2303161 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an Iranian national. The applicant claimed to fear persecution or harm due to his homosexuality and his conversion to Christianity. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal had previously made a decision under review. The decision was heard by G.a.f. Connolly SM.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant's claims of being a homosexual Iranian male and a Christian convert, and the alleged physical and sexual assaults he suffered while in Iranian custody, engaged Australia's protection obligations. This involved assessing the applicant's credibility and considering the independent evidence regarding the safety of returning to Iran for individuals in the applicant's circumstances.

The court noted that the Tribunal is not required to posit rebutting evidence when rejecting an applicant's claims, particularly when those claims conflict with independent evidence about the applicant's country of nationality. If independent evidence suggests the country of nationality is safe for a person in the applicant's position, the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate why their particular circumstances warrant protection. The court observed that the applicant's claims regarding his homosexuality, his imprisonment and assaults in Tehran, and his conversion to Christianity and involvement in a Presbyterian church had been consistent throughout the review process. The applicant provided evidence of his religious faith and his online promotion of Christian ideas.

The decision under review was remitted.