Legal Research
Cases
2421005 (Refugee)

2421005 (Refugee)

Case [2025] ARTA 1614 1 July 2025

Immigration & Refugee Law

Type to search within this case.

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 227
Chan 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…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading 2421005 (Refugee)

Details

AGLC: 2421005 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 1614
Case: [2025] ARTA 1614
Decision Date: 1 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Court involved a man from Iran who sought a protection visa in Australia. He claimed that he would face persecution if returned to Iran due to his activities as a university student and his beliefs. He had filmed the Revolutionary Guards during a protest, which led to his assault and accusations of espionage. He feared that his presence in Australia would make him a target for false accusations of espionage and hostility towards the Bahai community. Additionally, he feared being forced to participate in oppression or violence during compulsory military service, as his exemption had lapsed when he left his studies.
The Court had to decide whether the applicant met the definition of a refugee under the Migration Act. The legal issues included whether the applicant's fear of persecution was well-founded and whether the cumulative effect of his circumstances could give rise to a real chance of serious harm. The Court also had to consider the applicant's potential for integration into Australian society and his willingness to serve his country as a university graduate.
The Court found that the applicant had not established a fear of persecution on the grounds of political opinion or membership of a particular social group. The Court held that the applicant's fear of being falsely accused of espionage due to his presence in Australia was not well-founded, as there was no evidence to suggest that he would be targeted for this reason. The Court also found that the applicant's fear of hostility towards the Bahai community was not a sufficient basis for a claim of persecution. While the Court acknowledged that the applicant had faced some difficulties due to his beliefs, it found that these did not rise to the level of persecution. The Court also held that the applicant's fear of being forced to participate in oppression or violence during compulsory military service was not well-founded, as he had not been actively involved in protests or activism and was happy to serve his country as a university graduate. The Court found that the applicant's fear of serious harm was not a real chance, and his claim for a protection visa was rejected.
The decision of the primary decision-maker was affirmed, and the applicant's application for a protection visa was dismissed. The Court found that the applicant had not satisfied the requirements for a protection visa and that there were no compelling humanitarian grounds for granting the visa. The Court held that the applicant had not demonstrated a genuine fear of persecution on the grounds of political opinion or membership of a particular social group, and that his claims were not credible. The applicant's appeal was dismissed, and he was required to leave Australia.

Orders