1934889 (Refugee)

1934889 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 2866 (7 March 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Fardin Nikjoo
CASE NUMBER:  1934889
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Iran
MEMBER:Member Nathan Goetz
DATE:7 March 2024
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 07 March 2024 at 5:36pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa – Iran – religion – born into the Islamic faith – converted to Christianity – imputed political opinion – imputed anti-Islamic sentiments – a particular social group – a failed asylum seeker returning from the West – not satisfied that there is any truth to the applicant’s narrative about what he claimed happened in Iran – applicant is not a genuine Christian convert – applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution –credibility concerns – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 424, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
NQKB and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2021] AATA 4054
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

This is an application for merits review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant was represented in the review by an Australian legal practitioner.
BACKGROUND
The applicant identifies as a male citizen of Iran presently located in Australia.
On [date] August 2018 the applicant arrived in Australia without a valid visa.
On 10 December 2012 the applicant applied for the protection visa.
On 9 December 2013 the delegate refused to grant the applicant the protection visa.
On 12 December 2013 an application was made for merits review of this decision to the Tribunal. On 30 April 2015 the Tribunal affirmed the decision refusing to grant the applicant a protection visa: MRT 1318933.
[In] May 2015 an application was made to the Federal Circuit Court for judicial review of the Tribunal decision. On [date] August 2018 the Federal Circuit Court dismissed the judicial [review].
[In] August 2018 an appeal was lodged in the Federal Court against the decision of the Federal Circuit Court. [In] November 2019 the Federal Court sets aside the decision of the Federal Circuit Court and issued a writ of certiorari to the Tribunal quashing its decision dated 30 April 2015 and issued a write of mandamus directing the Tribunal to reconsider and determine the applicant’s merits review application according to [law].
In that judgement, the Court held that the applicant’s brother’s evidence was corroborative of the applicant’s protection claims and, if accepted, might have made a difference to the fate of the applicant’s review. The Tribunal failed to take account of it in circumstances where it was obliged to do so.
On 18 July 2022 the Tribunal invited the applicant to appear at a Tribunal hearing scheduled for 4 August 2022 to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review. Included with the hearing invitation was a ‘Response to hearing invitation form’ that the applicant was directed to complete and return to the Tribunal within 7 days. The Tribunal did not receive a ‘Response to hearing invitation form’ within 7 days, and material that had been provided to the Tribunal by the applicant was in a language other than English without an accompanying English translation.
At the Tribunal hearing, a ‘Response to hearing invitation was completed’ indicating that the applicant requested the Tribunal take oral evidence from his brother, but no accompanying written statement from the applicant’s brother was provided, despite this being required by the Tribunal’s practice directions. The Tribunal adjourned the Tribunal hearing to 22 August 2022 so that a written statement could be provided by the applicant’s brother before the Tribunal would consider any request for oral evidence, and for translations of any documents in a language other than English could be provided.
On 22 August 2022 the applicant appeared at the Tribunal hearing. The hearings were conducted with an interpreter in Persian and English languages. The Tribunal apologises for the delay in finalising the review.
CRITERIA FOR THE GRANT OF THE VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (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, the applicant 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.
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 under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).
Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
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 a protection 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 the applicant 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’).
Sections 36(2)(b) and (c) provide as an alternative criterion that the applicant is a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen mentioned in s 36(2)(a) or (aa) who holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant. Section 5(1) of the Act provides that one person is a ‘member of the same family unit’ as another if either is a member of the family unit of the other or each is a member of the family unit of a third person. Section 5(1) also provides that ‘member of the family unit’ of a person has the meaning given by the Regulations for the purposes of the definition. The expression is defined in reg 1.12 of the Regulations.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and 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.
The most recent DFAT Country Information Reports are dated 14 April 2020 and 24 July 2023.
Protection visa application and primary decision process
The evidence consists of the material the applicant provided in connection with his visa application form, including the oral evidence that the applicant provided at interview with the delegate.
According to the protection visa application form signed 28 November 2012, the applicant is [name] and born on [date] in [Tehran], Iran. He is a citizen of Iran and no other country. He declared that he did not have the right to enter and reside any country other than his country of citizenship.
He declared in the form that he entered Australia unauthorised on [date] August 2012 but detailed that he had an Iranian passport. He departed Iran in May 2012 and transited through [other countries] before arriving in [Country 1] where he stayed for approximately three months, noting that he was there for one month before becoming ‘unlawful.’ He also declared in the form that during his time in Iran, he resided in a residential complex in [a] Street, [Tehran] from 2008 until his departure in May 2012.
He declared that he had no wife, children or dependents. He was the only person included in the protection visa application. He declared that he had no close relatives who were in Australia at the time of the protection visa application.
Included with the protection visa application form was an attachment detailing the applicant’s parents, brothers and sisters. He detailed the following:
·     His father is named [name] and he was born on [date] in Iran and is a citizen of that country where he is presently located
·     His mother is named [name] and she was born in [year] in Iran and is a citizen of that country where she is presently located.
·     His sister is named [name] and she was born on [date] in Iran and is a citizen of that country where she is presently located.
·     His brother is named [Mr A] and he was born on [date] in Iran and is a citizen of that country and is presently located in Australia.
The applicant’s brother [Mr A] entered Australia as an authorised maritime arrival at the same time as the applicant. The applicant’s brother subsequently lodged a protection visa application which was refused by a delegate of the Minister on 9 December 2013.
The applicant’s brother applied to the Tribunal for review of the decision refusing to grant him a protection visa. On 30 May 2015 the Tribunal affirmed the decision refusing to grant the applicant’s brother the protection visa: MRT 1318925. The Member who conducted the review of the applicant’s brother’s protection visa application was the same Member who conducted the review of the applicant’s protection visa application and made a decision on that review on 30 April 2015.
[In] May 2015 an application was made to the Federal Circuit Court for judicial review of the Tribunal decision concerning the applicant’s brother. On [date] September 2016 the Court set aside the decision and remitted the review back to the Tribunal for reconsideration according to [law]. On 13 March 2017 the Tribunal affirmed the decision refusing to grant the applicant’s brother a protection visa: AAT 1615141.
In a statement dated 30 November 2012 which accompanied his protection visa application the applicant claimed:
·     He participated in an entry interview on 14 September 2012 with a department officer and was asked to provide his claims in a brief form, which is why not all his claims were given at that stage.
·     His statement of 30 November 2012 is a summary of his protection claims and not an exhaustive statement of the reason or reasons why he cannot return to Iran. He would provide further information when interviewed.
·     He left Iran because he was born into the Islamic faith and converted to Christianity. He could not remain in that country because it is an Islamic country and an individual who decides to convert from Islam is considered an apostate and is at risk of being killed.
·     As a teenager he regularly attended Mosque in an attempt to connect with God and as a result of his regular attendance, he was forced to assist the Basij, which the Tribunal understands to be a paramilitary volunteer militia which is part of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. In this role, he was expected to complete checks on citizens in his area. He detailed that he thought the Basij relied on Islam to perpetrate harm against people who were doing nothing wrong.
·     The applicant and his brother attending protests after the 2009 Iranian presidential elections. The applicant and his brother witnessed members of the Basij shooting into the crowd and a girl near the applicant was killed. The applicant and his brother ran away. This also made the applicant think that the Basij relied on Islam to perpetrate harm on others, and this caused the applicant to question his Islamic faith.
·     The applicant’s [brother’s] wife had a friend who is a Christian, and this friend provided information to the applicant and his brother about Christianity. This caused the applicant to develop an interest in Christianity and he and his brother would read the Bible. He took an interest in the religion, its ideals, and values because it resonated with the applicant. The friend was going to take the applicant and his brother to Church, but the Churches are heavily watched by authorities in Iran and when the applicant and his brother approached the Church, they realised that it was too dangerous.
·     The applicant later spoke to his father and his father advised the applicant and his brother about the risks of following Christianity. However, the applicant’s father advised the applicant that an uncle [was] a Christian and if the applicant and his brother had any questions, they should contact the uncle. The applicant and his brother contacted the uncle and the uncle advised that the uncle had a Church is his home. The applicant and his brother would attend prayer sessions at the house. In 2012, the applicant and his brother were on their way to their uncle’s house when they noticed that authorities were there. The applicant witnessed his uncle and other people being handcuffed, and this caused the applicant and his brother to flee. The applicant’s father instructed the applicant and the applicant’s brother to flee Tehran, which they did. They went to [a location] and knew that they could not remain in Iran and the family made arrangements for the applicant and his brother to leave Iran. The applicant’s mother informed the applicant and his brother that authorities had raised the house to find information about the applicant and his brother and their association with Christianity.
·     The applicant claimed that if he was forced to return to Iran, he would be killed or in the event that he was not killed, he would be arrested and subjected to torture. This harm would be from the Iranian authorities and their associates. The applicant would also be at risk of being harmed by Iranian people who are staunch followers of Islam. The applicant believed that he would be harmed upon his return as he had converted to Christianity, and he claimed that his faith was further developed while in Australia, meaning that he faced a further risk of harm. The applicant also claimed that he faced a risk of harm in Iran because he travelled to Australia and claimed asylum because the authorities in Iran associate Christianity with the West and this would impute him with anti-Islamic sentiments. The strong link between religion and state in Iran means that he would be imputed with anti-government sentiments.
Interview with the delegate on 27 October 2013
The applicant and his brother participated in separate interviews with the same delegate concerning their protection claims. The interview was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Persian and English languages. The applicant told the delegate that there was nothing in the protection visa application that he wished to change. The applicant and his brother provided consent for their information to be shared between their individual protection visa applications. The applicant’s interview took approximately 90 minutes.
The applicant told the Tribunal that he had an Iranian driver licence, which he produced at the interview. That was the only Iranian document he had in Australia, and he did not have his Iranian birth certificate or Iranian national identity card, but noted this national identity number was contained on his Iranian driver licence. He was not sure where his Iranian birth certificate or national identity card because they were stolen while in Iran.
Prior to leaving Iran, the applicant had not travelled overseas because he was not old enough. He had no plans to travel overseas. The Iranian passport he used to leave Iran was lost in the trip to come to Australia. The applicant said that after reaching the legal age, he applied for an exemption from military service and when exemption was granted, he was issued a certificate that allowed him to apply for an Iranian passport. He did not remember when or why he applied for the passport, but it was customary for young people to apply for Iranian passports. He did not remember how much the passport cost. He was granted an exemption from military service because he had a [condition].
The applicant confirmed that he is not married and has no legal right to live in any other country other than Iran. The applicant told the delegate that he completed high school, but did not attend ‘pre-university.’
The applicant told the Tribunal that his last job in Iran was being a [occupation] and working in a [business]. He was not currently employed in Australia and had not worked in Australia previously. The applicant’s travel to Australia was funded by his parents.
The applicant said that his religion was Christianity, and his denomination was the ‘Church of God.’ He was asked to describe the difference between that Church and other religious denominations but did not answer that, instead saying that prior to that he was exploring Protestantism but unexpectedly he came across the Church of God because they were coming to people and finding out about their religion, and they asked them to go to the Church. The applicant went to the Church and there was a difference with other Churches because their church services were on Saturday, and they do not believe that Christmas is the birth date of Jesus. The applicant said that he was drawn to that Church because they were trying to find things in the Bible at that Church. The applicant said that he was reading the Bible before, but this Church talks about the Bible having hidden codes and trying to explain those codes.
The applicant was asked a series of questions about Christianity, that the delegate suggested it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to know if he was genuinely committed to Christianity. He was asked about the significance of Easter and told the delegate that Easter was not significant in his denomination and that he was still in the process of learning about Christianity. He was asked what day Jesus died and said he did not know. He said that Jesus was born in Jerusalem. He was asked whether he had a favourite Bible story and he said that the Bible had many beautiful stories. He said his favourite story was about Jesus feeding the 5000 and the resurrection. He also identified another favourite story as the story where a person was standing in a place and was told that his brother, mother and sisters came to see him, and the person responded that his brother, mother and sisters are you.
The applicant said that he obtained his Bible in Iran from his uncle. The first people on Earth were Adam and Eve. He had no specific information about the main prayers of Christianity.
The applicant was asked about whether there were any major festivals or celebrations in Shia Islam. The applicant said that Islam ceremonies are not really seen unless you look at the calendar and they are related to public holidays in Iran. He noted Ramadan and Muharram.

Concerning his religious practice in Australia, the applicant told the delegate that he goes to Church and they read the Bible. The Church brings up the Bible and the applicant finds the Bible passage in a Persian Bible with the assistance of his brother, whose English is better than the applicant’s English. He attends Church on Saturdays unless illness prevents attendance. The Church is located in [Suburb 1]. The applicant was unsure of the Pastor’s name, but identified that the Minister is Asian. The person who teaches the applicant is a person named [Mr B], who goes to the applicant’s home during the week. After prayers in the Church, the applicant sits at the back and receives lessons from [Mr B]. The applicant described the lessons as being pointed out the codes in different sections of the Bible and tells the applicant what the codes means. Asked to provide an example of these codes and what they meant, the applicant said that he did not remember specifics, but the day that Jesus was born in summertime and farmers were taking sheep outside. [Mr B] has been teaching the applicant for about 9 months coming to the home every two weeks. The applicant has been attending the Church in [Suburb 1] for 9 months. The applicant said that he had been baptised and described this as a commitment between those baptised and Jesus. The applicant was asked about the importance of baptism, and he responded that it shows that the person has become a Christian. The applicant said that if you feel you are a Christian in your heart, baptism does not make you a better Christian. The applicant said that he did not have a certificate for his baptism as nobody asked him for it. The applicant was asked how he celebrated his baptism. He said that the pastor of the Church baptised him and there was a celebration with wine. The applicant was asked whether there was anything specific he was required to do prior to the baptism and he said there was not.
The delegate asked the applicant how he practiced his religion during his three months in [Country 1]. The applicant said that he and his brother read the Bible. He did not attend Church because he was not able to leave where he was staying. The delegate noted that the applicant’s Entry Interview suggested that he moved around [Country 1] during his time there, and suggested that if the applicant was a genuine Christian convert, he would have sought out a Church in [Country 1] to practice his faith. The applicant responded that religion is a belief in the heart, and everyone has their own approach. He asserted that all human beings were sinful and that people may not be cleansed even if they do religious things.
The applicant was asked when he changed his religion. He told the delegate that the formal date was eight or nine months ago when he was baptised in Australia, but the exploration was long ago. He was asked how long he had been a practising Christian and said it was since he started attending the Church of God. He said that he went to home Church in Iran, but did not attend an established Church in Iran. He detailed that the first time he attended a house church in Iran was the last days of Persian year 1390. He went to the house church on a Sunday at his uncle’s house but would go other times because the applicant and his brother were in the process of exploring Christianity. The house church involved reading the Bible. The applicant said seven or eight people would attend the services. He identified some people who attended the service by name, as well as noting the attendance of his brother and cousins. He noted the attendance of people at the house church, who he identified by name.
The applicant was asked whether his family in Iran knew of his conversion, and he said that his father knew. The applicant was asked how his father reacted, and the applicant said that his father just believe in God and did not stand against the applicant changing his religion, because his father was convinced that the applicant and his brother wanted to change their religion. The applicant said that his religious conversion changed his life because he know looks at people around him with a more beautiful point of view and everyone is a human being and deserving of respect regardless of their ethnicity. The applicant said that he received peace in this religion because he has freedom of choice, which is the opposite of Islam. He noted that is Islam people are divided into Muslims and non-Muslims, who are considered atheists. This is the opposite of Christianity.
The applicant was asked why it was that he changed his religion. The applicant said it was an internal feeling and that everyone has a feeling about his or her own God. The applicant told the delegate that he questioned where he had come from and where he was going and used to go to Mosque to pray and read the Quran to see what it told him. The applicant said that the first thing he noticed in the Mosque was people were given implements to go among the community every Thursday to ‘call people to do good things and prevent people from doing bad things.’ Gradually after becoming more familiar with the religion, the applicant found that everyone who was not a Muslim was considered an atheist and like a child who is prevented from touching something, the applicant was prevented from exploring other religions.
The applicant said that he began to learn about Christianity through his brother’s wife’s friend. She was a Christian who had good information about Christianity because she was born a Christian. She gave us information about what you need to do to be a Christian, and who a Christian is. The applicant said this was like a sparkle and this persuaded them to go and see who Jesus is, noting that Jesus’ name was written in the Quran as well. The applicant was asked whether anything had happened to [Ms C] because of her religious belief and the applicant said she was a friend, and the applicant just asked her questions about Christianity, and he didn’t have any information about that. The applicant said this was concurrent with the protests in Iran in 1388 where the applicant witnessed Muslims shooting other Muslims. The applicant told the delegate that he chose Christianity because he did not have any background knowledge of any other religions, such as Buddhism, and of all the religions, such as Judaism, talks about what will happen next, such as a prophet coming from God, but in Christianity nothing was said about the next prophet.
The applicant asked how the Iranian Government would know that the applicant was no longer a Muslim. The applicant said he found out that his aunt and cousin fled to [Country 2] and asked for asylum. His cousin used to talk about Christianity with her cousin, and the cousin’s cousin’s father [complained] to the authorities and the address of the house church was provided. They fled to [Country 2] and the applicant found this out recently. The applicant said that he and his brother were attending the house church and his father’s family were aware of the Christian activity and through this relationship they became aware that the applicant was practising.
The delegate noted to the applicant that at his entry interview on 14 September 2012 he was asked what religion he followed. The applicant said that he at the entry interview he identified his religion as Protestant. The delegate said to the applicant that at the entry interview the applicant said that he was a Shia Muslim. The applicant disputed he said this. The applicant said that he may have said that he was born Shia and not converted to Christianity yet and was exploring Christianity.
The applicant was asked whether he had ever received any direct threats in Iran. The applicant said that it was obvious what would happen to him if he returned to Iran, because authorities came to the house, but the applicant was not there. He had never been interrogated in Iran. The applicant was sure that if he returned to Iran he would be executed by the Iranian authorities. The applicant said that he had never been charged or convicted of any crime in any country. There were no other reasons the applicant feared returning to Iran other than his religion.
In response to the delegate’s assessment that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient knowledge of Christianity to satisfy the delegate that the applicant was a genuine Christian convert, the applicant said that he knew that he was required to provide strong information. The applicant said that religion is an emotional belief and what he believes is that all people are sinful. He said he chose Christianity because Islam calls itself the most perfect and last religion and mentioned Christianity in the Quran, but in the Bible none of the other religions are mentioned. God came to earth in human shape and came to sacrifice himself for humanity to be forgiven. The applicant knows that practising the religion means nobody can become a totally good person. By believing in Jesus, you can be resurrected, and all your sins can go away. The applicant said his emphasis was an internal feeling, like the feeling of parents towards children, which is what drove him to Christianity. The applicant said that he had not had enough time to explore Christianity with someone in his own language and he is learning the prophecies in English, and his English is not good. The applicant attributed this to the delegate’s assessment that he was not a genuine Christian convert.
At the conclusion of the interview, submissions were made by the applicant’s representative that it was reasonable that the applicant chose Christianity over other religions, because that is the religion he was exposed to in Iran. It was also submitted that the applicant had provided an explanation about why he chosen Christianity because it had the answers he was searching for. Concerning the applicant’s failure to engage with Christianity while in [Country 1], it was submitted that people who reside in the country illegally are able to be identified by locals and the authorities, can be exploited and picked on, which is why people avoid being outside for those reasons.
The delegate told the applicant that any evidence he wished to provide subsequent to the interview would be taken into account.
Review and Tribunal hearings for MRT 1318933 and MRT 1318925
On 17 December 2013 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the decision refusing to grant him the protection visa. In support of the review, the applicant provided the following documentation:
A submission dated 17 March 2014 from the representative detailing that the applicant fears persecution in Iran due to his Christian religion, imputed political opinion and membership of a particular social group, namely a failed asylum seeker returning from the West. The submission repeated the content of the applicant’s written statement concerning the factual narrative about what the applicant claimed happened in Iran. The submission attached information from a variety of sources to support the claims about the harm the applicant is likely to experience upon return to Iran.
At the Tribunal hearing on 20 April 2015, the applicant gave evidence in support of his protection claims. The hearing went for about one hour and forty-five minutes.
The applicant confirmed his date of birth and that he lived in Tehran his whole life. In Iran remains his father, mother, sister, and a maternal uncle and maternal aunt. The Tribunal noted that it heard the applicant’s brother’s visa application two weeks prior to the Tribunal hearing. The applicant told the Tribunal that his schooling in Iran was a diploma and that he finished his education when he was [age] years of age. He told the Tribunal he is not married and that in Iran he had various employment, including [details deleted]. He told the Tribunal that it was ’91 when he left Iran, according to the Iranian calendar.
The applicant told the Tribunal that he travelled from Iran to [Country 1] and then from [Country 1] to Australia. The journey took three months and a bit. He left Iran using his own passport from the airport in Iran. His passport was genuine and that was issued to him after receiving the card issued for national service. He left Iran in 2012 because he was pursued by the security forces. He was pursued by the security forces because the applicant was doing religious research and the authorities found out that the applicant was attending home church. The applicant confirmed that both he and his brother were doing religious research in Iran. When asked when he started that religious research, he said it was a few months before he left Iran. He said he was undertaking religious research by going to learn about Christianity and the basis of it. It was the only religion he was searching. He was introduced to Christianity by a friend of his sister-in-law who was a Christian in Iran. He could not remember when he first met this friend, but whenever they went out as a group, he would see her. He said it was possible that he had known this friend for more than a year.
The applicant said that he tried once to go to Church in Iran with [Ms C], but he did not succeed. When asked when this was, the applicant said that it was the end of ‘0 in the Iranian calendar. He thought that it was a few months before he left Iran. The Church he tried to go to was [name], and it was [a Country 3] Church. He said that the friend was [Country 3 ethnicity]. The applicant said he was not successful going to the Church in Iran because people from the Information Ministry were present and prevented people who did not belong to the Church from attending. The applicant said that when he went there, he was not recognised and was told that he could not go in. The applicant was asked what he was doing there, and he said that he was coming to see what they do there and find out about their ceremonies. He was told to leave the place and never come back to the Church. On that occasion, he was present with his brother, as well as [Ms C] and his brother’s wife. [Ms C] went into the Church but those who were not admitted left.
Noting that the applicant said this happened approximately three months prior to his departure from Iran, the Tribunal asked the applicant what happened after that event. The applicant said that he started learning about Christianity through his paternal uncle, who was a Christian. The applicant found out that his parental uncle was a Christian. He did not know that his uncle was a Christian growing up, and only found this out three or four months prior to the applicant’s departure from Iran. The applicant attributed not knowing that his uncle was a Christian prior to this because his uncle was a person who was by himself and not really involved with the family. The applicant said that he was unsure where his uncle attended Church in Iran because he never asked him. The applicant started learning about Christianity by going to his uncle’s house and asking about Christianity. The uncle started telling the applicant about the dangers of being a Christian in Iran. The applicant’s research or studies with his uncle consisted of asking his uncle about the teachings about Christianity and asking what Jesus wanted from his followers. His uncle read from the Bible and started speaking about Creation. The applicant said that his brother was present at these discussions, but on Sunday other people attended. The applicant was introduced to people there named [names]. The applicant and his brother would go on Sunday but whenever he and his brother had other free time, he would attend three or four times a month. His brother’s wife came with them one during the weekly sessions, but not on the Sunday sessions.
The applicant told the Tribunal that he was caused to leave Iran after the new year of ’91 in the Persian calendar because when he was on the way to his uncle’s house, he saw that it was busy there. He travelled in a car with his brother. His brother’s wife was not with them. He saw that his uncle was being put in a car and the applicant realised what was happening and left quickly. The applicant told the Tribunal that his uncle had been arrested. The applicant knew this because his uncle was handcuffed and being put in the car. The applicant understands that he was being taken away by plain clothed officers from the intelligence services. His uncle was taken away at a Sunday service. The applicant did not see anyone from the Church other than his uncle. The applicant was really scared by what he saw. He identified his uncle’s name as [name], and that his uncle’s family are Christians. His uncle’s family, consisting of a wife and two children were not taken away and left Iran where they applied for asylum in [Country 2] under the care of the United Nations.
The Tribunal noted that it had earlier asked the applicant about what family he had remaining in Iran and recorded that the applicant said he had a paternal uncle and aunt remaining in Iran. The applicant told the Tribunal that he has four uncles and that the others are remaining in Iran, but one passed away. He identified one uncle named [name], who is the [position] of [Company 1].
The applicant said that he went to the bus terminal after seeing his uncle arrested and that this occurred about a month prior to his departure. He could not be more specific other than the new year holidays in Iran because he was in real shock and the days passed by. His mother has a property in a village in Iran and that his parents told him to stay at that property until his parents could get everything ready until the applicant could leave Iran. He described the property as an old house and that no one else lived there. The applicant said that nothing else happened to him prior to leaving Iran because he was in the village until he received the tickets to leave Iran. He told the Tribunal that the intelligence services came to the place he lived during the time he was in the village about a week prior to his departure from Iran. The applicant said that the intelligence services came to search the house and look for evidence that the applicant and his brother were Christians. They took his computer but was not sure if they found anything. The applicant said that his computer was used to search sites about Christianity. He told the Tribunal that he did not convert to Christianity in Iran. He had no other difficulties in Iran and was not involved in any political activities, other than attending the protest in the ’88 elections in the Persian calendar. He did not experience any difficulty in Iran as a result of attending those protests.
At the Tribunal hearing, [Ms D] gave oral evidence. The applicant said that he knew [Ms D] as he was friends with her brother. The applicant wanted the Tribunal to hear her evidence because the rules of his Church prevented him from bring people from the Church as they are prohibited from being involved with political things. [Ms D] was not from the Church. The applicant thought that it would be a good idea to bring a person who knows him. [Ms D] told the Tribunal that she had known the applicant for about two and a half years and met through her brother. Her brother and the applicant were friends from the gym and they became friends through the applicant visiting her brother. She told the Tribunal that she knew that the applicant had changed his religion and went to the Church of God in either [Suburb 2] or [Suburb 3] and is always trying to talk [Ms D] into going with him. She told the Tribunal that the applicant is a good guy who never harmed anyone.
At the Tribunal hearing, [Ms E] gave oral evidence. The applicant said that he knew [Ms E] because they shared accommodation previously. She is not from the Church. [Ms E] told the Tribunal that she had known the applicant for almost three years and she had previously shared a room with the applicant and her brother. She said that the applicant was a good guy who goes to Church every Saturday and tells her about it. The applicant always preaches to her and there are Bibles laying around. He is dedicated to his faith.

The applicant said that his religious activity in Australia related to the Church of God, which he started attending once he was released from the immigration detention centre. He came to be involved in that Church because there were teachings in public places. A person spoke to the applicant and asked about his religion and inquired whether the applicant wanted to know more about the Bible. The applicant said that these people then started teaching the applicant. Apart from the Church of God, the applicant attended Christian classes in immigration detention provided by the Catholic and Protestant Churches.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant said he was researching Christianity in Iran, had come to Australia to pursue religious freedom, but he had ended up at a Church that is not a mainstream Christian Church, with sources before the Tribunal indicating that the Church fo God is a Korean-based mission society which believes that God lives in Korea in the form of a woman known as Heavenly Mother which is not a mainstream religious belief. The Tribunal asked how the applicant would end up at a Church like that. The applicant said that he came to Australia where there was freedom of choice and he believed it was faith that led to the Church of God people approaching the applicant to join their Church. It was what God wanted. He believed in the Holy Book that he read in Iran and that the religion he follows now was not from the Bible. He got interested to know what their beliefs were, because he had not previously heard about Church services occurring on a Saturday which is when the Church of God services occur. It was here that his religious training started. The applicant was asked about whether the Church of God believed that God lives in Korea in the form of a woman known as the Heavenly Mother and he indicated that was his understanding.
The applicant was asked about his understanding of the differences in beliefs between the Church of God and other Christian Churches. The applicant said prayers on Saturday as opposed to Sunday. Concerning any other beliefs, the applicant said that the Church of God believed that Jesus came to Earth the second time to establish rules and that is where he promised his followers the Heavenly Mother. When asked what it was about the beliefs of the Church of God that made him choose this Church over other Christian Churches, he said it was because they taught that the Sabbath was a Saturday, which is in the Bible. This was a clear sign that the Church was following the Bible. The applicant said that the Church of God holds it sessions in English and disputed that the sessions were held in Korean. The applicant said there were no more Koreans than other nationalities at the services he attends. He understands the services because his brother translates a lot of things and the applicant understands this more or less. The applicant asked people from the Church to come to the Tribunal hearing but the people he asked said that the rules did not allow Church of God people to interfere in political affairs but noted that letters had been provided concerning attendances of both the applicant and his brother.
The applicant said that he had been baptised into this Church about a month after his release from immigration detention. He did not have any documents or certificates in relation to this baptism. The applicant’s brother was baptised at the same time. The Tribunal was told that the Church of God does not issue baptism certificates, or any other certificates or documentation.
The applicant attributed the failure of people from the Church of God to attend the Tribunal hearing to give oral evidence in support of the applicant’s claims about his conduct in Australia due to the rules of the Church. When the Tribunal explored how fellow Church attendees coming to the Tribunal would be considered a political matter, the applicant said he did not know. The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal’s concern that he had only engaged in attendances at the Church to strengthen his protection claims.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant had claimed in a written statement that he had some interaction with the Iranian authorities about his hairstyle and clothing. The applicant said that he did not have any problems, but at the ‘last session’ he had been asked about whether he had ever been arrested and that is what he told them. The applicant did not dispute the Tribunal’s assessment of the DFAT Country Information Report that Iranian authorities conduct periodic morality campaigns to enforce standards of Islamic conduct and dress and that this was a law of general application.
The Tribunal raised its assessment of inconsistencies concerning the applicant’s evidence, noting for example that at the Tribunal hearing, the applicant said that he did not see anyone else be arrested with his uncle, which was inconsistent with his written claims that he saw his uncle and others be arrested. The applicant responded that he was really scared at the time and was ‘all over the place’ and that he did not know what the written statement was about. The applicant put this down to the statement being written by his lawyer without an interpreter, but when the Tribunal noted that the statement indicated that it was completed with the assistance of an interpreter, the applicant referred to interviews being held without an interpreter.
The Tribunal raised its concerns about the applicant’s evidence concerning what it assessed to be vague evidence about what occurred in Iran, noting the applicant claimed he left Iran fearing for his life and that the events that occurred which caused this fear occurred two or three months prior to his departure. However, the applicant was unable to provide any accurate indication about when the events took place or how often he undertook certain activities in Iran. The applicant said that it was difficult to remember everything, suggesting that if you needed to go to a swimming pool in a hurry, you may not take the necessary things you would need to go swimming, but that does not mean that you don’t know how to swim or that you shouldn’t go to the swimming pool. The applicant said that this was similar to his situation. The applicant said that he loves Iran and that all the people he loves in his life are located in that country and the living conditions are not that bad, especially if you live in Tehran. If he did not have the problems he had, he would not have left.
The applicant noted that he lost an uncle and grandfather in Iran. This caused him to have some type of heart attack. The person said that he had a girlfriend in Iran who sends him letters and he does not want to lose her, and if he hadn’t had a problem, he wouldn’t have been aware from her. She is the last person in his life that he wants to lose. He referred to letters written to him in Persian that were personal and told him that she was missing him.
The Tribunal noted that a submission was made that he may be targeted for harm in Iran on the basis that he had sought asylum. The Tribunal noted the DFAT report that suggested that a person would not be harmed in Iran merely for seeking asylum abroad. The applicant acknowledged this, but said that each person had their own reasons for seeking asylum, and in the applicant’s case, he had a complaint made against him by a family member as he discussed with the delegate. The applicant said that his cousin’s boyfriend’s father realised that his cousin was going towards Christianity and that is why a complaint was made to the authorities that these people were brainwashing the father’s child which is why the raid occurred. The applicant asserted that if you are not the subject of a complaint to authorities, a person in Iran is able to attend to their non-Islamic religious beliefs in their own home.
The Tribunal noted that because the applicant left Iran on his own genuine passport, it may suggest that he was of no adverse interest to the authorities of that country. The applicant said that he passed through the departure gates with his uncle and that no checks were conducted because his uncle had thirty years’ experience in the Tehran airport and took them all the way to the plane. The Tribunal noted that this was not detailed in the written claims, but the applicant suggested that he had.
Subsequent to the Tribunal hearing, the applicant provided a written submission dated 1 May 2015 from the representative seeking to address concerns that the Tribunal raised at the Tribunal hearing on 20 April 2015. Those submissions detailed the following:
·     In respect to concerns about the genuineness of the applicant’s conversion to Christianity based on the fact that he attended a home church in Iran which was based on Protestant beliefs but attended the Church of God in Australia, it was submitted that the applicant was approached to join the Church of God once he was in Australia and was immediately drawn to that Church. The fact that the applicant followed a different version of Christianity in Australia can be attributed to the wider available choice of Christian denominations in Australia.
·     It was submitted that the applicant provided evidence that demonstrated a strong knowledge of his faith, and that he was heavily involved in his church including assisting the Church in many ways. The prolonged period of involvement suggested a strong indication that the applicant was dedicated to his faith and that his religious beliefs are genuine.
·     The applicant’s evidence that leader’s of the applicant’s church do not provide evidence in support of their parishioners, and the applicant’s continuing attendance on that church despite the applicant knowing that no letters of support would be provided, should be assessed as demonstrating a genuine interest in Christianity and that the applicant has not attended Church services just to be granted a protection visa.
·     The applicant had provided evidence about his motivation for changing his faith, which should be assessed as demonstrating that he is a genuine Christian convert.
·     The applicant provided overall consistent evidence concerning his claims, and this should lend legitimacy to them. It was submitted that the applicant and his brother had provided consistent evidence which suggested that the evidence was credible.
That submission also cited country information concerning the applicant’s protection claims, and also provided the following two letters:
· A letter dated [March] 2015 from [a named individual], who is identified as a Church [member] and detailed that both the applicant and his brother are known to the author. They have been friends for the last two and a half years. They regularly study the Bible at the World Mission Society Church of God. The author identifies that he and his brother good friends of the author and that they held him at the Church when in need.
· A letter dated [March] 2015 from [name], who is identified as a Church friend and detailed that both the applicant and his brother have a good friendship and share fellowship in the World Mission Society Church of God. The author wrote that the applicant and his brother have been coming to the Church for about two and a half years. They are kind, gentle and a loving mind to practice God’s teachings. The author studies the Bible with the applicant and his brother, and they helped out while moving and renovating the church and undertake volunteer services together.
Prior to the applicant’s Tribunal hearing on 20 April 2015, his brother participated in a Tribunal hearing concerning his protection claims. This occurred on 26 February 2015 and the review was conducted by the same Member. The hearing went for two hours and 30 minutes.
At that Tribunal hearing, the applicant’s brother told the Tribunal that he was born in Iran in [year] in Tehran. In Iran are his parents and his older sister. She lives separate from his parents as she is married. He told the Tribunal that his brother, the applicant, is in Australia. He detailed his educational achievements in Iran and was either [age] or [age] at the time he finished his education. He identified that he was married in 1319 in the Persian calendar, which was 2011 to [name]. He met her in the north of Iran on holiday. They met and about a year later they were married. The applicant’s brother confirmed that he arrived in Australia on [date] August 2012 and that he left Iran a few months before arriving in Australia.
The applicant’s brother said that he divorced his wife after an incident happened. About a year ago, people from the security service in Iran went to his mother-in-law’s office. The security services asked the mother-in-law to call the daughter to come to the office, which she did. The wife was then questioned about why the applicant and his brother were in Australia and were instructed that if they had any information about why the applicant and his brother were in Iran, they needed to tell the security services. The mother-in-law and wife were told that the applicant’s brother had cooperated with agencies [to] weaken the Islamic religion and promote Christianity. If the mother-in-law and wife were in touch with the applicant’s brother, they were going to be in trouble as well. After that, the applicant’s brother was contacted by his mother-in-law and wife advising that the relationship could not continue because of this. Since that time, the relationship broke up. The applicant’s brother said that he was formally divorced in Iran, but at the time it happened, the applicant’s brother was in Australia.
The applicant’s brother told the Tribunal that he left Iran on his own passport, but he no longer has the passport. He thinks he gave a copy of the passport to the department. The applicant had the copy in case of the passport was stolen or misplaced. The applicant’s brother agreed this was a genuine passport issued in the usual manner, but he could not recall when he obtained it. He did not have a plan to travel overseas connected with the application for a passport. The applicant’s brother said that he had completed his military service. He detailed his employment in Iran as being a [occupation].
The applicant’s brother told the Tribunal about his reasons for leaving Iran in 2012. He went to his uncle’s Church and saw Iranian authorities arrest his uncle. As a result, the applicant’s brother felt fear and that he was unsafe, so he departed Iran. He identified the Church as Christian and the denomination as Protestant. The applicant’s brother said that he became interested in the Christian faith because many of the younger generation of Iranians had a problem with the Islamic Government in Iran. In 1388 in the Persian calendar, there was a demonstration and he saw the death of a girl next to him. Since that incident, he started questioning how the authorities can kill someone of the same religion. Before that incident, the applicant’s brother was challenged in his head, such as questioning Islamic rules and questions to Islamic leaders did not result in the right answers. During his challenging thoughts, the applicant’s brother met his wife who had similar positions concerning Islam. After that, his wife, who had a Christian friend, met with the applicant’s brother frequently and they decided to have a chat about the religion with her. From that point, the applicant’s brother started to know about Christianity seriously. He identified his wife’s friend by her name as [Ms C], and identified that she was born as a Christian and is [of Country 3 ethnicity]. The applicant tried to attend Church with [Ms C], which he identified as being located in [a] Street in Tehran and that it was [a specified] Church. The applicant’s brother said that his brother, him, his wife and [Ms C] tried to attend to Church. At the Church, the applicant, his brother and wife were refused entry, but [Ms C] was allowed to enter. The applicant was asked when this was, but the applicant’s brother did not answer, instead saying he had sessions with [Ms C] in coffee shops and her home and after that it was suggested that he go to Church with [Ms C]. When asked for a timeframe of how long it was before he departed Iran that he went to the Church and was refused entry, the applicant’s brother said it was a year or less than a year before he left Iran. He initially said that his first exposure to the Christian church was through [Ms C]. When the Tribunal started asking the applicant’s brother about his attendances at his uncle’s house church, the applicant confirmed that he started attending his uncle’s house church after he had been refused entry to [Ms C]’s Church. The applicant’s brother said that he found out about his uncle’s Christianity about three, four or five months before he left Iran. The applicant’s brother said that it was his father who put him in touch with his uncle for Christian activity.
The applicant’s brother described the Christian activities at the uncle’s house as reading Bibles after his uncle asked whether the applicant’s brother was sure he wanted to lean about Christianity. The applicant’s brother described this as study and praying. At times, the applicant’s brother was asked if he wanted to pray themselves loudly. The applicant’s brother’s uncle is named [name] and he is the brother of the applicant’s brother’s father. The Tribunal was told that other people also attended the house church, named [names], but he did not know them well. The numbers of the group changed depending on the day, but it was not more than seven or eight. The applicant’s brother’s wife came once or twice. The Tribunal was told that the uncle’s family also used to attend the house sessions. He had two daughters, but one was too young to be involved.
The applicant’s brother said that it was about two or three or four months before he left Iran that he started attending his uncle’s house church. The applicant’s brother said that he and his brother would go to the house church on Sunday and on other days by arrangement. He estimated that he attended his uncle’s house church about 15 or 16 times before his uncle was arrested. On the occasion that the uncle was taken away, the applicant and his brother arrived by car and saw intelligence service officers had handcuffed his uncle. He believed they were intelligence services because of the handcuffs and the fact that they were arresting his uncle and putting him in a car. The applicant’s brother said that it was very crowded and saw [a named person] was there, but did not see anyone else arrested and he just left. The Tribunal was told that the applicant’s brother stopped the car about 300 metres from his uncle’s house. The Tribunal was told that this event occurred in the last days of the first Persian month, and that the applicant and his brother left Iran three or four weeks before they left Iran. The applicant’s brother told his father what happened and was told that it was too dangerous to return home and to go to a bus terminal and go to their mother’s friend’s house in a village four hours away.
When the applicant and his brother were in the village, some two or three people from the intelligence services went to the family home and asked where the applicant and his brother were and searched the house. This caused the applicant and his brother to realise that they were being looked for, and that it must be in connection with his uncle. The applicant and his brother’s father then provided everything to travel overseas. The Tribunal was told that he was unsure about the arrangements made for the departure, other than tickets were arranged. Calls were made through over family members, and this is how they found about the tickets. An uncle who was involved with [Company 1] came with them to the airport and used a card to pass the date with the applicant and his brother. This was done because the applicant’s brother was unsure whether the applicant and his brother were on the ‘blacklist.’ The Tribunal was told that nothing happened at the airport.

The Tribunal was told that the applicant’s brother was not sure what happened to his uncle after his arrest. As far as he knows, his uncle is still in detention. The Tribunal was told that his grandfather passed away and asked to see the uncle in detention, but this request was denied. The father also went to a detention house and was told not to come again.
Concerning when the applicant’s brother was at a demonstration when a girl was killed, it was identified that this was in 1388 in the Persian calendar. The applicant’s brother said it was very crowded and he did not know anything about this girl. He could not see who shot her and was in shock. Someone told the applicant’s brother to run away. The demonstration occurred at a square two or three hundred metres from Tehran University. The applicant’s brother had attended demonstrations beforehand at the square. The Tribunal was told that some of the demonstrations the applicant’s brothers had attended included remembrances for people who had been killed in 1378 in the Persian calendar. The applicant’s brother said that the people killed at that time were students who had issues with the Iranian Government, and they were shot in the dormitory. The applicant’s brother said that he attended this annual Remembrance Day roughly six or seven times and attended other things as well. The applicant’s brother would also attend in the days prior to, and following, the annual Remembrance Day. The applicant’s brother was never questioned or detained as a result of his participation for these protests but suggested a sergeant had warned the applicant during his military service to not wear a green bracelet.
The applicant’s brother said that he had spent some time in immigration detention since his arrival in Australia in August 2012. His contact with the Christian church in Australia started after he was released from immigration detention. He started attending the Church of God which was initially located in [Suburb 1], Victoria and it is now located in [Suburb 3], Victoria. The applicant’s brother said that while he was in immigration detention he read Bibles with other detainees and on Sunday he would go to services.
The applicant’s brother was asked to tell the Tribunal about the Church of God that he had been attending. The Tribunal was told that he met the followers accidentally and the first time he went there with lots of questions, which they answered. He cited how when he asked why the Church had services on a Saturday, they would respond by opening the Bible to cite the reason why. This was contrasted with friends who attended other Christian churches who did not know why those people did certain things. The Tribunal was told that the applicant’s brother also introduced two friends to the Church who had subsequently been baptised. He noted that he did other things connected with the Church, such as rubbish collection. His attendances are weekly on Saturday, which are held at 9:00am, 3pm and 8pm. He usually goes to the 3pm session. There are also sessions on Tuesday which he sometimes attends. He detailed the Church to be [deleted].
The Tribunal indicated its understanding that this particular Church does not have mainstream Christian beliefs and has been described by other Christian faiths as a cult. The applicant’s brother disagreed with that characterisation. The Tribunal noted an article from 2010 which detailed that the World Mission Society believes that God lives in Korea in the form of a woman named Heavily Mother and that many mainstream Christian groups find its view unacceptable and that various cult support groups consider it as a cult. The Tribunal wondered how the applicant’s brother would end up at a Church like that given his claimed practice in Iran and his attendance at mainstream Christian church sessions in immigration detention. The applicant’s brother said there were about 60 various branches of Christianity who can be against each other, and that all those things talking about God being in the body of a female is not out of the Bible. The applicant’s brother said that he was able to disagree with the Church’s teachings, but he believes that Jesus came for a second time in Korea.
The applicant’s brother said that when he went to the house church in Iran, he had no concept about Catholicism or Protestantism. It was the same when he was in immigration detention. After he came out from detention, he was free to choose his form of Christianity and he met people from the Church of God because they were preaching in public, which is what God requires his followers to do. The applicant’s brother had no idea about which Church he was going to attend after he was released from immigration detention and believed that the Church of God people found him. The applicant’s brother suggested that the explanation of why that Church hold services on Saturday as cited in the Bible was something that drew him to that Church, together with the faith of their followers. He said that he was planning to go to a Protestant Church but did not go because he believed that they were not doing the right thing having Church on Sunday. The applicant’s brother said Salvation was not for everyone, and he saw something at the Church of God. He told the Tribunal that Salvation would not be offered to people who did not keep God’s commandment to have their services on Saturday. The applicant’s brother said that he explored other Christian denominations in Australia, but did so with the members of the Church of God who taught him that Salvation could only come through God’s commandments, which came back to the issue of Church services being held on Saturday which is why he did not attend other Christian denominations in Australia.
The Tribunal noted that it needed to consider whether the applicant’s brother attended Church services in Australia only to strengthen his protection claims. The Tribunal noted that it would need to consider whether the applicant had the contact with the Church of God give the applicant’s brother was not supported by the attendance of witnesses from that Church at the Tribunal hearing; he had not provided any documentary evidence about his baptism; and letters of support from people identified as Church of God followers were only provided at the day of the Tribunal hearing. The applicant’s brother said he did not attend Church of God just to strengthen his protection claims, as he was aware that some other Christian denominations provided documentary evidence and oral testimony for Tribunal hearings and that he had asked his Church to do this, but was told that the Church of God does not do so. The applicant’s brother said that if his intention was to only strengthen his protection claims, he would have gone to another Church because they would have been able to provide the evidence. The applicant’s brother said that he had telephone numbers for fellow members if the Tribunal wanted, or the Tribunal hearing could be adjourned to another day so members could attend, who were working on the day of the Tribunal hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the delegate did not accept that the applicant’s brother’s narrative about his Christian activity in Iran or his claimed Christian activity in Australia. The Member noted that the applicant’s brother was unable to tell the delegate about the significance of Christmas and Easter, even if the Church of God did not teach about those events. The Tribunal reasoned that Christmas and Easter were basic events in Christianity, and if the applicant’s brother was exploring Christianity in Iran, it would be reasonable to expect that he would know about them. The applicant’s brother responded that he could prove that Christmas and Easter are not in the Bible, but that the Church of God celebrates Resurrection Day. The applicant’s brother said that he talked to the delegate about why he did not believe in Christmas and Easter. He said that everyone knows about Christmas and Easter. He also said that 3 April was the Passover and Resurrection Day.
The applicant’s brother said that he did not start his Christianity in Protestantism in Iran. He said it was the beginning of his understanding of Christianity and he had no alternative. When he came to Australia, he believed Christianity was Orthodox or Catholic and there was no Protestantism in immigration detention. It was after his release in immigration detention that he found the Church of God and liked it. He initially believed it was Orthodox, but continued to continue going to this Church because they answered his questions. It was like going to a restaurant and if you taste the food and like it, you keep going. He has been attending that Church and he is almost at the level where he can preach for the Church of God by himself.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s brother had made claims about having his clothing measured in Iran. The Tribunal was told that they took the applicant’s brother to the police station with his wife, who was with him at the time, and he was then asked to prove that they were married. The applicant’s brother said that his family came and provided the marriage, so he and his wife were released. The Tribunal noted that these were laws of general application and that breach of the laws resulted in low level harassment, including talking to people who breached the clothing laws and asking people to justify their relationship. The applicant’s brother said that these issues were not his protection claims. It was raised by the applicant’s brother in the context of the delegate interview because he was asked whether the police had ever arrested/detained him. He did not claim that he could not return to Iran because of the dress requirements or the requirements to prove his marriage. The reason he could not return to Iran was because of his religious belief. The applicant’s brother noted the attendance of authorities on his mother-in-law’s workplace to asked whether the applicant’s brother had any contact with leaders of home Churches. Authorities also searched the family home on this basis and took laptops. The applicant’s brother said that he was not sure what happened with his uncle and suggested that the authorities suspected that his uncle and the home Church were supported by foreigners. The applicant’s brother said that his mother-in-law denounced the applicant’s brother as an apostate.
The applicant’s brother said that the wife and children of the uncle who ran the house church fled to [Country 2] and are now under the United Nations for protection.
The Tribunal noted that at the applicant’s brother’s entry interview on Christmas Island, he told the official that he attended the house church in Iran five or six times, which appeared to the Tribunal to be different to the applicant’s brother’s oral evidence given to the Tribunal. The applicant’s brother attributed this to a mistranslation/and or misunderstanding about attending on Sundays as opposed to attending on other times during the week on a needs basis.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s brother had told the delegate that his wife was a Christian, and queried why she was able to remain in Iran while the applicant’s brother left. The applicant’s brother said that it was because his wife was exploring Christianity and went with him a couple of times to the house church but was not a subject of interest from the authorities, contrasting that with the attendances on authorities on his family. The applicant’s brother said that his uncle’s wife’s brother had a son named [Mr F] and following the Christian activity in Iran, the applicant’s cousin (who is now in [Country 2]) shared information about Christianity with [Mr F]. [Mr F] then reported this to his father, who was a strict Muslim and realised that the cousin was preaching to [Mr F] and realised that there were attendances at the house church. The father beat his son and the applicant’s brother assumes that the father reported the activity in the house church to the authorities, which is why the authorities attended on the house church and knew that the applicant and the applicant’s brother attended the house church.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s brother had told the delegate that he said that he and his brother stayed between a week and ten days at a village where his mother had a house but had told the Tribunal that it was three or four weeks. The applicant’s brother disputed that he said that to the delegate but was not sure how many weeks he and the applicant stayed.
The Tribunal also noted that the applicant’s brother obtained a passport in [month] 2012, which may suggest that the applicant’s brother made plans to leave Iran before the events occurred which made him to leave Iran. This caused the Tribunal to question whether the events claimed to have occurred caused him to leave. The applicant’s brother claimed that this was not the case, as obtaining a passport in Iran is done by most people in Iran even those who do not plan to travel and noted that completion of military service was a condition of a passport being issued to a person. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant’s brother told the delegate that he had obtained his passport two years before he left Iran, but now said it was issued in [month] 2012. Concerning the inconsistency about his evidence about the date of the passport, the applicant’s brother said that he was not sure about when the passport was issued.
It was during this Tribunal hearing that the Member was alerted that the applicant had a review of a decision refusing to grant him a protection visa, and the Member indicated that she would see about whether it was appropriate that the applicant’s review also be heard by the same Member. The representative suggested that the applicant and his brother’s claims were corroborative and that the Member should take this into account. As noted previously, the Member arranged for the applicant’s review to also be heard by her and had a Tribunal hearing for the applicant on 20 April 2015.

100. The documents provided in the course of the review for the applicant’s brother were as follows:
·     A submission by the representative, dated 17 March 2014.
·     A letter dated 22 February 2015 from [a named individual], who was identified as a Church friend from the World Mission Society Church of God and confirmed that the applicant and his brother were known to her for the past two and a half years through attendances at the Church, including through voluntary work.
·     A post-hearing submission from the representative, dated 12 March 2015, attaching the applicant’s written statement dated 30 November 2012, as well as the letters from [two individuals] previous referred to.
Review and Tribunal hearing for 1615141
101. As detailed previously, the applicant’s brother’s review was remitted by the Court back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. The applicant’s brother participated in another Tribunal hearing on 7 March 2017. The Tribunal hearing lasted for approximately 2 hours and 20 minutes.
102. At that Tribunal hearing, the applicant’s brother said that prior coming to Australia, he lived in a town just outside of Tehran, who lived in the same area. The applicant’s brother identified that his sister was married and not working, and that his father works as [occupation]. They are in Iran and the brother, who is the applicant, is also in Australia.
103. The applicant’s brother said that he was married in Iran, about five or six years ago and the couple were now divorced, about three years ago. The marriage was ‘not exactly married’ as they had a family party meaning that everything was legal, but not with the government. They were legally married ‘by the family’ which the applicant’s brother said that before they were to get married, they had an engagement party and were announced husband and wife. It was approximately a year before the applicant’s brother left Iran that this occurred. During the time, the applicant’s brother’s wife continued to live with her family. It was suggested that in Iran, a fiancée is considered a wife. The applicant’s brother confirmed his travel was from Iran, to [named country], to [Country 1].
104. The Tribunal was told that when the applicant and the brother were young, they attended the Mosque with their mother. Their father was not religious. Their mother no longer attends Mosque in Iran about three years ago because of the applicant’s brother’s advice to think about why she was attending Mosque instead of just doing so because in Iran you are forced to be a Muslim. The Tribunal asked about the applicant’s brother’s parents age and asked whether they were becoming religious in their advancing years. The Tribunal was told they were, but not Islam, instead believing God. The Tribunal was told that the father was not a Christian, and nor was the mother. The applicant’s brother confirmed that in the mid to late teens he stopped attending Mosque and was not religious. He met his wife’s friend [Ms C] sometime in the year before his departure from Iran, but it was after he got married to his wife, around the time they got married. He knew of her before they were married but had not met her. His prior attendance at Mosque was through school and school holidays which was more recreational, where sporting activities were offered which, the Tribunal contrasted with the applicant’s attendance at Mosque to be an attempt to find God, but later told the Tribunal it was a mixture of both reasons.
105. The Tribunal noted that [Ms C] was the person who encouraged the applicant’s brother’s Christianity and asked how [Ms C] approached him about this. The Tribunal was told that prior to this, the applicant and his brother were searching for something else and were tired of the Muslims and their regulations and were reaching the point that Islam was not working for them. He said that [Ms C] realised they were no longer interested in Islam. When asked how [Ms C] knew this, the Tribunal was told that when he was growing up, he was questioning why he had to do this, and recalled a story of going to a Mosque about why something was written at the Mosque, and he was kicked out of the Mosque. His wife told [Ms C] that she and her husband were frustrated with Islam and do not even call themselves Muslim. The Tribunal indicated this was not plausible because conversion is extremely dangerous. The Tribunal was told that this was the case, but the applicant’s brother decided to do this because she was born Christian and took a risk.
106. The Tribunal queried why the applicant’s brother wanted to go to a Christian Church when he was not going to a Mosque. The Tribunal was told that he was not wanting to go to a Church but was exploring Christianity with [Ms C]. The applicant’s brother said he was sick and tired of Islam two or three years before he departed Iran and became interested in Christianity approximately two years before leaving Iran.
107. The Tribunal was told that the applicant and his brother became interested in Christianity approximately two years prior their departure from Iran. In terms of what was done to explore Christianity in Iran, the Tribunal was told that Iranians were familiar with Christianity and noted that it was a biggest and important religion in Iran after Islam. The applicant and his brother had not made up their minds about going to Christianity at that time. They decided to start attending Christian churches once they made a serious connection with [Ms C] and started to be told about Christianity that they became more serious about becoming a Christian, but he could not be sure about the timeframe. The applicant said that they went to [Ms C]’s [Church] but was not permitted to enter.
108. The applicant’s brother said that he spoke to his father about Converting to Christianity and he was advised to attend his father’s brother’s home church. Given the applicant’s brother’s father was not religious, the Tribunal asked why his father would encourage the applicant’s brother to attend the home church. The Tribunal was told that it was easier to talk to his father about these things because his father found out that the applicant’s brother was going to unusual and strange places, which the applicant’s brother clarified as going to coffee shops with [Ms C] to study the Bible, which was high risk and his father was worried about him. His father would prefer him to go to his uncle’s house church rather than a coffee shop and there would be some protection for the applicant’s brother. His mother and father got along and his father was prepared for the applicant to ignore Islam and go to the house Church even though this was against the mother’s wishes.

Identity and country of reference
201. The Tribunal is satisfied that the [applicant], a male citizen of Iran presently located in Australia with no other citizenship or right to enter and reside in any third country.
202. The Tribunal reaches this conclusion of the basis that, according to the delegate decision record, the applicant provided his original Iranian driver licence and photocopies of his passport, birth certificate and national identification card to demonstrate his identity. The applicant claimed Iranian citizenship, that he had no right to enter and reside in any other country, or any other citizenship, and there is no evidence to undermine those claims.
203. Accordingly, the country of reference for the purpose of the protection visa assessment is Iran.
Membership of the same family unit
204. The applicant was the only person included in the protection visa application form, and did not claim to be a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act.
205. Based on that concession, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not a member of the same family unit as a person who meets s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act.
Request for Tribunal to consider NQKB and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2021] AATA 4054 (8 October 2021)
206. The submission requesting the Tribunal to consider ‘in the alternative’ the above case, which the submission suggested that a person who could not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa under the Act may still engage Australia’s non-refoulement obligations. The Tribunal read the case, but it was not on point.
207. That case concerned a decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of an applicant’s visa under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal, in those circumstances, was required to consider whether Australia would be in breach of its non-refoulement obligations by upholding the decision to not revoke the cancellation of the visa. It was not a case concerning the refusal of a protection visa.
208. In the present case, the Tribunal is required to determine whether the applicant meets the statutory criteria for the grant of the protection visa as provided under the Act. The submission that the Tribunal should consider NQKB was misconceived as to the Tribunal’s statutory task.
The applicant’s claims about what happened to him in Iran and his reasons for departure from that country
209. The Tribunal has considered the fact that the applicant has provided evidence in both written and oral form over may years concerning what he claims occurred to him and his family in Iran, as well as his reasons for leaving Iran. Notwithstanding that the applicant’s brother was found not to meet the criteria for a protection visa, the Tribunal considered the applicant’s brother’s evidence that has been provided in both written and oral form over many years to the extent it may corroborate that applicant’s narrative.
210. The Tribunal accepts that there has been consistent evidence provided concerning the claimed journey towards an interest in Christianity in Iran, namely being introduced to Christianity by a friend of the applicant’s brother’s wife named [Ms C], who was [a Country 3] Christian in that country and that they had discussions with her. As far as the applicant’s claims were put, he provided consistent evidence that he attempted to attend a Church with [Ms C] but was refused entry. Although the applicant’s brother gave corroborative oral evidence of that account, as demonstrated in the written decision concerning the applicant’s brother’s first Tribunal hearing, no such claim was made in the applicant’s brother’s written protection visa application form. The applicant and his brother also provided consistent evidence concerning the fact that they were attended a house church operated by their paternal uncle with other relatives and that one time when they were approaching the house church, they saw that their uncle was being arrested so they fled. The applicant and his brother provided consistent evidence about relocating to a village in the north of Iran and staying in a house owned by their mother’s family until they could depart Iran. Both the applicant and his brother gave oral evidence over may years about the fact that they were assisted by an uncle who held a position with [a company] and that he assisted them to depart the airport in Tehran by avoiding some departure checks that were required of other passengers, although this claim was absent in both the applicant and his brother’s written protection claims. The Tribunal also draws no adverse inference against the applicant because he identified his religion as Islam at his entry interview as detailed in the delegate interview, because he was not, if his evidence was to be expected, a Christian convert at that time, and was instead exploring Christianity.
211. However, the Tribunal gives no weight to the corroboration of the applicant’s factual narrative by the applicant’s brother about what is said to have occurred in Iran, and the reasons for leaving Iran, for the following reasons.
212. First, the Tribunal finds that if the applicant and his brother were assisted by their uncle to leave Iran as claimed, it would have been declared in the applicant’s protection visa application form. The protection visa application form was completed with the assistance of a registered migration agent, and it is indicated that an interpreter was also used to complete this form. One of the questions was asked in the protection visa application form was how the applicant left Iran (Question 52) and the applicant responded that the left Iran legally on an Iranian passport. The Tribunal does not accept that in circumstances described by the applicant in his oral evidence about how he came to depart Iran with the assistance of an uncle, namely avoiding certain checks, could be described as a legal departure from that country. The Tribunal is satisfied that the answering of that question in the form would have prompted the applicant to turn his mind to the claimed circumstances of his departure and that he would have provided the details of the claimed assistance from his uncle if such assistance was provided. The applicant did not do so. It was only later in his oral evidence that he claimed the assistance from his uncle.
213. The Tribunal is not persuaded that the failure to detail this claimed assistance can be attributed to either the applicant not being asked this important question, or the applicant not understanding the importance of the assistance his uncle provided to depart Iran. Rather, the Tribunal is satisfied that the reason the applicant did not detail the assistance he was provided by his uncle was due to the fact that no such assistance was provided, and the applicant was able to depart Iran in the usual manner that any Iranian citizen would be subjected to. The Tribunal concludes that the applicant fabricated the claimed assistance by his uncle to depart Iran because he realised that a usual departure from Iran had the potential to undermine the assertion that he was of adverse interest to the Iranian authorities, who had apparently arrested his uncle and were looking for the applicant and his brother.
214. Second, the Tribunal was troubled by the applicant’s failure to declare that he had previously been arrested or detained in Iran in his protection visa application form. While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s claimed arrest and detention was not a basis of his protection claims, in so far as it was not claimed that the applicant’s previous detention was detained because of his interest in Christianity, or because of his association with his uncle who operated the house Church, the fact is that the applicant’s previous dealings with the Iranian authorities would be relevant when assessing his claimed profile in Iran. It is also relevant about whether the applicant is a witness of truth, because the protection visa application form does ask whether the applicant has committed a crime in any country. In circumstances where it was alleged by the applicant that he had been arrested by the authorities in Iran for the clothing he was wearing, the Tribunal assesses that this is capable of demonstrating that he committed an offence, and that in those circumstances, it would have been declared in the protection visa application form. The Tribunal is not persuaded that the reason the applicant failed to declare that in the protection visa application form was because it is a common occurrence in Iran. Rather, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant suggested these previous dealings with the Iranian authorities to manufacture a claimed profile in Iran, and then backtracked to explain why the declaration was not in the protection visa application form.
215. Third, the applicant has maintained that he participated in the 2009 protest in Iran, which, according to the evidence, was the genesis of the start of his opposition to Islam, which lead to his eventual journey to exploring Christianity. The applicant’s written statement detailed that both he and his brother attended the 2009 protests in Iran yet, at the Tribunal hearing, the applicant’s brother said that he did not know or could not recall whether the applicant had engaged in any public activity in defiance of the Iranian Government. The Tribunal is not persuaded that the applicant’s brother would easily forget the attendance of the applicant at such a protest, even in the event that the applicant and his brother did not attend the protest together. Given the commonality of the protection claims between the applicant and his brother, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s brother would have been aware of the applicant’s attendance at that protest, especially when the applicant’s written claim suggested that they both attended the protest, and a fair reading of that statement would suggest it was attendance together. The Tribunal is satisfied that the inconsistency in this evidence suggests that the applicant did not attend the 2009 protest as claimed.
216. Fourth, the applicant and his brother gave differing accounts of their trip to the airport from the village where they had fled to. On one hand, the evidence was that the applicant and his brother travelled in a car driven by the applicant’s brother to the airport where, according to other evidence, the applicant and his brother met their father and/or uncle. On the other hand, the evidence was that the applicant and his brother were picked up and driven to the airport by their father. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there would be inconsistent evidence about something as basic as the travel to the airport from the place of hiding, because relocating to a village after becoming fearful of arrest following the uncle’s arrest by the Iranian authorities is a significant event, as is the departure from a place of hiding and going to the airport to depart Iran for the first and last time. The Tribunal is satisfied that if the applicant and his brother had relocated to a village in northern Iran they would have provided consistent evidence about their departure from that village and travel to the airport. The Tribunal is satisfied that the inconsistent evidence demonstrates that the applicant and his brother did not flee to northern Iran as claimed.
217. Fifth, the Tribunal is not persuaded that if the applicant and his brother’s claimed experiences in Iran, and reasons for departing Iran were as claimed, the applicant would not register with the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner [after] arrival in [Country 1], noting that after a period of time in [City 1, Country 1], the evidence is that the applicant and his brother went to [City 2, Country 1]. The applicant’s evidence that he was young and did not know about these things is inconsistent, in the Tribunal’s view, with a person feeling their country of citizenship and finding themselves in another country and not taking steps to avail themselves of protection in the country where that person has just arrived. The Tribunal’s assessment is that the reason the applicant did not register with the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner in [Country 1] is due to the fact that the applicant’s claims about what happened to him in Iran and the reason he claimed to have left Iran are not true.
218. Sixth, the applicant’s oral evidence about how it was known by the Iranian authorities about he and his brother’s conversion to Christianity was not persuasive. In the written statement, it was suggested that the family home was searched by authorities who were looking for the applicant and his brother. A fair reading of the written statement suggests that it was this event which showed that the applicant and his brother were of adverse interest to the Iranian authorities. This was not what the applicant told the Tribunal at the most recent hearing, where he speculated that the authorities in Iran were aware of the applicant’s association with Christianity because of his uncle’s arrest. The Tribunal is not persuaded by the applicant’s argument about why he did not repeat this in his oral evidence to the Tribunal because the certainty of a search in Iran of a family home would demonstrate, if true, that the applicant and his brother were of adverse interest to the Iranian authorities. The Tribunal is satisfied in the circumstances that the reason the claim about the search of the family home was not repeated in the oral evidence was because the family home was not searched as claimed.
219. Seventh, the fact that the applicant’s brother omitted in the protection visa application the claimed attempt in Iran to attend a Christian Church with the applicant and the friend [Ms C] (which was why it was suggested that the applicant and his brother go to the uncle’s house church suggests that no attempt at attendance was made by either the applicant or his brother to attend a Christian Church in Iran. The Tribunal’s assessment is that if this attempt had occurred, consistent evidence between the applicant and his brother would have been provided about this fact in the protection visa application form.
220. Eight, the applicant gave inconsistent evidence about whether his uncle was arrested by himself or with others. While the Tribunal accepts that in circumstances where a person may see something shocking and flee as a result, the Tribunal is not persuaded that this would cause the applicant to provide inconsistent evidence about something as basic as whether he saw his uncle arrested as part of a group of with others. This inconsistency suggests that the applicant’s uncle was not arrested as claimed by the applicant.
221. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s conduct in Australia later in this decision record. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s conduct in Australia can be used to corroborate the truth of his claimed past experiences in Iran or the reason that he left Iran given the credibility concerns that the Tribunal has about the applicant’s narrative about what he claims happened to him and his brother in Iran.
222. The Tribunal accepts that it cannot reason that the failure of the applicant’s brother to leave Australia now that his protection visa application has been refused and he is an unlawful non-citizen means that the Tribunal should not believe what the applicant’s brother says. However, the fact that the applicant’s brother has remained in Australia despite being found not to engage in Australia’s protection obligations and has remained in this country as an unlawful non-citizen, does not corroborate the applicant’s protection claims, as there may be many reasons not connected with protection obligations that the applicant’s brother has chosen to remain in Australia.
223. Concerning the applicant’s past experiences in Iran, which will be relevant to his journey towards Christianity in Australia, the Tribunal concludes that the applicant did not attend any protest in 2009 in Iran, did not seek out and explore Christianity in Iran, or attempt to attend a Christian Church in that country, did not engage in attendance at a house church, did not flee to a village because of seeing an arrest of his uncle, and did not depart Iran in the circumstances as claimed. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is any truth to the applicant’s narrative about what he claimed happened in Iran. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s uncle is a Christian who operated a house church or that the uncle’s family left Iran for reasons associated with the uncle’s claimed arrest and detention.
Conduct in Australia – Religious activity
224. The evidence is that the applicant and his brother attended the Church of God in Australia. Various letters of support were provided to corroborate that attendance. The Tribunal draws no adverse inference against the applicant because at previous the previous Tribunal hearings, no followers attended the Tribunal hearing to give oral evidence about the activities of the applicant and his brother. The applicant and his brother gave evidence about why those followers were not prepared to give oral evidence at the Tribunal hearings, namely that their rules prohibit them from doing so and the Tribunal is prepared to accept this explanation, even though no explanation was provided about why Church of God supporters were permitted to provide written letters of support and not permitted to provide oral evidence.
225. The Tribunal also assesses that the applicant and his brother provided a reasonable explanation of why they chose the Church of God in Australia, as opposed to a more mainstream Christian Church. If the Tribunal was to accept that the applicant and his brother studied or attended a house church in Iran, the Tribunal would be prepared to accept the explanation provided about why they chose the Church of God in Australia and would not draw an inference against the applicant’s credibility for not going to a more mainstream Christian Church in Australia. The explanation about moving interstate and no longer attending the particular Church of God church is also reasonable as is the explanation that the Church of God does not issue documents to confirm baptism or conversion into the faith. The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant was able to provide at his previous Tribunal hearing an explanation about the Church’s belief and what he claimed he liked about the Church and Christianity in general. All of that may be indicative of a genuine Christian convert, but it could also be indicative of a person who has attended religious services in Australia and studied doctrines in order to obtain a protection visa.
226. By the time of the most recent Tribunal hearing, the applicant told the Tribunal that he had been to a [Church] a few times in the past 12 months, but his religious practice was otherwise reading the Bible at home. The Tribunal accepts that a person who may be a genuine Christian convert may not necessarily be a person who attends Christian masses once because of things such as work commitments, as the applicant told the Tribunal. However, in circumstances where the applicant has previously attended the Church of God in Australia with a great deal of frequency on his version of events, it is curious to the Tribunal that the applicant would now reduce his attendances and instead read the Bible and ask himself questions, noting that a particular interest of his attendance at the Church of God services was the ability ask questions and receive answers from those members.
227. In the circumstances of this review, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s failure to continue to attend regular Christian services more recently is indicative of the fact that the applicant is not a genuine Christian convert and only engaged in the previous frequent attendance at the Church of God to strengthen his protection claims. The Tribunal is comfortable making this finding when it considers its conclusion concerning the applicant’s claimed lived experiences in Iran, which it has rejected in their entirety, meaning that the Tribunal does not accept the narrative of how the applicant came to be interested in Christianity. This leaves the Tribunal with a factual scenario where the applicant has, once in Australia, started attending a Christian Church following his release from immigration detention where he was exposed to, on the evidence, Christian services in the facility. Given the credibility concerns that the Tribunal has discussed, the Tribunal is satisfied that any of the applicant’s activity in Australia associated with Christianity was done in order to obtain a protection visa. The Tribunal is satisfied that if the applicant’s protection visa is refused and he is required to return to Iran, he will not engage in Christian activity for that reason.

Conduct in Australia – appearance on a television programme and involvement with ‘[Group 1]’
228. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant appeared on a television programme [and] that this was a production of a Persian speaking language television network. Having watched the entirety of the programme, the Tribunal is not satisfied that it has the ‘political’ complexion asserted by the applicant. There was no Accompanying English translation or subtitle to the programme, [the] Tribunal does not accept that this programme would be of adverse interest to the Iranian authorities as it does not appear to be political in nature. The Tribunal is not satisfied, given the nature of the programme, that the applicant’s claims that his family have been contacted by telephone and harassed to be credible, when considered with the totality of the Tribunal’s concerns.
229. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has, at one point, shared a video connected with the ‘[Group 1].’ The Tribunal accepts based on the transaction history that he has financially supported that group, although the evidence is that the funds are identified as [social media] payments and for a limited period. The Tribunal is also prepared to accept that the applicant protested [in] Australia during his time in this country.
230. However, the timing of that activity, when considered in the context of the applicant’s protection visa application process, as well as the other credibility concerns the Tribunal has considered, satisfies the Tribunal that the applicant only engaged in this activity once the Tribunal upheld the delegate decision to refuse to grant him the protection visa. No evidence was provided to demonstrate that the applicant undertook any activity with ‘[Group 1]’ prior to that decision. Indeed, his written statement suggests that it was after his appearance on [the show] in 2018 that he got involved with that group. The evidence provided to the Tribunal by the applicant about his involvement with that group is limited to apparently forwarding on a video to another person and a discussion. The applicant did not provide evidence to demonstrate ongoing large public discussions about his opposition to the Iranian Government via social media. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant did not provide any such evidence because there is none.
231. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s [social media] account was blocked, based on the copy of the email correspondence the applicant provided to the Tribunal. However, the fact that the applicant’s [social media] account was blocked does not, given the totality of the Tribunal’s concerns about the applicant’s credibility, satisfy the Tribunal that the account was blocked by a complaint made by the Iranian authorities or at their behest.
232. As discussed at the Tribunal hearing, the DFAT County Information Report on Iran dated 14 April 2020 assesses that authorities pay little attention to failed asylum seekers on their return to Iran. A well-place source was not aware of voluntary returnees being prosecuted for criticising the Islamic Republic, converting to Christianity, or proselytising while abroad on their return to Iran. As far as DFAT is aware, the authorities do not check the social media accounts of Iranians returning from abroad. International observers report that Iranian authorities have little interest in prosecuting failed asylum seekers for activities conducted outside of Iran, including in relation to protection claims. This includes posting social media comments critical of the Iranian government (heavy internet filtering means most Iranians will never see them), protesting outside of an Iranian diplomatic mission, 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. The treatment of returnees depends on the returnee’s profile before departing Iran and their actions on return. The subsequent DFAT Country Information Report dated 24 July 2023 does not change that assessment. Further, the UK Home Office Report provided by the applicant concerning sur place claims only goes as far to say that it is unclear about the extent of monitoring of individuals outside of Iran, and does not assess that this occurs.
233. The Tribunal is not satisfied that in the event the Iranian authorities became aware of any of the applicant’s conduct in Australia, there would be a real chance of serious harm, or a real risk of significant harm to the applicant upon his return to Iran. Given the applicant left Iran on his own passport, and the Tribunal found that the applicant left Iran in the usual manner as any other citizen, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant would be issued a passport to allow his return to Iran, and that he would not be subjected to any questioning.
234. In the event that the Iranian government became aware of the applicant’s activities in Australia, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant would be of any adverse interest to the authorities in that country, given the contents of the DFAT Country Information Report. This is because the Tribunal is not satisfied of the applicant’s claimed narrative about what occurred in Iran and the reasons for his departure. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant had any adverse profile prior to his departure from Iran with his brother. As the Tribunal has found that the applicant’s conduct in Australia was only for the purpose of obtaining a protection visa, it follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant would continue to engage in any of that type of conduct if returned to Iran because the purpose of the conduct would have ceased, namely obtaining a protection visa.
CONCLUSION
235. The Tribunal has not accepted the truth of the applicant’s narrative about his journey to Christianity in Iran and the narrative about his circumstances of his departure from that country.
236. The Tribunal has accepted that the applicant has engaged in certain conduct in Australia related to Christianity and other conduct which could be established as being actual or imputed opposition to the Iranian Government. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant engaged in any of that conduct other than to obtain a protection visa.
237. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Iranian Government or authorities in Iran (however described) are aware of the applicant or his brother’s activities in Australia. However, even if the Iranian Government became aware of that activity, the country information suggests that the applicant would be of little interest to them because, as the Tribunal has found the facts in this case, the applicant was not of adverse interest to them prior to his departure from that country.
238. In summary, the Tribunal finds that the applicant departed Iran in usual circumstances and will be of no adverse interest to any person, authority or group in Iran upon his return.
Refugee
239. 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 Refugees Convention.
240. Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
Complementary protection
241. 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 s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Member of the same family unit
242. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa.
243. Therefore, the applicant is not a person who satisfies s 36(2)(b) or (c) of the Act.
DECISION
244. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Nathan Goetz
Member

[2024] AATA 2866

7 March 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Appeal

Statutory Construction