2421005 (Refugee)
[2025] ARTA 1614
•1 July 2025
2421005 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 1614 (1 July 2025)
Decision and Reasons for Decision
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2421005
Tribunal: General Member F Robertson
Date: 1 July 2025
Place: Perth
Decision: The Tribunal affirms the decision under review
Statement made on 01 July 2025 at 8:35am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Iran – accused of filming Revolutionary Guards during a protest – assaulted by guards – fears being falsely accused of espionage due to presence in Australia – fears hostility towards the Bahai community – exposed to harm as a university student – believes cumulative effect of his circumstances could give rise to a real chance of serious harm – exempt from military service while enrolled in university – exemption lapsed when he left his studies – fears being forced to participate in oppression or violence during compulsory military service – not actively involved in protests or activism – happy to serve his country as a university graduate – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 5AAA, 5H, 5J, 36, 65, 369
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
ASB17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 38; (2019) 268 FCR 271
AVQ15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 133; 266 FCR 83;
361 ALR 227Chan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379
CQG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 146; 253 FCR 496
DQU16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2021] HCA 10; 273 CLR 1
EIG17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 804
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33; 210 FCR 505
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo [1997] HCA 22; 1997 CLR 559
Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437
Selvadurai v Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and J Good (Member of the Refugee Review Tribunal) [1994] FCA 301; 34 ALR 347
Sundararaj v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 76
SZLVZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1816
Trawl Industries v Effem Foods Pty Ltd (1992) 27 NSWLR 326, 348
W375/01A v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 89; 67 ALD 757
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
INTRODUCTION
This is an application for review of a decision to refuse to grant the applicant a Subclass 866 Protection (Class XA) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act).
The applicant is [an age]-year-old male Iranian national. The applicant arrived in Australia in July 2023 as the holder of a visitor visa and applied for a protection visa in September 2023. That application was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 7 June 2024.
The applicant has applied for review of that decision. The application was heard on 27 June 2025. Following that hearing, I have determined that the decision under review should be affirmed. These are my reasons.
CRITERIA FOR THE GRANT OF A 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). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is either, they are a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds or are a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies either s 36(2)(a) or (aa).
Refugee criterion
Section 36(2)(a) of the Act 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 decision‑maker 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.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.2 Among other things, persecution must involve serious harm3 and systematic and discriminatory conduct.4
A fear of persecution will be 'well‑founded' if there is a 'real chance' that the person will suffer the feared persecution if returned to the receiving country and the real chance relates to all areas of that country.5 A 'real chance' is a prospect that is not 'remote' or 'far‑fetched', it does not require a likelihood of persecution on the balance of probabilities.6
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 5H(1)(a).
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 5J(1); DQU16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2021] HCA 10; 273 CLR 1 [10] (Kiefel CJ, Keane, Gordon, Edelman and Steward JJ).
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 5J(4)(b). Section 5J(5) of the Act contains a non-exhaustive list of examples of harm that involve serious harm, without otherwise limiting the nature or type of harm that might come within s 5J(4)(b).
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 5J(4)(c).
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5J(1)(b)-(c); DQU16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2021] HCA 10; 273 CLR 1 [10] (Kiefel CJ, Keane, Gordon, Edelman and Steward JJ).
DQU16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2021] HCA 10; 273 CLR 1 [10] (Kiefel CJ, Keane, Gordon, Edelman and Steward JJ) citing Chan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379 at 389, 398, 407, 429.
Complementary protection criterion
A person who does not satisfy the ‘refugee criterion’ in s 36(2)(a) of the Act, may satisfy the 'complementary protection criterion' under s 36(2)(aa). That criterion is prospective and asks whether there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm as a 'necessary and foreseeable consequence' of return to the receiving country.7
The ‘real risk’ test imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’.8 As to what amounts to 'significant harm’, that term is exhaustively defined in s 36(2A) of the Act.9
BACKGROUND
Protection visa application
The applicant applied for the protection visa with the assistance of a solicitor, Ms Clayton. The applicant was interviewed in relation to the application. I have listened to that interview.
In support of his application for a protection visa, the applicant claimed that in 2022, during protests in Iran following the death of ‘Mahsa Amini’, he was falsely accused of filming by Revolutionary Guards and was assaulted by them near his home in Esfahan. He claimed he was beaten by several guards while trying to call a friend and feared reprisals upon return to Iran due to this incident. He claimed that the Revolutionary Guards had taken pictures of him during the alleged assault and he was now known to them.
The applicant further claimed to have received an SMS from the Iranian government warning about the protests and believed that this, along with the identification requirements for SIM cards in Iran, meant that the government could connect his identity to his phone number. He feared this contributed to his visibility to Iranian authorities.
The applicant claimed that he had been a student in Iran and had come to Australia on a tourist visa to visit his mother and stepfather. He stated that his absence led to expulsion from his university and that he was now studying English in Australia. The applicant also expressed concern that his presence in Australia and subsequent return to Iran could result in false accusations of spying or inciting unrest. He claimed that his profile as a returnee from a Western country would attract the suspicion of Iranian authorities.
The applicant further claimed that he had not completed his compulsory military service in Iran. He stated that as he failed to return to Iran within one month, he may face consequences upon his return, including a potential extension of service or penalties related to his compulsory service.
In support of his claims, the applicant provided various news articles and a fact sheet relating to protests and government crackdowns in Iran between 1979 and 2023, arguing that this demonstrated a broader context of risk for individuals associated, or perceived to be associated, with protest movements.
Delegate's decision
The delegate did not accept the applicant’s claim that he was falsely accused of filming Revolutionary Guards during a protest near his home and was assaulted by several guards.
DQU16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2021] HCA 10; 273 CLR 1 [13] (Kiefel CJ, Keane, Gordon, Edelman and Steward JJ).
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33; 210 FCR 505 [246] (Lander and Gordon JJ), [296] (Besanko and Jagot JJ), [342] (Flick J).
DQU16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2021] HCA 10; 273 CLR 1 [14] (Kiefel CJ, Keane, Gordon, Edelman and Steward JJ); see also Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 5 in respect of the definitions of 'torture', 'cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment' and 'degrading treatment or punishment'.
The delegate relied on the applicant’s failure to provide independent corroborative evidence. The delegate also noted that although he showed a scar during interview, he had not sought medical treatment at the time, which the delegate found implausible given the alleged severity of the assault.
The delegate further found that the description of the incident was vague, and there were inconsistencies between his account and that contained in his mother’s statutory declaration, which referred to only two guards.
The delegate also considered that the applicant had given conflicting reasons for being near the protest, asserting both a desire to avoid involvement in demonstrations and a plan to meet a friend in the area. The delegate considered it implausible that a person seeking to avoid protests would agree to meet in such a location. The delegate also found it unlikely that Revolutionary Guards would accuse a person of filming, assault him, and then allow him to leave without arrest or confiscation of his phone.
The delegate did not accept the applicant was known to Iranian authorities because of the alleged incident at the protest or because he was filmed by body-worn cameras during the assault. The delegate also placed weight on the fact that the applicant remained at the same residential address in Iran for several months following the incident and reported no follow- up or contact from authorities. The delegate considered it implausible that a person known to authorities and at risk of arrest would have received no attention during that period.
The applicant also expressed fear that, upon return to Iran, he might be falsely accused of being a spy due to his stay in Australia. The delegate did not accept this claim. Country information indicated that returnees from Western countries, including failed asylum seekers, are generally not treated with suspicion by Iranian authorities. There was no evidence that the applicant had come to the adverse attention of authorities before departing Iran, or that he had undertaken any political or activist activity while in Australia that might elevate his profile. The delegate found no credible basis to conclude that the applicant would be at risk of being falsely accused of espionage.
The delegate did accept that the applicant had not completed his compulsory military service in Iran and had exceeded the one-month return period, which may give rise to consequences upon his return. However, the delegate found that these consequences would not constitute significant harm. According to country information, draft evasion may result in an extension of service or administrative penalties, but imprisonment or other severe sanctions are rare for individuals in the applicant’s circumstances. The applicant had previously been exempted due to his university enrolment, but that exemption had lapsed following his departure from Iran and subsequent expulsion from the course. Nonetheless, the delegate concluded that the requirement to complete national service, and any related penalties, did not rise to the level of serious or significant harm.
The delegate further found that the applicant would be treated as a returnee from Australia. While such persons may be questioned upon arrival by immigration authorities, the delegate found that this process was usually brief and not accompanied by arrest or mistreatment. The delegate noted that the applicant was not of interest to authorities at the time of departure, and there was no evidence of adverse attention since. In the absence of other risk factors, the delegate was not satisfied that return to Iran would expose the applicant to serious or significant harm.
Review application
The applicant applied for review of the delegate's decision in July 2024.
The applicant continued to be represented in the review application by Ms Clayton. Ms Clayton also assisted the applicant in the application for the protection visa and before the Department.
On 26 June 2025, the applicant provided additional material to the Tribunal in support of his review application. That material included a submission by his solicitor
The material provided by the applicant can be summarised as follows. The written submission maintained the claims originally made by the applicant whilst also raised a new claim related to the applicant’s familial ties to the Bahai faith. The submission also referred to the conflict between Israel and Iran that occurred this month and to a fatwa by Iran’s Supreme Leader against the Bahai, as indicative of increasing hostility towards the Bahai community and those associated with it.
In his statutory declaration, the applicant affirmed the truthfulness of all prior statements and elaborated further on the harm he feared. He indicated an intention to resume university studies if returned to Iran but stated that he remained afraid of the campus environment, given the ongoing protests and state violence against students. Although he characterised himself as not politically active, he did claim that he was troubled by the regime’s general repression.
In relation to national service, the applicant raised concerns about the risk of being compelled to participate in military or Revolutionary Guard service, particularly amid an armed conflict. He distinguished his objections as rooted not in religious beliefs but in his opposition to the regime’s conduct and human rights abuses.
The applicant also expanded on his connections to the Bahai faith, clarifying that while he is not personally religious, his family are practising Bahais, and he provided a copy of his step- father’s membership card. He expressed concern that his close familial association with Bahais would attract negative attention or suspicion from the Iranian authorities if he were to return.
The applicant also provided country information providing information including multiple articles described the deteriorating situation for students in Iran.10 The information included reports from February 2025 detailed the fatal shooting of a student in Tehran and subsequent protests, which were met with harsh crackdowns by security forces.11 It also referred to students reported to be chanting against the IRGC and university authorities.12 Otherwise, the country information referred to reports of widespread civil unrest involving teachers, workers, and students protesting economic hardship and government mismanagement being met with a heavy-handed state response.13
The applicant also provided country information in relation to the persecution of Bahais in Iran, including arrests following home raids and restrictions on association and religious practice.14
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 27 June 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of a Farsi interpreter.
See National Council of Resistance of Iran, ‘Iran Protests: Teachers, Students, and Workers Rally Across Cities Demanding Justice’, 7 December 2024; National Council of Resistance of Iran, Student Protests Enter Second Consecutive Day in Tehran Following the Murder of a Student’, 15 February 2025.
National Council of Resistance of Iran, Student Protests Enter Second Consecutive Day in Tehran Following the Murder of a Student’, 15 February 2025.
National Council of Resistance of Iran, Student Protests Enter Second Consecutive Day in Tehran Following the Murder of a Student’, 15 February 2025.
National Council of Resistance of Iran, ‘Iran Protests: Teachers, Students, and Workers Rally Across Cities Demanding Justice’, 7 December 2024.
See Bahai International Community, ‘Situation of Bahais in Iran’. July 2024; Bahais of Iran, ‘Iran Detains Bahai Mother and Son After Home Raise’, 6 June 2025.
Evidence and submissions at hearing
The applicant’s oral evidence at the hearing is summarised as follows.
The applicant gave evidence concerning his background, education, and reasons for seeking protection. He stated that his parents separated when he was around seven or eight years old and that his mother migrated to Australia shortly thereafter. He remained in Iran with his father but later spent significant time living with his maternal family. He completed high school in Iran in approximately [year] and subsequently enrolled in a university [course]. He ceased studying about a year prior to the hearing after overstaying a period of approved leave. He believes that the university cancelled his enrolment, although he has not had any communication with the institution since leaving Iran.
The applicant gave evidence that if returned to Iran, he would seek to resume his studies, as he has a strong interest in education. He said that if he did not return to university, he would be required to undertake military service. He expressed concern that he could be assigned to roles involving repression of civilians or even be conscripted into the Revolutionary Guard. Although he stated that he does not oppose serving his country, he does not want to participate in oppression or violence.
He stated that he had experienced difficulties in Iran due to his association with the Bahai faith. His mother, maternal grandparents, and other relatives are members of the Bahai faith, and he said he was raised in a Bahai household. However, he repeatedly stated that he is not personally religious and does not identify as either Muslim or Bahai. He acknowledged that his family concealed their beliefs from him during his childhood to protect him, and that he was excluded from religious meetings. He also stated that although he now lives in a Bahai household in Australia and socialises mainly with Bahais, he has not participated in any Bahai religious activities and cannot describe Bahai beliefs.
The applicant maintained that his presence near a protest in Iran led to an encounter with authorities, during which he was assaulted. He claimed this incident and his subsequent stay in Australia may have made him visible to Iranian authorities. He said that, if returned, he feared he might be questioned or arrested on suspicion of espionage, particularly because of tensions between Iran and Western countries, including Australia. He distinguished his situation from other Iranian students based on his familial association with Bahais and his residence in a Western country.
When asked about his motivation for applying for a protection visa, the applicant stated that his original intention in coming to Australia was to visit his mother and [sibling]. He said that the decision to apply for protection was made later, after observing unrest in Iran and developing concerns for his safety if he were to return.
In closing submissions, the applicant’s representative, Ms Clayton, emphasised that the applicant was not claiming to be religious and did not present himself as a Bahai. Rather, it was submitted the applicant’s claim focused on his familial association with the Bahai faith. Ms Clayton explained that the religious aspect was not central to the claim, and the applicant had not participated in Bahai practices. However, the representative argued that given the close family connection and the climate in Iran, the applicant may be imputed to be Bahai, particularly in light of the fatwa against the faith and the general climate of hostility.
The representative acknowledged that the applicant had not previously suffered serious harm because of this association but submitted that circumstances had deteriorated since his departure from Iran. The submission noted that discrimination against Bahais in Iran is widespread and often normalised, and that even individuals with indirect links may face suspicion or adverse treatment.
On the issue of protest involvement, the representative submitted that the applicant was in ‘the wrong place at the wrong time’ but argued that this, combined with his status as a returnee from Australia and familial links to the Bahai faith, elevated the applicant’s risk
profile. It was submitted that if the applicant resumed university studies, he might again find himself caught in an adverse situation through no fault of his own.
In terms of national service, the representative acknowledged that the applicant did not object to serving his country. However, concern was expressed about the risk of being assigned to the IRGC noting that although some postings are voluntary, others may be made involuntarily referring in general terms to public debate about the role of the IRGC and its conduct, including proceedings before a Senate inquiry.
Overall, it was submitted that while the applicant had not faced past persecution, the cumulative effect of his circumstances, familial association with a persecuted group, potential imputed religious identity, exposure to political unrest as a student, and risk arising from national service, should be viewed as giving rise to a real chance of serious harm if returned to Iran on a cumulative basis.
ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND REASONS
An applicant is responsible for providing sufficient evidence to establish their claim to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.15 When assessing the claims made, I am not required to uncritically accept any or all the allegations made.16 I do not need rebutting evidence before finding a particular factual assertion is not made out.17
I have considered the 'Refugee Law Guidelines' and 'Complementary Protection Guidelines' prepared by the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Country Information Report18 to the extent relevant and material to the disposition of this review application.
Credibility
The assessment of credibility is a difficult task,19 which should be careful, thoughtful, and conducted fairly and reasonably.20 Inconsistencies in an account may or may not be significant21 and allowances may be required where an account is given through an interpreter.22 I should usually give the benefit of the doubt to those who are generally credible but are unable to substantiate their claims.23
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 5AAA; AVQ15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 133; 361 ALR 227 [43] (Kenny, Griffiths and Mortimer JJ); EIG17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 804 [148] (Ladhams J).
SZLVZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1816 (Middleton J).
CQG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 146; 253 FCR 496 [65] (McKerracher, Griffiths and Rangiah JJ); Selvadurai v Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and J Good (Member of the Refugee Review Tribunal) [1994] FCA 301; 34 ALR 347 [7] (Heerey J).
'DFAT Country Information Report: Iran', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 24 July 2023, (incorporating changes made in Version 2 on 31 July 2024) 20230724110043 ('2023 DFAT Report').
See Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118 [31] citing Samuels JA in Trawl Industries v Effem Foods Pty Ltd
(1992) 27 NSWLR 326, 348.
See AVQ15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 133; 361 ALR 227 [22]–[28] (Kenny, Griffiths and Mortimer JJ).
ASB17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 38; (2019) 268 FCR 271 [39]–[45] (Griffiths, Mortimer and Steward JJ).
See, for example, Sundararaj v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 76 [5] (Burchett J), W375/01A v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 89; 67 ALD 757 [15]–[19] (Lee, Carr and Finkelstein JJ); AVQ15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 133; 266 FCR 83 [22]–[28] (Kenny, Griffiths and Mortimer JJ) and ASB17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 38; 268 FCR 271 [39]–[45] (Griffiths, Mortimer and Steward JJ).
Country of nationality
The applicant claims to be a citizen of Iran. The applicant travelled to Australia on a passport which appears to have been regularly issued by that country. I find that Iran is the applicant’s country of nationality and the receiving country.
Does the applicant satisfy the refugee criterion?
The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is ‘well-founded’ or is for the reason claimed.24
Claims related to status as a Student
I am prepared to accept that the applicant was previously assaulted during a protest as claimed, although I also accept his evidence that he had not intentionally attended the protest or participated in the protest but that he had attended to meet a friend. Moreover, I am prepared to accept his evidence that if he was to return to Iran he would reenrol in university and complete his studies.
The applicant has claimed that he faces a real chance of serious harm in Iran due to his status as a university student. He has referred to political unrest and violence directed at students in recent years, and to a general climate of hostility on university campuses towards individuals perceived as dissenters. I do not accept that this claim gives rise to a well-founded fear of persecution or a real chance of serious harm.
However, the applicant has not established that he had any political profile as a student, or that he engaged in activities that would place him at heightened risk. He described himself as not being a political person, and there is no indication that he was involved in any protest or activism while enrolled at university. The country information provided refers to incidents of violence and repression on university campuses during periods of unrest, but these appear to be directed at those who actively participate in demonstrations or who are otherwise of interest to the authorities.
I accept that there is tension within some universities in Iran and that students, as a group, may face increased scrutiny or exposure during protests. However, the applicant has never previously been involved in protests other than being in the vicinity of one in circumstances which were explained at the hearing as being ‘wrong place, wrong time’. I have not accepted that he is of adverse interest to the Iranian authorities and I am not satisfied that he would face a real chance of serious harm merely by enrolling at a university without himself actively engaging in dissent or protest which, having regard to the evidence, I am not satisfied that he would do. In circumstances where I am not satisfied and do not accept that the applicant is or would be viewed as a dissident, activist, or person of interest or similar. I am not satisfied that the applicant’s previous status as a student or his potential future studies or status as a student would result in the applicant facing a real chance of serious harm.
Association with Bahai individuals and family members
The applicant has raised a new claim that he fears harm on account of his association with members of the Bahai faith, primarily through his maternal family. He states that his mother
Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437; see also Department of Home Affairs, ‘Policy – Refugee and Humanitarian – The Protection Visa Processing Guidelines’, section 15.6, as re-issued 1 January 2023 (Protection Visa Processing Guidelines); UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status and Guidelines on International Protection Under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, April 2019, HCR/1P/4/ENG/REV 4 [203]-[204].
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo [1997] HCA 22; 1997 CLR 559 [124] (Brennan CJ; Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow JJ).
and stepfather in Australia are Bahai adherents, and that various members of his extended family in Iran and abroad are also affiliated with the Bahai religion. The applicant himself does not claim to be Bahai and has repeatedly stated that he is not religious. His fear is based on the potential for the Iranian authorities to impute Bahai affiliation to him by association.
I accept that individuals who openly practise the Bahai faith in Iran may face discrimination, and in some cases, more serious forms of mistreatment. However, the applicant has not claimed that he practises the Bahai faith or has ever done so, either publicly or privately. He does not identify as a Bahai and does not assert that he has participated in any Bahai religious or community activities in Iran, indeed his evidence was that to the extent his maternal family were involved that they largely kept this hidden from him. His own evidence is that he only began to think about the implications of his familial connections after arriving in Australia, and that these matters were never discussed in Iran when he was living with his mother’s family.
I am prepared to accept that the applicant’s maternal family are practicing Bahais, both in Australia and in Iran. However, I am not satisfied that the Iranian authorities are aware of the applicant’s association with Bahai individuals in either Iran or Australia. His mother and stepfather’s religious affiliations in Australia are not matters that would, on the material before me, be known to the Iranian state. The applicant has not identified any conduct or statements that could have brought him to the attention of the authorities in relation to this matter. There is no evidence that he has engaged in public advocacy, religious observance, or any other activity that would disclose or suggest a connection to the Bahai faith.
In assessing whether the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm, I must consider not only the general risk to Bahai individuals in Iran but whether there is a real chance that this applicant, personally, would be perceived as being affiliated with the Bahai faith. In my view, the applicant’s concern is speculative and unsupported by credible, individualised evidence or country information. Insofar as the applicant relied on his maternal family’s Bahai identity, in circumstances where it was concealed during his time in Iran and I am not satisfied that the applicant came to the attention of authorities because of his association with members of the Bahai faith in the past, I am not satisfied the applicant would face, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, a real chance of being imputed to Bahai by the authorities or by members of the Iranian community. I find any such risk is remote.
Accordingly, I do not accept that the applicant’s familial or social association with Bahai individuals, including close family members in Australia and his maternal family that remain in Iran, would result in the applicant facing a real chance of serious harm in Iran now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Returnee from Australia and failed asylum seeker
The applicant has claimed that he fears harm upon return to Iran on account of having spent time in Australia and having sought asylum. He expressed concern that this may lead Iranian authorities to suspect him of spying or disloyalty, particularly given recent international tensions involving Iran and countries such as the United States and Australia.
I do not accept that the applicant’s status as a returnee from Australia or as a failed asylum seeker gives rise to a real chance of serious harm. I am not satisfied that the country information before me, or the 2023 DFAT Report for Iran, supports a finding that failed asylum seekers or returnees from Western countries face a real chance of serious harm on return to Iran on that account. DFAT assesses that Iranian authorities are aware that many Iranians travel abroad for economic or personal reasons, and that returnees are not routinely suspected of anti-regime activity or treated adversely on the basis of their return alone.25
2023 DFAT Report, [2.202]-[2.204]..
While DFAT notes that returnees may be subject to questioning upon arrival, I am not satisfied that such questioning would involve detention, ill-treatment, or adverse consequences unless the individual is already of interest to the authorities. In the present case, there is no evidence that the applicant departed Iran under suspicious circumstances, nor do I accept that he is, or was, engaged in any political activity, public commentary, or any other conduct abroad that might attract official attention nor do I accept that he was otherwise of adverse interest to the Iranian authorities such that he would be of adverse interest because of his time spent in Australia. The applicant has not been politically active in Australia, and I do not accept and am not satisfied that his name or identity is known to Iranian authorities in connection with any activity that is critical of, or oppositional to, the ruling regime.
I accept that the applicant might subjectively harbour some fear about how he might be perceived upon return. However, I am not satisfied that such fears rise beyond mere speculation and are not reflected in his personal circumstance or profile. I am not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm on return to Iran by reason of having been in Australia or having sought asylum.
I am not satisfied that the situation in Iran has changed in any material way as a result of the armed conflict between Israel and Iran in June 2025. While the applicant expressed concern that recent events may heighten suspicion towards returnees from Western countries, there is no evidence before me to suggest that the Iranian government has adopted new or harsher measures targeting individuals solely on account of their time abroad. The available material does not indicate any change in policy or practice concerning returnees or failed asylum seekers following the June 2025 conflict. In the absence of credible and specific information to the contrary, I am not satisfied that this development materially alters the risk profile for the applicant.
Actual or Imputed Political Opinion
The applicant has claimed that he fears harm from Iranian authorities due to his views about the government and his proximity to political unrest. He described being present near a protest in 2022, during which Revolutionary Guards allegedly assaulted him after being falsely accused of filming them. He has also stated that he dislikes the regime, is troubled by its actions against the population, and has become more politically aware since leaving Iran. He has expressed concern that the authorities may perceive him as disloyal or oppositional if he returns from a Western country, particularly in light of recent international tensions.
I do not accept that the applicant has expressed or demonstrated a political opinion that would attract adverse attention from the Iranian authorities. His stated views appear to be generalised personal disapproval of the regime rather than any form of political activism or engagement. The applicant has not identified any occasion on which he participated in political protests, distributed materials, made public statements, or otherwise engaged in conduct that would associate him with opposition groups or dissenting political views. His own account is that he was never politically active in Iran, and he has not claimed to have become politically active while in Australia.
The claim that the authorities may impute a political opinion to him based on his return from Australia or his past presence near a protest is not supported by credible evidence. The 2023 DFAT Country Information Report indicates that individuals are not routinely imputed with political opposition merely for returning from abroad. While it is acknowledged that participants in protests or individuals already known to authorities may face adverse consequences, the applicant has not established that he has such a profile. The alleged 2022 incident involving Revolutionary Guards was not reported to have resulted in arrest, identification, or any follow-up action by the authorities. The applicant continued to live in the same location in Iran for months afterwards without incident.
Further, there is no evidence before me that the Iranian authorities are aware of the applicant’s personal views, his presence near a protest, or his travel to and residence in Australia. There is also no evidence that his views, if known, would be considered sufficiently adverse to warrant interest or reprisals. The applicant’s concerns appear to be based on speculation rather than credible evidence of actual or imputed political opinion attracting risk.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm in Iran on account of any actual or imputed political opinion.
Compulsory Military Service
The applicant has claimed that he fears harm if returned to Iran due to his obligation to undertake compulsory military service. He stated that he was previously exempt from service while enrolled in university but acknowledges that his exemption lapsed when he left his studies in 2023. He expressed concern not only about being required to serve but also about the possibility of being conscripted into the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) or being deployed in armed conflict. He stated that he does not wish to be involved in violence, does not share the ideology of the IRGC, and fears that participation in the military could expose him to serious harm.
DFAT reports that Iran has compulsory military service for a period of 14 to 24 months and that conscripts do not get a choice on the type of service they undertake.26 Conscientious objection is not possible.27
I accept that the applicant is likely to be subject to compulsory military service upon return to Iran, given that he is no longer a student and has not completed his service. However, I do not accept that this gives rise to a real chance of serious harm. According to the 2023 DFAT Country Information Report on Iran, while draft evasion may result in administrative penalties, including delays in obtaining certain civil documents or travel restrictions, there is no credible evidence that individuals are subjected to serious mistreatment or persecution solely for having failed to report for service within the prescribed timeframe. There is also no information before me that persons undertaking military service, in the ordinary course of that duty, face serious harm.
During the hearing the applicant’s evidence is that he was not opposed to military service, but he was opposed to any military service which would require him to take action against political dissenters and, in this respect, he feared being conscripted into the IRGC.
In submissions, it was asserted that conscription into the IRGC was not voluntary and that the applicant could be compelled to serve in the IRGC and, if so, would then compelled to be involved in action against dissenters. I note that the UK Home Office has reported that:
According to an article dated 21 May 2022 by Iran International, the majority of conscripts were ‘… drafted into the traditional Army, but some with the right connections serve with the Revolutionary Guard where conditions are much better. However, many serve in national police units, which is also used in suppressing protests
With respect to the applicant’s concern about being conscripted into the IRGC or deployed into combat, the country information before me indicates that while conscripts may be assigned to a range of duties, including non-combatant roles, selection for service within the IRGC is limited and not arbitrary.28
2023 DFAT Report, [2.154].
2023 DFAT Report, [2.155].
See, for example, 'Country Policy and Information Note Iran: Military service', United Kingdom (UK): Home Office, 30 November 2022, 20221201084631, [7.1.1]-[7.1.11]; see also 'Country Policy and Information Note - Iran: Military Service', UK Home Office, 06 April 2020, 20200407123556.
I am not satisfied that the applicant would be at particular risk of being assigned to the IRGC or placed in a frontline combat role. The applicant has not previously come to the attention of the authorities, and there is no suggestion that he would be singled out for such a posting. While it is possible that conscripts may be deployed during periods of conflict, there is no current information before me to suggest that ordinary conscripts are systematically sent to active combat zones in circumstances that would expose them to a real chance of serious harm.
The applicant’s concern appears to be based on a general fear of military service and a dislike of the regime’s military institutions, rather than on any specific personal circumstances that would elevate his risk. In the absence of evidence that the applicant would be treated differently from other conscripts, or that his service would involve a real chance of serious harm.
I have also considered the chance that the applicant would be allocated to the IRGC or a national police unit and, during that role, be required to suppress protests and whether the applicant’s reaction to such would cause him to come to a real chance of serious harm. In considering this claim, I need to consider that there are two possibilities. On the one hand, the possibility of the applicant being conscripted as ‘a private’ (to use his own words) as opposed to the applicant undertaking his mandatory services at a different rank as a university educated man. The applicant was clear in his evidence that he did not have the same concerns about his service and indeed said that he would be happy to serve his country if he was to do so as a university graduate.
I am satisfied that if the applicant were to return to Iran that he would pursue and complete a university education. I am, therefore, satisfied that the applicant would undertake his mandatory military service as a graduate and in circumstances where he does not fear harm nor does the country information satisfy me that he would face a real chance of serious harm.
I have also considered the prospect of the applicant not being able to complete his university education and having to undertake mandatory national service. I am not satisfied that undertaking national service would, in all of the circumstances, result in the applicant facing a chance of serious harm that is real and not remote. In any event, I have also considered that if the applicant were to refuse to undertake his military service for any reason, including that he would be entering as a ‘private’, he would not face a real chance of serious harm because of the penalties which would arose from a general application for the law.29
It follows that, in my overall assessment, the prospect of the applicant facing a real chance of serious harm arising out of, or in relation to, his compulsory military service is remote and accordingly there is no real chance of serious harm.
I have also considered the applicant’s claims cumulatively. There is no feature of any of the above claims that when considered cumulatively with one or more or all the other claims would lead me to conclude that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution.
For these reasons, I am not satisfied the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning of s 5J(1) of the Act or that the applicant is a refugee within the meaning of the Act. The applicant does not satisfy the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
2023 DFAT Report, [2.154]-[2.157].
Does the applicant satisfy the complementary protection criterion?
To satisfy s 36(2)(aa) of the Act there must be substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Iran, there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm.30
Where claims overlap, I am permitted to refer to and rely on my relevant findings when considering the refugee criterion under s 36(2)(a) when assessing whether the applicant satisfied s 36(2)(aa).31 In those circumstances and for the same reasons that I have found that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm, I find the applicant does not face a real risk of significant harm.
I am not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Iran, there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm. I am not satisfied that the applicant will face a real risk of significant harm for any other reason, including on a cumulative consideration of the claims raised.
For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that the applicant meets the complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Conclusion
The applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a). I have also considered the alternative criterion in
s 36(2)(aa) and find that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) based on being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2). The decision under review should be affirmed.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Date of hearing: 27 June 2025
Representative for the Applicant: Ms M Clayton
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 36(2)(aa); DQU16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2021] HCA 10; 273 CLR 1 [13] (Kiefel CJ, Keane, Gordon, Edelman and Steward JJ).
See DQU16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2021] HCA 10; 273 CLR 1 [27] (Kiefel CJ, Keane, Gordon, Edelman and Steward JJ) and the authorities there cited.
0
12
0