2017226 (Refugee)

The applicants, a mother and daughter from Iran, sought review of the delegate's decision to refuse their protection visa applications. The applicants arrived in Australia on visitor visas, which subsequently expired, and then applied for protection visas. The delegate refused to grant these visas, finding that the applicants did not meet the criteria under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicants then applied to the Tribunal for a review of this decision.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants were refugees within the meaning of section 5H of the Act, and whether they qualified for protection on other grounds. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider if the mother, who claimed to be a Christian convert from Islam, had a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran. The Tribunal also had to determine if the daughter, who did not claim to be making her own protection claims, qualified for a protection visa as a member of the same family unit as her mother, should her mother be found to be owed protection obligations.

The Tribunal considered the mother's claim of conversion to Christianity, noting that she was born into a Shi'a Muslim family and had expressed a lack of connection to Islam. The delegate had expressed skepticism regarding the genuineness of her conversion, citing a trend of non-genuine conversions for asylum claims and questioning the applicant's lifestyle changes beyond attending church. The Tribunal also had to assess the country information regarding the treatment of Christian converts in Iran, who are considered apostates. The Tribunal noted that the delegate had raised concerns about the applicants' husband's visa refusal and the family's intention to migrate, which the applicant denied making.

The Tribunal ultimately remitted the decision to the delegate for reconsideration. This was because the Tribunal found that the delegate had not adequately considered the evidence and submissions, particularly concerning the mother's conversion and the potential for persecution as an apostate. The Tribunal also noted that the delegate appeared to have made findings of fact not supported by the evidence presented by the applicant.