2117914 (Refugee)
[2025] ARTA 1791
•6 August 2025
2117914 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 1791 (6 August 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent:Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2117914
Tribunal:General Member A Anderson
Date:6 August 2025
Place:Melbourne
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the application for a protection visa for reconsideration, in accordance with the order that the applicant meets the following criteria:
·s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
Statement made on 06 August 2025 at 11:07am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Iran – particular social group – Muslim women who renounce Islam, are atheist and express feminist and anti-regime political opinions – fears being arrested, tortured, imprisoned, raped and killed – promotes atheism on social media – started charity for vulnerable women – distributed seminars to women about what is false in Islam, women’s rights and atheism – threatened for promoting apostasy and corruption on earth, insulting Islam and acting against national security – severe depression, anxiety and stress – since the ceasefire, the crackdown on dissidents and their rates of executions have intensified – political prisoners at particular risk of torture – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 5H, 5J–5LA, 36, 56, 65, 369, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2CASES
Prashar v MIMA [2001] FCA 57
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 24 November 2021 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a national of Iran, applied for the visa on 23 February 2019. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant was not owed protection obligations by Australia.
The applicant applied for review of the delegate’s decision with the Tribunal[1] on 30 November 2021.
[1] On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 28 July 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Persian and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review. On his request, the representative attended the hearing remotely via video link.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is [an age]-year-old woman born in Tehran, Iran. Her parents [and siblings] reside in Iran. In her visa application form, she indicated she is an atheist.
The applicant worked as an [Occupation 1] in Iran. She has a Bachelor and Master of [Area of study 1]. In Australia, the applicant works as an [Occupation 1].
The applicant arrived in Australia [in] September 2017 as the holder of a Subclass 476 Skilled Graduate visa. She lodged her application for a protection visa on 23 February 2019.
Evidence before the Department
In her visa application form, the applicant stated that she left Iran because she experienced several forms of discrimination as a woman and because she was not allowed to express her opinions about women’s rights, compulsory hijab or the destructive role religion plays in weakening social cohesion. If she had done so, she would have faced severe consequences from the Islamic regime.
In addition to being obliged to wear hijab and being unable to express her criticisms, the applicant stated that on several occasions since she was a teenager she was stopped and humiliated by the Basij and morality police because of her ‘un-Islamic’ appearance.
She stated that she feared arrest, torture and imprisonment on return to Iran as she has been studying religion in Australia. She stated that she was agnostic and did not practice as a Muslim when she left Iran but that over time in Australia, she has become an atheist. She stated that she had been promoting atheism on social media as she believes that Iran cannot become an open society unless Iranian youth replace their hatred for religion with constructive criticism. The applicant stated that she feared she has a profile with the authorities as an active promoter of atheism.
The applicant subsequently obtained representation (her previous representation) and attended a protection interview on 15 April 2021. The Tribunal has listened to the audio recording of this interview.
The departmental interview and post-interview submissions
The delegate’s decision record indicates that at the protection interview of 15 April 2021 the applicant provided further claims in relation to her promotion of atheism, namely that she started a charity with a friend named ‘[Friend A]’ for vulnerable women and that she used [Social media 1] in October 2018 to distribute seminars to women about what is false in Islam, women’s rights and atheism. She stated that she had received threats from the women’s husbands and that shortly after she lodged her protection visa application, she had heard that her friend [Friend A] and several other women had been detained and questioned by the authorities and had given her name as the person responsible for spreading anti-Islam beliefs. Subsequently she learned through a phone call with a contact in the police, Mr [A], that she was a person of interest to the police.
On 28 April 2021, the applicant’s representatives provided the following documents to the Department:
a.Translation of recorded voice conversation with Mr [A] (warning the applicant she is a person of interest to the police in relation to her charity work) on 12 March 2019 at 6.03pm;
b.Threatening text messages and translations, dated 29 January 2019 and 2, 4, 12 and 28 February 2019;
c.Photographs of the applicant’s charity work (depicting food supplies, including supplies being distributed to unknown women, men and children);
d.Skills assessment letter from [National body for Occupation 1] dated 5 November 2018;
e.Translations of three letters of service from the applicant’s previous employers in Iran;
f.Translation of social security records listing the applicant’s places of employment in Iran.
The delegate’s decision
The delegate determined that the applicant did not face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm in Iran in relation to any of her claims. The delegate did not accept that the applicant had experienced gender discrimination in Iran as she had been able to obtain post-graduate tertiary qualifications and had successfully worked in a male-dominated industry.
The delegate did not accept that the applicant had promoted atheism, had a profile as an atheist in Iran, or that the applicant was of interest to the Iranian authorities. The delegate’s decision record outlined the following concerns in relation to credibility: lack of evidence and detail regarding promotion of atheism; inconsistency between the claim in her visa application form to have used social media and her evidence at interview to have used [Social media 1]; and the illogicality of an atheist ‘promoting’ atheism given that country information indicated Iranians can choose to be practicing or non-practicing Muslims. The delegate also considered the applicant’s delay in applying for a protection visa indicated that she had applied in order to extend her stay in Australia rather than because she was in fear of persecution.
The delegate accepted that the applicant was a non-practicing Muslim in Iran and found that she did not experience harm in Iran on this basis. In light of cited country information, the delegate found that, as a person who was not already of adverse interest to the authorities, the applicant was unlikely to attract the adverse attention of the authorities for being a non-practicing Muslim on return to Iran.
The delegate also considered an implied claim of harm arising as a failed asylum seeker from a Western country. On the basis of the April 2016 DFAT report, the delegate found that Iranians with a valid passport, like the applicant, may be questioned on arrival in Iran but that the applicant did not face a real chance of being harmed during this process.
Evidence before the Tribunal
Pre-hearing submissions
Prior to the hearing, on 21 July 2025, the applicant provided, through her representative, the following documents (not already provided to the Department):
a.Statement of claims dated 21 July 2025;
b.Submissions from the representative dated 21 July 2025;
c.[Social media 2] posts by the applicant, under her own name, in English and Farsi from 26 February 2025 to 18 July 2025;
d.Photographs of the applicant attending a Woman, Life, Freedom protest on 24 September 2022;
e.Accredited translation of threats received on social media during 2025;
f.Letter from [Friend A] dated 29 June 2025 outlining the applicant’s co-founding of a charity with [Friend A], the charity’s purpose, the seminars run by the applicant, and [Friend A’s] arrest in 2019;
g.Accredited translations of receipts relating to the charity’s procurement of supplies;
h.Support letter from a friend (undated) and from a colleague, dated 11 July 2025;
i.Letter from Dr [A], of [Medical centre 1], dated 12 July 2025, stating that the applicant has a documented history of anxiety and depression and that her condition has been worsening in recent months due to receiving threatening messages via social media. An attachment to the report includes the applicant’s Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) results, indicating that the applicant is experiencing depression, anxiety and stress in the ‘extremely severe’ range.
j.Australian 2024-25 tax return relating to the applicant.
The applicant’s statement provided further background detail in relation to her charity work and addressed the delegate’s concern about her delay in applying for protection. In this regard, the applicant stated that she did not apply for protection immediately in Australia as she did not need it and that she had applied soon after she had developed her beliefs in atheism and shared them through her charity work.
Other aspects of the statement are summarised as follows:
a.In Australia the applicant has experienced living in a country where women are equal to men and where there are accessible resources about atheism. The applicant has come to believe that if people question the Iranian regime’s interpretation of Islam, they will be closer to living free from discrimination;
b.The applicant participated in public protests during the Women, Life, Freedom movement in Australia. She shared her participation on [Social media 2] ‘as a measure of solidarity with [her] Iranian sisters in Iran’;
c.The applicant experienced gender-based discrimination at university and at work, including being passed over for site visits because she was a woman and sexual harassment by a male colleague;
d.In Iran, women are treated as subordinates to men in the family, courtroom and wider society. Women experience systemic gender-based harms such as domestic violence and early and forced marriage. The systemic oppression of women is not just cultural but is also codified in law and justified by religious doctrine;
e.Engaging in anti-regime political activism and promoting atheism is a personal mission for the applicant. She has resumed social media posting opposing the execution of protestors, condemning Iran’s political strategies leading to the Iran-Israel war and calling for the release of political prisoners. Her posts are fully visible online and as the Iranian intelligence services monitor dissidents abroad, they will be known to the authorities;
f.The applicant has received direct threats from regime-backed accounts who are members of the security apparatus. They have threatened the applicant because she is viewed by the government as promoting apostasy and corruption on earth, insulting Islam and acting against national security;
g.These threats and the Iran-Israel war have significantly worsened the applicant’s mental health;
h.The applicant fears being tortured, raped or killed on return to Iran as a woman who has a public profile as an atheist and political dissident. Since the ceasefire, the crackdown on dissidents and their rates of executions have intensified.
The submissions address the delegate’s credibility findings and, in relation to the applicant’s risk on return, provide updated country information on the increasing rate of executions of political dissidents during and since the June 2025 Iran-Israel war. It also provides country information about the prosecution of apostates and atheists for insulting Islam and promoting corruption on earth, offences which carry the death penalty. It is submitted that:
Should [the applicant] be returned to Iran, she would face a real risk of serious harm on multiple grounds…
Her public expressions of atheism and promotion of atheism as well as her social media activism are sufficient to place her at risk in the Iranian context as a failed asylum seeker with a profile returning from a western country. Moreover, she has been previously involved in a failed charity effort focused on engaging with women and promoting anti-Islamic values. This involvement can frame her as a person (member of diaspora) with a profile of interest to the Iranian authorities and can also be used against her to compound her punishments.
The applicant provided screenshots of 50 [Social media 2] posts made by her between February 2025 and July 2025. The applicant’s posts since the outbreak of hostilities between Iran and Israel in June 2025 discuss the Iranian regime’s policies and their treatment of women dissidents and political prisoners. The applicant’s posts from February until early June discuss her understanding of atheism, including the important role it plays for women to be able to think differently, and the way women who do exercise such thinking are punished in Iran.
Tribunal hearing
As indicated above, the applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 28 July 2025.
At hearing, the applicant told the Tribunal that she had returned to Iran for a month in January 2025. She stated that she was able to do so because her employer had sponsored her for a Subclass 482 visa and that in two years’ time, they intended to sponsor her for the permanent Subclass 186 visa. The applicant told the Tribunal that she had returned to Iran to say goodbye to her [sister] who was dying and with whom she was very close.
She stated that while she was afraid to return to Iran because of her past activities and fears of the authorities, she took the risk because she felt she had to see her sister. They had often spoken and the applicant’s sister had told her that she regretted getting married early and that she was trapped in a marriage and way of life that did not allow her freedom. Her sister was angry that the Mullahs and the Islamic regime suppressed the rights of women and gave more rights to her husband. She could not divorce her husband because they had [children] together and he would get guardianship of them upon getting divorced.
The applicant conceded that she had not faced any issues on return to Iran and stated that she did not believe that she was any longer at risk of harm as a result of her charity work and/or her pre-2025 social media activity alone. However, she stated that she now feared harm because of social media posts made since February 2025.
Other relevant evidence provided at hearing is further discussed below.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Criteria for protection 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, they are either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or 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 because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), they may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the 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 being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
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 (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
The issue in this case is whether the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be set aside and remitted for reconsideration.
Country of nationality
The departmental file contains a copy of the applicant’s Iranian passport; a further passport was provided to the Tribunal at hearing. There is no dispute as to the applicant’s Iranian nationality and she was assessed on that basis by the Department. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is an Iranian citizen and has assessed her claims against Iran as the country of nationality and the receiving country.
Findings
As outlined above, the delegate did not accept that the applicant had promoted atheism, had a profile as an atheist in Iran, or that the applicant was of interest to the Iranian authorities. The Tribunal does not share the delegate’s credibility concerns and for the reasons discussed below found the applicant’s evidence credible in its entirety. In this regard, the Tribunal has benefitted from further oral and documentary evidence from the applicant in respect of her past charity activities.
The Tribunal also notes that since the delegate’s decision, the applicant has increased her visibility and political opposition on [Social media 2]. In particular, since the Iran-Israel conflict began in June 2025, the applicant has made overtly critical posts about the Iranian regime.
The Tribunal initially held concerns about the timing of and motivation behind this social media activity, noting that the applicant had previously largely contained her activities to [Social media 1] and that subsequent to the delegate’s finding that she did not have a profile with the Iranian authorities, she had begun making posts in her own name on a public profile on [Social media 2].
However, the applicant addressed this in a frank and forthcoming manner at hearing, describing her motivations and the events leading to her decision to make such posts credibly and with visible emotion. The Tribunal found the applicant’s evidence in this regard persuasive. She told the Tribunal that after her friends were arrested in 2019, she stopped all activities including posting on social media because she was afraid of what could happen to her loved ones as well as herself on return. She stated that after the death of her sister, and her observations, while in Iran in early 2025, that things were worse for Iranian people, she no longer refrained from posting her thoughts. While she was still afraid of being harmed or killed, she realised that she needed to post to honour her sister and make sure that other women had more choices. She stated that her promotion of atheism had always been about political change in Iran and women’s rights and that she could no longer keep it to herself. She also stated that she became aware upon the outbreak of the Iran-Israel conflict that the regime was executing a lot of ordinary people for their thoughts and the applicant could not be silent anymore.
The Tribunal also took evidence from the applicant about how her beliefs in equality and rights of women had developed from when she was a child, as well as her journey from being Muslim, to being a non-practicing Muslim, to being an atheist. The Tribunal is satisfied, on the basis of the applicant’s detailed evidence at hearing, that the applicant’s social media activity was genuinely motivated by her political beliefs and that this conduct is consistent with, and an extension of, her past activities in relation to, promoting atheism as a way to undermine the Iranian regime and encouraging women to know their rights. The Tribunal is therefore not required to disregard, and has not disregarded, this conduct pursuant to s 5J(6).[2]
[2] Section 5J(6) provides that any conduct engaged in by a person in Australia must be disregarded in determining whether the person has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, unless the person satisfies the decision maker that he or she engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the claim to be a refugee.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is an atheist. The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant formed a charity with [Friend A] providing material support to women in [Province 1] and that as part of this work, the applicant spoke with selected women over [Social media 1] about their rights, the role of Islam and the Iranian regime in oppressing them, and the value of being atheist. The Tribunal accepts that this came to the attention of the local police in 2019.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has openly posted on [Social media 2] since February 2025 about atheism and its potential connection to revolution in Iran, as well as criticism of the Iranian regime about the arrest, detention and execution of political dissidents during and since the Iran-Israel war. On the basis of the documentary evidence, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has received threats of serious harm, including being killed and/or executed, on social media from people in Iran and Australia. The Tribunal accepts that in some of these messages, the authors state that they have showed her messages to the Basij or that they are themselves active in the Basij.
The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant would continue to express her anti-regime views as well as her views about the rights of women and atheism if she were to return to Iran.
Assessment of claims
For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution on return to Iran for the combined reasons of her actual and imputed anti-government political opinion, her atheism, and her gender.
Considering the above findings about the applicant’s political expression and her past and present activities, the Tribunal has considered independent country information about the treatment of atheists and political dissidents in Iran, in particular politically active women, in assessing whether the applicant’s fears of persecution are well-founded.
The DFAT report contains the following relevant information about the situation for political dissidents using social media abroad and in Iran:
The authorities monitor online content, including social media. Individuals repeatedly posting content that is openly critical of the government, its institutions and policies or deemed to be pushing moral boundaries may attract adverse attention, especially if the content goes viral. This includes individuals based abroad.[3]
[3] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), Country Information Report Iran (24 July 2023) [2.127].
That the Iranian authorities monitor diaspora activities is confirmed by other sources such as Freedom House,[4] the US Department of State (USDOS),[5] and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB).[6] In 2023, the IRB published information that the Ministry of Intelligence and Security and the Intelligence Organization of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps intercept electronic messages and scrub social media for criticism of the government.[7] In relation to Australia, the Director-General of ASIO confirmed publicly in 2025 that Iran was among ‘hostile’ nation states who had plotted to physically harm Iranians in Australia in the previous 12 months, indicating that the Iranian regime has the ability to monitor the activities of Iranian nationals in Australia.[8] It has been reported that the Iranian regime does so through the use of community informants.[9]
[4] Freedom House, Special Report 2021 Iran: Transnational Repression Origin Country Case Study.
[5] US Department of State, 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – Iran (2024) 25.
[6] Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), Iran: Monitoring of Iranian citizens outside of Iran, including political opponents and Christians, by Iranian authorities; monitoring of Iranian citizens in Canada; consequences upon return to Iran (2021–March 2023) (2 March 2023).
[7] Ibid.
[8] ‘Revealed: agents of Iran regime terrorising dissidents Down Under’, The Australian, 31 July 2025
[9] Ibid.
The IRB states that citizens whose activities abroad have been monitored by the authorities are questioned on arrival at the airport.[10]
[10] Research Directorate, IRB, Iran: Treatment by the authorities of anti-government activists, including those returning from abroad; treatment of individuals critical of the state response to the 2020 Ukraine International Airlines (UIA) Flight 752 (PS752) downing (2022–March 2024) (22 April 2024).
In relation to political opposition, DFAT advises that topics the Iranian government views as particularly politically sensitive are women’s rights, LGBTI rights, criticism of the regime, and relations with the United States and Israel.[11] USDOS states that political dissidents are charged with crimes such as moharebeh (waging war against God), fisad fil-arz (corruption on earth, including apostasy or heresy, working to undermine the Islamic establishment, and insults against the memory of Imam Khomeini and against the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic).[12]
[11] DFAT, Country Information Report Iran (24 July 2023) [2.103].
[12] US Department of State, 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – Iran (2024) 19-20.
DFAT further advises that political prisoners are at particular risk of torture, especially those held in pre-trial detention where torture may be used to extract confessions.[13] The Office for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) reported that in 2024:
[T]he authorities reportedly executed at least 31 individuals, including political dissidents, on national security-related offences, including fesad fil-arz, moharebeh and espionage for Israel. Information received by OHCHR indicates serious violations of due process and fair trial rights, including a lack of transparency in judicial proceedings, reliance on coerced confessions and denial of access to legal counsel.
According to information received by OHCHR, at least 54 individuals reportedly remained on death row for national security-related offences, including political dissidents and those connected to the protests in 2022. The majority of them have been convicted for baghy (armed rebellion against the State), while serious due process concerns have also been reported.[14]
[13] DFAT, Country Information Report Iran (24 July 2023) [2.178].
[14] Human Rights Council, Fifty-ninth session, 16 June–11 July 2025 Agenda item 2, Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General Situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc A/HRC/59/22 [8]-[9].
DFAT also states that those who publicly renounce Islam face apostasy charges and assesses that atheists who are open about their non-belief face a moderate level of official and societal discrimination.[15]
[15] DFAT, Country Information Report Iran (24 July 2023) [2.102].
Recent country information reporting on the Israel-Iran war in June 2025 and its aftermath reveals a worsening situation for dissenters and minority groups, as the Iranian regime has conducted a crackdown since the commencement of the conflict which continues until the present day. Those targeted include social media users, particularly those who have expressed opinions or criticised Iranian military and political leaders), activists, family members of those arrested during the 2022 Women, Life and Freedom protests, and members of ethnic and religious minorities including Jews, Baha’is, Kurds, Balochs and Ahwazi Arabs.[16] OHCHR has reported that hundreds of people with these profiles have been detained on accusations of ‘collaboration’ or espionage’[17] and are facing expedited trials, with a risk of summary execution.[18] Other reports indicate multiple executions of people accused of links to Israeli intelligence agencies since June 2025.[19]
[16] 'UN experts urge Iran to choose protection over repression after ceasefire', Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), 4 July 2025; 'Increased Repression Under Shadow of War; New Bill Broadens Use of Death Penalty in Iran', Iran Human Rights, 30 June 2025; 'Islamic Republic Intensifies Repressive Measures; Widespread Arrests Continue in Iran', Iran Human Rights, 26 June 2025; 'Iran Launches Sweeping Crackdown: Hundreds Detained, Executions Underway', Center for Human Rights in Iran, 26 June 2025.
[17] 'UN experts urge Iran to choose protection over repression after ceasefire', Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), 4 July 2025.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Iran carries out wave of arrests and executions in wake of Israel conflict', British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), 27 June 2025.
By the end of June 2025, the Center for Human Rights in Iran (CHRI) had identified that at least 286 people had been arrested for expressing opinions online related to the conflict and were charged with online propaganda against the regime.[20] CHRI characterised the war as cover for the regime to ‘[go] after every perceived threat in the country with deadly force’.[21]
[20] 'Iran Launches Sweeping Crackdown: Hundreds Detained, Executions Underway', Center for Human Rights in Iran, 26 June 2025.
[21] Ibid.
While the applicant returned to Iran without punishment in January 2025, since that time the applicant has increased her social media activity, and the government has escalated its crackdown on political dissidents, including those posting on social media. While the Tribunal cannot know for certain whether her social media activity is already known to the Iranian authorities, or whether the threats she has received are in fact from agents of the regime, the Tribunal has accepted above that the applicant has been threatened by unknown persons in Iran, indicating that her posts have been seen more widely than within her own personal contacts.
While DFAT states that, given the high volume of social media interaction, it is unlikely that the activities of every social media user are comprehensively monitored by the Iranian authorities, it also states that those with a public profile or who are politically active and post about politically sensitive topics (such as government criticism) are more likely to be monitored.[22] Given the politically sensitive nature of the applicant’s social media postings, her previous history, and that her social media activity is not hidden through privacy settings, the Tribunal finds it likely that the applicant’s activities are already known to the authorities.
[22] DFAT, Country Information Report Iran (24 July 2023) [2.128].
If the applicant’s profile is not already known, the Tribunal considers it likely that her social media activities, which are readily discoverable through internet searches, will become known to the authorities after the applicant’s return to Iran, whether immediately upon arrival and questioning, or because the applicant subsequently comes to the adverse attention of the authorities through her continuing activism and opposition to the regime, including through participation in anti-regime protests.
On the basis of available country information, the applicant’s characteristics as a woman who is an atheist, who holds and expresses feminist and anti-regime political opinions, and who has made publicly available, highly critical social media posts about the Iranian regime, the Tribunal is satisfied there is a real chance that the applicant will be subject to harm in Iran, whether immediately or subsequent to her return. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the feared harm, including arrest, detention and significant physical ill-treatment amounts to serious harm and involves systematic and discriminatory conduct for the purposes of s 5J(4)(b) and (c).
The Tribunal accepts that such harm arises for the essential and significant, overlapping reasons of the applicant’s religion,[23] political opinion and gender. The Tribunal finds that the applicant would be punished both for expressing her feminist and anti-Islam/anti-regime political opinions and because, in doing so, as a woman, the applicant challenges gender norms around the expected behaviour of women. In this regard, the Tribunal draws on DFAT’s assessment that ‘women perceived by the authorities to be pushing Iran’s moral and religious boundaries face a high risk of official discrimination in the form of arrest, punishment and violence.’[24]
[23] Religious belief includes atheism and non-believers, see eg UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection: Religion-Based Refugee Claims under Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (28 April 2004) [6]; Prashar v MIMA [2001] FCA 57 [19].
[24] Ibid [2.144].
As the persecutor is the Iranian state, the Tribunal accepts that effective protection is not available and that the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of Iran. For the reasons set out above, the applicant’s conduct in Australia is not to be disregarded under s 5J(6).
The Tribunal finds that the applicant cannot be reasonably expected to modify her behaviour to avoid a real chance of persecution in Iran, as this would impermissibly require her to alter or conceal her religious and political beliefs according to s 5J(3)(c)(i) and (iii) of the Act.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Section 36(3) of the Act provides that Australia is taken not to have protection obligations in respect of a non-citizen who has not taken all possible steps to avail themselves of a right to enter and reside in a third country. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the applicant has any right to enter and reside in any other country and the Tribunal finds that s 36(3) does not apply in the circumstances of this case.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside and remits the application for a protection visa for reconsideration, in accordance with the order that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
Date of hearing: 28 July 2025
Representative for the Applicant: Dr Sirous Ahmadi (MARN: 0854826)
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a) severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b) pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d) arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b) that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a) for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b) for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c) for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d) for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e) for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a) a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b) if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a) in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b) in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note: For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a) the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b) there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c) the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note: For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note: For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a) conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b) conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c) without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a) that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b) the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c) the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a) a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b) significant physical harassment of the person;
(c) significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d) significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e) denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f) denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a) a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b) the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c) any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d) the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b) the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a) the person can access the protection; and
(b) the protection is durable; and
(c) in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36 Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a) a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) 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 non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a) the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b) the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c) the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d) the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e) the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a) it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b) the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c) the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…
0