1833955 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse the applicant, a man from Tehran, Iran, a protection visa. The applicant arrived in Australia in May 2013 and was initially granted a humanitarian stay visa. He later applied for a Safe Haven Enterprise visa, claiming fear of harm due to his profession as a musician and his renouncement of Islam. This application was refused by the Department on 27 March 2018. Following a High Court decision that altered the classification of offshore places, the applicant was able to seek review of the delegate's decision by the Tribunal. New evidence was presented to the Tribunal, including documentation of the applicant's conversion to Christianity in Australia.

The Tribunal was required to determine several key issues. These included whether the incidents described by the applicant in Iran had occurred, specifically concerning his profession as a musician, his atheism, and any alleged arrest and torture. The Tribunal also needed to assess the genuineness of the applicant's renouncement of Islam and conversion to Christianity in Australia. Finally, the Tribunal had to consider whether there was a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm to the applicant upon return to Iran, based on his religious conversion, his profession, or his status as a returnee.

The delegate had accepted that the applicant was a musician and had been arrested and fined for participating in a pyramid scheme, but did not accept that he was of interest to Iranian authorities due to his music or that he faced a well-founded fear of persecution. The delegate also accepted the applicant identified as an atheist but did not believe he would be harmed for this reason. The Tribunal considered extensive evidence, including statutory declarations, baptism records, letters from individuals and churches, photographs, and social media posts, alongside country information. The applicant also gave evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that while it has an inquisitorial role, the onus remains on the applicant to specify and provide sufficient evidence to establish their claim.

The Tribunal remitted the decision under review.