1903818 (Refugee)

This matter concerned a review of a Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (SHEV) refusal for a male applicant from Iran. The applicant, who arrived in Australia as an unauthorised maritime arrival in 2013, was later invited to apply for a SHEV. He lodged his application in October 2016, claiming he faced difficulties in Iran due to a criminal record, his disagreement with enforced Islamic practices, and past encounters with authorities and his ex-girlfriend's parents. The Department of Home Affairs refused his SHEV application, leading to the current review.

The Tribunal was required to determine several key issues. Firstly, it needed to make findings of fact regarding the incidents the applicant described occurring in Iran. Secondly, the Tribunal had to assess whether the applicant had genuinely renounced the Islamic faith. Finally, the central question was whether there was a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm to the applicant, either as a person who had renounced Islam, or on the basis of his appearance, imputed political opinion, or his status as a returnee to Iran.

The Tribunal applied the principles that the onus rests on the applicant to specify all particulars of their claim and provide sufficient evidence, and that the Tribunal is not obligated to seek or establish the claim. In its reasoning, the Tribunal considered evidence from the Department's files, evidence before the Tribunal, and independent country information about Iran. This included the applicant's initial interview, his SHEV application, statutory declarations, departmental decisions, and submissions from his representative. The applicant also gave evidence before the Tribunal, assisted by an interpreter. The Tribunal noted that not all evidence needed explicit reference if it was not central to the determination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not established that he had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, nor had he established that he would be at real risk of significant harm for the purposes of complementary protection. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.