2017693 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual from Iran. The applicant claimed to have ceased practicing Islam and to have established his own tour operations in Iran. He alleged that in June 2017, his tour group was detained during Ramadan due to the presence of alcohol, resulting in a fine and an undertaking not to operate mixed-gender tours. Subsequently, in April 2019, he was detained, interrogated about his social media accounts, and later convicted and sentenced in absentia to imprisonment and a fine, with a ban on operating tours. The applicant further claimed that the prosecutor had appealed his sentence seeking a significantly harsher penalty, including classification as "God's enemy on earth." The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under the Act, and if not, whether there were substantial grounds to believe that, as a foreseeable consequence of removal to Papua New Guinea, he would suffer significant harm.

The court considered the applicant's claims in light of the evidence presented, including statutory declarations, court documents, and independent news reports. The court noted that the "real risk" test for significant harm under section 36(2A) of the Act imposed the same standard as the "real chance" test for a well-founded fear of persecution. The Tribunal was required to take into account relevant guidelines and country information. The delegate had previously refused the visa, not accepting the applicant's account of the 2017 incident, his detention, interrogation, or subsequent conviction and sentencing. The delegate concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a refugee or for complementary protection.

The Tribunal invited the applicant to a hearing to present oral evidence and arguments, as it was unable to make a favourable decision based solely on the material before it. The applicant's representative subsequently provided a detailed submission and numerous exhibits, including further statutory declarations, translated court documents, and news articles, in support of the application. The court's ultimate decision was to remit the decision under review.