2003902 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa, who claimed to fear persecution in Iran due to his conversion to Christianity and the presence of tattoos. The applicant alleged he had been arrested and tortured by the Basij, who specifically targeted him for his tattoos and suspected Christian beliefs. The AAT was tasked with determining whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution and, consequently, whether Australia had protection obligations towards him.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's circumstances, specifically his visible tattoos and his practice of Christianity, would expose him to a real chance of serious harm amounting to persecution in Iran. This involved assessing the credibility of his claims of past persecution, evaluating the relevance and impact of his tattoos in conjunction with his religious beliefs, and considering the country information regarding the treatment of Christian converts and individuals with tattoos in Iran. The Tribunal also had to determine if the applicant could access state protection within Iran or if internal relocation was a viable option.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant's practice of his faith was low-profile and he did not actively proselytise in a manner that would typically attract official attention, his visible tattoos presented a significant risk factor. The Tribunal accepted the applicant's account of past torture by the Basij, where his tattoos were linked to accusations of being Christian. It found that the combination of his tattoos and his conversion to Christianity would likely lead to him being identified and targeted by authorities or vigilante groups, such as the Basij, who view such individuals as threats to the state and Islamic norms. The Tribunal noted that country information indicated that Christian converts faced arrest, detention, and mistreatment, and that the Iranian government viewed the house church movement as linked to foreign powers. Given the systematic nature of the persecution and the inability to access state protection in Iran, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant would face serious harm.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant satisfies the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act, finding that he is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention.