2011381 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Iran, sought review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) to affirm the refusal of a protection visa. The applicant claimed to have converted to Christianity in Iran and alleged that this conversion, along with a perceived "westernised" lifestyle, would place him at risk of persecution upon return to Iran. The RRT had found that the applicant's conversion to Christianity was not genuine and that he had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. The matter came before Sean Baker.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the RRT had erred in its assessment of the applicant's claims, specifically concerning the genuineness of his religious conversion and whether he would face persecution as a member of a particular social group upon return to Iran. The court was required to determine if the RRT's findings were supported by the evidence and whether the correct legal principles had been applied in assessing the risk of harm.

Sean Baker found that the RRT's conclusion that the applicant's conversion was not genuine was open to it on the evidence. The RRT had considered various factors, including the applicant's behaviour and statements, and had found them inconsistent with a genuine religious conviction. Furthermore, the RRT had reasonably concluded that the applicant would not face persecution as a member of a particular social group, noting that he had not attracted the attention of the authorities and that his return from a western country did not, in itself, create a risk. The court affirmed the RRT's decision.