1919599 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an Iranian man seeking a protection visa. The applicant claimed he feared harm from corrupt Iranian officials due to his father's refusal to facilitate a corrupt scheme involving imported goods. This refusal led to threats and intimidation against his father and family, including the kidnapping of his granddaughter and the carjacking of his daughter. The applicant also claimed to fear harm due to his conversion to Christianity and his participation in anti-government protests and social media activity.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as a refugee, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) as a person facing significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Iran. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims regarding the threats from corrupt officials, the risks associated with his religious conversion, and the potential consequences of his political activities. The Tribunal also considered whether any available protection measures in Iran would be effective.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's claims regarding threats from corrupt officials were plausible, the motivation for these officials to harm him after so many years was remote. However, the Tribunal accepted that the applicant's conversion to Christianity and his social media and protest activities presented a real chance of serious harm. It reasoned that the Iranian regime views Christian conversion as a national security threat, particularly in the context of geopolitical tensions with the West. Furthermore, the applicant's social media posts and participation in protests were likely to draw the attention of authorities, who might use national security laws to prosecute and imprison individuals critical of the regime. The Tribunal concluded that the harm faced by the applicant, arising from apostasy laws and his political activities, constituted serious harm and was systematic and discriminatory, and that he could not modify his behaviour or relocate within Iran to avoid this risk.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with directions that the first applicant satisfies section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act*, and that his family members satisfy section 36(2)(b)(i) on the basis of their membership in the same family unit.