious harm. As such, The Tribunal finds that there is no real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm as a result of completing his military service on his return to Iran.

Applicant’s Mental Health

1. The applicant claims that in the event that he is returned to Iran that he will be seriously harmed by reason of his mental condition. He fears that in the event he is placed under stress, he will have no support and face similar problems he has experienced in Australia.[54]  The applicant provided a report by Professor [B] dated 13 March 2018 in support of his claim.  The report states that the applicant suffers from severe depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and panic attacks. It is noted that none of these conditions are likely to resolve while the applicant remains in detention. Further, the report states that he remains vulnerable to misuse of substances and that he is ill-equipped to implement decisions about his future. It notes that if he travels to Iran that he would need some level of assistance. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has spent a lot of time in detention and accepts the contents reports diagnosis that he suffers the symptoms referred to in the report.

   [54] Statutory [Declaration] @ paragraph 15 AAT File 1819348 @ f47

2. Nevertheless, despite the Tribunal accepting that the applicant suffers the symptoms referred to in the report, at all times through the course of the hearing, the Tribunal found the applicant to be lucid and cognisant, able to give evidence and respond meaningfully to the Tribunals questions.  

3. An Article in the The Conversation dated 3 July 2014[55] notes that while Iran has a long history of drug use and that its laws on drug possession and trafficking are also among the toughest in the world, it notes that since the early 2000s, it has introduced some of the most progressive practices of addiction treatment and rehabilitation, including what is usually referred as harm reduction.  Harm reduction is a set of practices aimed at reducing the harm of illicit drugs, through a humanitarian and philanthropic support to drug users. It includes the provision of clean needles and syringes to injecting drug users (also in prison) as well as distribution of condoms to sex workers; similarly, that it contemplated the use of methadone, a pharmaceutical drug, as a substitute drug for heroin and opium.[56]

   [55] THE CONVERSATION, ‘The paradox of Iran’s war on drugs and its progressive treatment of addiction’ dated 3 JULY 2014 http:// TheConversationThe-paradox-of-Iran’s-war-on-drugs-and-its-progressive- treatment-of-addiction’-28701.

   [56] ibid

4. The Article notes that while harm reduction has often been ostracised by central governments and the general public in Western countries, its successful implementation in Iran – ‘a country ingrained with moral conservatism and characterised by suspicion towards deviant behaviours such as drug use and sexual promiscuity’[57] – calls for a reassessment of our understanding and portrayal of it.

   [57] ibid

5. It reported that this approach has been championed by both the public and private institutions. It claims[58] that today every Iranian city and even many towns and villages, have methadone clinics, rehabilitation centres and ‘detox camps’, to which people seeking support or medical treatment can resort. NGOs are also active at the margins of the cities providing clean syringes and limited everyday medical care for street addicts.

   [58] ibid

6. Therefore, alongside the market for illegal drugs, an industry has developed in the treatment and rehabilitation of addicts as evidenced by large numbers of private centres working in the field. The article notes that State institutions provide free access to public clinics for poorer drug users and while it notes that the intervention and release of the poorer addicts back into society is complex and requires more attention, it notes that poorer addicts are periodically collected and sent to compulsory treatment centres for a period of one to three months.[59]

   [59] ibid

7. The Tribunal has considered the country information in relation to the applicant’s mental health and notes that mental health has been integrated into the area of primary care. It is noted that given that substance abuse is one of the major causes of mental disorders in Iran, screening for psychiatric disorders is now incorporated in the primary care of patients.[60]

   [60]  Sharifi V. Urban Mental Health in Iran: Challenges and Future Directions. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences. 2009; Noorbala AA, Bagheri Yazdi SA, Yasamy MT, Mohammad K. Mental health survey of the adult population in Iran. Br J Psychiatry. 2004; type="1">

8. The World Health Organizations report on the mental health system in Iran reports that since the mid 1980’s there have been vast improvements in the care of mental health in Iran. The report notes that Iran provides a national programme on mental health which has been amended over time. The result is that it covers not only the urban area but a large portion of the rural communities with a predominance of outpatient care. The health system provides active screening and follows up on patients.[61] Therefore based on the available country information the Tribunal finds that the applicant will be able to access the necessary care and support in relation to his mental health and substance dependence when appropriate. In particular he would be able to receive adequate treatment (e.g. counselling; psychotherapy; medication) for his diagnosed conditions.[62] Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance the applicant will be seriously harmed by reason of his mental health or substance abuse in the event that he returns to Iran.

Imputed political opinion as a failed asylum seeker

[61] World Health Organisation, WHO-AIMs Report Mental Health System in the Islamic republic of Iran 2006,

Nationwide integration of mental health into primary care,   type="1">

The Tribunal has considered that if the applicant is removed from Australia to Iran as a failed asylum seeker and/or a forced returnee the possibility that he may be imputed with an adverse political opinion or imputed with a political opinion of being opposed to the Iranian regime and having alleged persecution by the regime abroad.

However, the advice from DFAT[63] is that while it is possible that a known dissident may be prosecuted, it is unlikely that an individual simply claiming asylum overseas will be prosecuted as an asylum seeker. The question for the Tribunal is whether the applicant will come to the attention of the Iranian authorities on or after his return to Iran as a failed asylum seeker, and so be imputed with an anti-government political opinion as a result. The available country information indicates that for a person to be returned to Iran without a valid Iranian passport it would be necessary for them to come to the attention of the Iranian authorities. The applicant claims to not have a valid Iranian passport, which is accepted by the Tribunal.  The Tribunal further accepts that the applicant may be asked questions both in Australia at the time when his departure is being organised (voluntary or involuntary) and upon his return to Iran.

[63] DFAT advice dated 9 June 2018

The Tribunal has assessed the applicant’s case on the basis that he is likely to be stopped, interviewed and have his case ‘examined in detail’, as a forced returnee. 

The Tribunal has not accepted the applicant evidence that he will be re-prosecuted for the drug and homelessness offences (including any conviction for a breach of an intervention order) in Iran. In addition the Tribunal has found based on the applicant’s evidence that the risk of the authorities discovering his criminal conviction is remote. The Tribunal has not accepted the applicant’s evidence in relation to his [Relative 1]’s activities and his contact with ASIO and the alleged adverse report by that organisation.  Therefore, in the event that the applicant is stopped and interviewed, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance he will suffer serious harm as a result of adverse political opinion or that he will be imputed with a political opinion of being opposed to the Iranian regime by having alleged persecution by the regime abroad.

Therefore, the Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance the applicant will be persecuted on return to Iran, either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future by reason of his membership of a particular social group, his political opinion or any other Convention reason. 

Having considered the applicant’s claims singularly and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm. As syc the Tribunal finds that he does not face a real chance of serious harm, now or into the reasonably foreseeable future, for any reason.

The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) for a protection visa and as such he is not a person to whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution

Applicant’s complementary protection claim

1. The applicant claims that, without conceding in any way his claims under section 36(2)(a) of the Act that the same factual matrix may invoke Australia’s protection obligations under complementary protection criteria pursuant to s.36(2)(aa) of the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal has also considered the application of s.36(2)(aa) to the applicant’s circumstances. That is, the Tribunal has considered if the applicant faces a real risk of significant harm on return his return to Iran on the basis of his claims detailed above. The Tribunal notes that the 'real risk' test imposes the same standard as the 'real chance' test applicable to the assessment of 'well-founded fear'. ^[64]

   [64]   MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33,

2. The Tribunal has made earlier findings that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm arising from the applicant’s claims. As the ‘real risk’ test is the same as the ‘real chance’ standard, for the reasons stated above in relation to each of the applicants claims, the Tribunal does not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia.

3. The Tribunal has considered if there is any reason to believe, the applicant will face a real risk of significant harm as contemplated by s.36(2)(aa). Significant harm is different from the concept of serious harm as required by s.5J(4)(b) in the context of s.36(2)(a).[65]

Applicant’s Potential Military Service.

[65]   In MZZIA v MIBP [2014] FCCA 717 (Judge Riethmuller,16 April 2014) the Court observed that there is a significant overlap in the meaning of the two terms, e.g. a risk of being killed is sufficient to fulfil both: at [34].

1. As refered to above the applicant claims that in the event that he returns to Iran he will be forced to undertake Military Service. The Tribunal notes that DFAT assesses[66] that most (but by no means all) Iranian males will undergo military service.  Authorities can grant an individual exemption from military service on several grounds, including (but are not limited to) medical reasons, being the only son in the family, having elderly parents, and having a brother currently serving in the military. Obtaining an exemption from military service depends greatly on individual and their socio-economic circumstances.[67]

   [66] DFAT Report @ p.37-8

   [67] Ibid

2. Therefore, in the event that the applicant returns to Iran it is likely that he may be required to complete his Military Service. The Tribunal notes that given the applicant’s claim concerning his mental health he may be in a position to be able to obtain an exemption from completing his service.

3. Nevertheless, even if the applicant is required to complete the military service it does not constitute significant harm pursuant to s36(2A) of the Act. There is no evidence to suggest that by performing his military service the applicant will be subjected to any treatment beyond norm for those completing their military service to the extent that it would be considered significant harm, including cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or degrading treatment or punishment.

4. Therefore, while the prospect of completing military service may not be considered ideal for the applicant, in all the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that it does not constitute significant harm. As such, the Tribunal finds that there is no real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm as a result of completing his military service upon his return to Iran.

Applicant’s Mental Health

1. The applicant claims that in the event that he is returned to Iran that he will be significantly harmed by reason of his mental condition. He fears that in the event he is placed under stress, he will have no support and face similar problems he has experienced in Australia.[68]  The tribunal notes the report by Professor [B][69] and accepts the contents of the report.

   [68] Statutory [Declaration] @ paragraph 15 AAT File 1819348 @ f47

   [69] Professor [B] dated 13 March 2018

2. As previously noted the applicant was lucid and cognisant throughout the hearing and able to give evidence and respond meaningfully to the Tribunals questions. 

3. Based on the country information already referred to by the Tribunal in these reasons it notes that mental health in Iran has been integrated into the area of primary care. Given that substance abuse is one of the major causes of mental disorders in Iran, screening for psychiatric disorders is now incorporated in the primary care of patients.[70]

   [70]  Sharifi V. Urban Mental Health in Iran: Challenges and Future Directions. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences. 2009; Noorbala AA, Bagheri Yazdi SA, Yasamy MT, Mohammad K. Mental health survey of the adult population in Iran. Br J Psychiatry. 2004; >

   The World Health Organizations report on the mental health system in Iran reports that since the mid 1980’s there have been vast improvements in the care of mental health in Iran. The report notes that Iran provides now provides a national programme on mental health and provides active screening and follows up on patients.[71] Therefore based on the available country information the Tribunal finds that the applicant will be able to access the necessary care and support in relation to his mental health and substance dependence when appropriate. In particular he would be able to receive adequate treatment (e.g. counselling; psychotherapy; medication) for his diagnosed conditions.[72] Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that there is no real risk that he will suffer significant harm by reason of his mental health or substance abuse in the event that he returns to Iran.

Imputed political opinion as a failed asylum seeker

[71] World Health Organisation, WHO-AIMs Report Mental Health System in the Islamic republic of Iran 2006,

Nationwide integration of mental health into primary care,  type="1">

The Tribunal has considered that if the applicant is removed from Australia to Iran as a failed asylum seeker and/or a forced returnee the possibility that he may be imputed with an adverse political opinion or imputed with a political opinion of being opposed to the Iranian regime and having alleged persecution by the regime abroad.

However, the advice from DFAT[73] is that while it is possible that a known dissident may be prosecuted, it is unlikely that an individual simply claiming asylum overseas will be prosecuted as an asylum seeker. As the applicant does not have a valid passport, the Tribunal has accepted that the applicant will come to the attention of the authorities on or after his return to Iran as a failed asylum seeker, and so be imputed with an anti-government political opinion as a result. As such it accepts that the applicant may be asked questions both in Australia at the time when his departure is being organised (voluntary or involuntary) and upon his return to Iran. Accordingly, the Tribunal has assessed the applicant’s case on the basis that he is likely to be stopped, interviewed and have his case ‘examined in detail’, as a forced returnee. 

[73] DFAT advice dated 9 June 2018

100.The Tribunal has not accepted the applicant evidence that he will be re-prosecuted for the drug and homelessness offences (including any conviction for a breach of an intervention order) in Iran. In addition the Tribunal has found based on the applicant’s evidence that the risk of the authorities discovering his criminal conviction is remote. The Tribunal has not accepted the applicant’s evidence in relation to his [Relative 1]’s activities and his contact with ASIO and the alleged adverse report by that organisation.  Therefore, in the event that the applicant is stopped and interviewed, the Tribunal finds that there is no real risk he will be significantly harmed as a result of any adverse political opinion or that he will be imputed with a political opinion of being opposed to the Iranian regime by having sought asylum abroad.

101.Therefore, the Tribunal does not accept that there is reasonable risk that the applicant will be persecuted on return to Iran, either now or in the foreseeable future.  

102.Having regard to all the circumstances and findings above, considered individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds that there are no substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Iran, there is a real risk he will suffer significant harm as required by s36(2)(aa).

CONCLUSIONS

103.For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Act for the reasons mentioned in s.5J(1)(a). Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).

104.Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative complementary protection criterion in s.36(2)(aa). and is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

105.There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).

DECISION

106.The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Jason Pennell
Senior Member

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

• Immigration

• Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

• Judicial Review

• Jurisdiction

• Procedural Fairness

• Statutory Construction

• Standing

• Natural Justice

AI Chat Citations

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

---

Citations

1819348 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 5298

---

Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

11

Statutory Material Cited

0

MIMA v Y [1998] FCA 515

MZZIA v MIBP [2014] FCCA 717

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo [1997] HCA 22

See 8 more citations

Return