Decision
Reasons for decision
CARR J
The applicant’s claims, in summary, were as follows:· He was of Persian ethnicity, a Shi’a and was 36 year of age. He was married with one child. His parents were deceased and he has five sisters and three brothers; · He had seven years of education and finished school in 1978. He did military service between 1984 and 1986, then worked as a chauffeur for five years, following which he worked as a clothing salesman for six years;· He lived at the same address in Ahwaz from 1990 until September 2000;· Between November 1997 until August 2000 the applicant worked as a driver for the Komiteh Jostejodyeh Mafghoodin, a group which recovered bodies of people killed during the Iran-Iraq war. · He discovered that some of that group were digging up old graves of civilians and political prisoners who had been executed, to satisfy the quota of missing soldiers which they had to recover. They would then make up false identification tags for the bodies sent to Teheran; · The applicant states that around the time that he made this discovery he also discovered that the authorities were constructing or had constructed some concrete buildings over the Iraqi border and he saw people being taken to them in covered cars;· He was working with a maternal cousin. He and his cousin became concerned about these matters and the applicant mentioned them to some Basiji officials;· The next day his cousin vanished and the applicant was told by a work colleague that the cousin had been killed because of what he knew and that he (the applicant) should escape from Iran because he was going to be killed as well;· He waited at his place of employment from about midday to 7.30 pm when it was dark and then went to Isfahan where he stayed with one his sisters for 3 to 3½ months.· With the assistance of a people smuggler he was smuggled out of Iran to Pakistan where he obtained a Pakistani passport. THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION Rather than attempt to summarise the Tribunal’s findings and reasons, I set them out below. I have added numbers to the paragraphs to facilitate the references which I make later in these reasons. “FINDINGS AND REASONS 1. The applicant claims that if he returns to Iran he will be persecuted because he found out that the remains of civilians were being passed off as those of martyrs and that there was a particular building at the Iran/Iraq border. In assessing the applicant's Convention claims I am required to determine whether he has a well-founded fear and if so whether what he fears amounts to persecution for a Convention reason. 2. When determining whether an applicant is entitled to protection in Australia the Tribunal must first make findings of fact on the claims he or she has made. This may involve an assessment of the credibility of the applicant. When assessing credibility, the Tribunal must be sensitive to the difficulties often faced by asylum seekers and should give the benefit of the doubt to those who are generally credible, but unable to substantiate all of their claims. However, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any and all allegations made by an applicant. In addition, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to have rebutting evidence available to it before it can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been made out. Moreover, the Tribunal is not obliged to accept claims that are inconsistent with the independent evidence regarding the situation in the applicant's country of nationality. See Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451, per Beaumont J; Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347 at 348 per Heerey J. See also Shu Min Pan v MIMA, (unreported, Federal Court 23 January 1997 RD Nicholson J at p 10), Chan per McHugh J at 428 and Kopalapillai v MlMA (1998) 86 FCR 547. If the Tribunal makes an adverse finding in relation to a material claim made by an applicant but is unable to make that finding with confidence, it must proceed to assess the claim on the basis that the claim might possibly be true. (See MlMA v Rajalingam (1999) FCR 220). 3. I accept that the applicant is an Iranian national. I further accept that he worked for an organisation called the Komiteh Jostejodyeh Mafghoodin (Committee for Searching for Missing Persons). I accept that the Committee's role was to find the remains of "martyrs" - that is, soldiers who were killed in the Iran-Iraq war. I accept that the applicant operated heavy machinery and that sometimes drove an ambulance. However, in my view, significant aspects of the applicant's evidence were inherently implausible and internally inconsistent. I do not consider that the applicant gave credible and reliable evidence in relation to those matters on which he has based his claims for refugee status. 4. Firstly, the applicant claimed that a group of ten Committee employees were involved in digging up the remains of civilians and passing them off as the remains of martyrs. He claimed that this was a secret operation that was only carried out by the ten people involved, who he characterised as "from the leadership". The applicant claimed that he knew there were ten people involved in this operation because he lived with them and because he and his cousin did not know what they were up to in relation to their change of shifts. In my view, this explanation is not comprehensible. It does not explain how the applicant knew that there were ten people involved in the alleged secret operation. 5. Secondly, the applicant's explanation for how he came to find out about the so-called operation lacks credibility. The applicant stated that he and his cousin were in the ambulance, were told to drive to a particular town and were asked to wait. During the hours in which they were waiting, two or three people went to a cemetery to dig up graves. The applicant claimed that he drove the ambulance back to the site and saw the sacks being placed in the tent where dug up remains are kept. In my view, if there were a secret operation as claimed by the applicant, it is implausible that he and his cousin would have been put in a situation where they could even guess what was going on. The applicant gave two explanations for why he and his cousin were exposed to the operation in this way. He stated that the people doing the digging needed him to drive for them and that he was a better driver than other people were. The applicant also claimed that the people concerned trusted his cousin. In my view neither of these explanations adequately explain why the applicant and his cousin would be exposed to a secret operation that no one else was supposed to know about. 6. Thirdly, the applicant's account of his cousin's alleged disappearance and his own escape from the work site also lacks credibility. According to the applicant, against his cousin's advice he told some Basiji what was happening in relation to civilian remains being mixed with those of martyrs and these Basiji then went to tell the boss. The applicant claims that he found out that this had occurred, went back to his cousin who told him to do nothing and then went to work. The applicant claims that he went to work, came back at midday to be told that his cousin had been taken away and would be killed. He states that he then remained at the work site until it was dark - a period of more than seven hours before he escaped. The applicant claimed that the people who took his cousin were the people who had dug up the remains of civilians. He claimed that they took his cousin because of the information his cousin had about their activities. 7. In my view, it is inherently implausible that the applicant's cousin would have been detained, but that the people who detained him would not also have detained the applicant. In relation to this, I note that according to the applicant, he was at work during the morning on which his cousin was allegedly taken. He was then back at the living quarters for over seven hours before he left. In my view, if anyone had wanted to detain him, they had ample opportunity to do so at the same time or shortly after they detained his cousin. The applicant claimed that the people concerned were not aware that he had the same information as his cousin. This explanation lacks credibility, particularly in view of the applicant's evidence that he was the one who passed on the information to the Basiji. The applicant also claimed that his cousin might have been interrogated for a long time. In my view, this explanation also lacks credibility. If the people who wished to detain the applicant knew that he had information about their activities, there would be no need for them to interrogate his cousin at length before detaining the applicant. 8. Fourthly, the applicant's evidence concerning his cousin's alleged disappearance is internally inconsistent. In his application for a protection visa, the applicant claimed that he was told that his cousin had been killed. However, the applicant changed his evidence during his departmental interview and has since claimed that he was told that his cousin had disappeared and would be killed. The applicant has provided no satisfactory explanation for the change in his evidence in this regard. 9. Fifthly, the applicant claims that for three and a half months after this incident he stayed with his sister in Isfahan. In my view, if anybody had had any interest in detaining the applicant, they had ample opportunity to do during that period. I do not consider that living with one's sister for three and a half months constitutes being in hiding. The applicant claimed that no one knew his sister's address. In my view, some basic investigative work would have revealed the names and addresses of the applicant's close relatives. If the authorities had been looking for the applicant it would have been obvious for them to search for him in the homes of his nearest relatives, including his sister. 10. Overall, I find the applicant's evidence concerning the alleged secret operation, his discovery of it and the claimed disappearance of his cousin to lack credibility. Whilst I accept that the applicant worked for the Committee, I am not satisfied that any secret operation to pass off the remains of civilians for those of soldiers killed during the war actually existed. I am therefore not satisfied that the applicant discovered that it was happening, that his cousin disappeared and has since been killed because he knew about this operation, or that the authorities went to the applicant's home looking for him. I am of the view that the applicant has fabricated his claims in an attempt to create for himself the profile of a refugee. I am not satisfied that the applicant was of any adverse interest to the Iranian authorities or anyone else at the time he left Iran, or that he is of any interest to them currently. As I have rejected the applicant's claims on the facts, there is no basis on which I could be satisfied that his claims could give rise to a well-founded fear of persecution in the reasonably foreseeable future. 11. The applicant also claimed that he was aware that high-ranking Iranian officials were going to buildings built on the Iran-Iraq border in "covered cars". He claimed that this meant that Iranian officials were going over the border into Iraq on secret operations. The applicant also claimed that he was told he would be killed if the authorities knew that he had this information. In my view, the applicant's evidence on this point was confused and fanciful. The applicant did not adequately explain how he knew that high-ranking officials were going into these buildings, or how he knew what these high-ranking officials were involved in secret operations in Iraq, or what these secret operations were. I cannot be satisfied that the applicant's claims in relation to these matters give rise to a well-founded fear of persecution. 12. The applicant has not claimed to fear persecution on the basis that he left Iran illegally or that he has applied for refugee status in Australia. For the sake of completeness, I have nevertheless considered whether he has a well-founded fear of persecution for these reasons. As I do not accept that the applicant was of any adverse interest to the authorities at the time he left Iran, I am of the view that there was no reason for him to leave Iran illegally. I consider it likely that the applicant in fact left Iran legally, using a passport in his own name. However, even if the applicant did leave Iran illegally, the independent evidence suggests that the harshest penalty he would be likely to face would be a fine. The evidence before me does not suggest that any harsher penalty than a fine would be imposed on the applicant, or if one were imposed that this would be for a Convention reason. I therefore do not consider that the applicant's illegal departure gives rise a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. 13. In relation to applying for refugee status, the independent evidence before me, which I accept, does not suggest that the applicant would face any serious problems on this basis. I cannot be satisfied that the fact that the applicant has applied for refugee status in Australia gives rise to a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. CONCLUSION Having considered the evidence as a whole, I am not satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol. He therefore does not satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2) of the Act for a protection visa.”GROUNDS OF THE APPLICATION AND MY REASONING