Karimi and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

Karimi and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 2358 (16 July 2021)
Division:General Division
File Number: 2020/0226
Re:Mohsen Karimi
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Member R Maguire
Date:16 July 2021
Place:Brisbane

The decision under review is affirmed.
........................................................................
Member R Maguire
CATCHWORDS
CITIZENSHIP – application for Australian citizenship by conferral – refusal of citizenship – whether Applicant’s identity satisfied under s 24 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) – meaning of identity – application of Citizenship Procedural Instructions – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
Iraqi Nationality Law (Iraq), Law 26 of 2006, 7 March 2006
CASES
Ater and Minister for Home Affairs [2019] AATA 4677
CDNB and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 757
Dhayakpa and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 148 ALD 162
Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No.2) [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 2 ALD 634
Sinnathamby and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 2579
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Attorney-General’s Department, National Identity Proofing Guidelines (2014)
Department of Home Affairs, Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions (1 January 2019)
Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Australian Citizenship [Policy Statement] (27 November 2020),
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum, Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 (Cth)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member R Maguire
16 July 2021
INTRODUCTION

This is an application by Mr Mohsen Karimi for the review of a decision[1] by a delegate of the Minister dated 16 December 2019 to refuse his application[2] for Australian citizenship by conferral under section 24(1) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act) on the ground that the delegate was prohibited by section 24(3) of the Act from approving the application for conferral of citizenship because the delegate was not satisfied as to the Applicant’s identity.
[1] Exhibit 1, Section 37 T Documents, T2, pages 13-24, Notification of refusal of an application for Australian citizenship by conferral.
[2] Exhibit 1, T4, pages 155-167, Application for Australian citizenship.
The Applicant made this application for review pursuant to section 52(1)(b) of the Act on 9 January 2020.[3]
[3] Exhibit 1, Section 37 T Documents, T1, pages 4-6, Application for Review of Decision.
The hearing of this application took place in Brisbane on 8 October 2020, and was resumed on 23 February 2021. The reason for the gap in hearing dates was to enable the Applicant to provide verified evidence that he needed to obtain from Iran. The Applicant represented himself, and the Respondent was represented by Ms Hargrave of Clayton Utz.
The Tribunal heard evidence and oral submissions from the Applicant, and received submissions on behalf of the Respondent. The Tribunal also had before it documentary evidence as listed in the Exhibit Register which is Annexure 1 to these reasons.
ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
The issue for this Tribunal to determine is whether it is satisfied of the Applicant’s identity for the purposes of subsection 24(3) of the Act.
THE LAW
Subsection 21(1) of the Act provides that a person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen.
Subsection 24(1) of the Act requires that if a person makes an application under section 21, the Minister (or a person delegated by the Minister) must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.
Subsection 24(3) of the Act provides that the Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the Minister is satisfied of the identity of the person.
Importantly, the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum to the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 (Cth):
There may be cases where identity is unclear or cannot be satisfactorily ascertained. In these circumstances the Minister cannot approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.
In such circumstances, “identity” must be taken to have its ordinary meaning.
What is “identity”?
The Act itself, typically, provides no definition of the term “identity”.
Among the definitions in the Macquarie Dictionary, ‘identity’ is defined as:
(2) The condition of being oneself or itself, and not another.
...
(6) The state or fact of being the same one.
The Oxford English Dictionary relevantly defines ‘identity’ as follows:
a. The sameness of a person or thing at all times or in all circumstances; the condition of being a single individual; the fact that a person or thing is itself and not something else; individuality, personality.
b. Who or what a person or thing is; a distinct impression of a single person or thing presented to or perceived by others; a set of characteristics or a description that distinguishes a person or thing from others.
Relevant Policy Documents
In considering this application, the Tribunal has had regard for the Australian Citizenship Policy Statement most recently issued on 27 November 2020, and the Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPI’s), in particular CPI 16 – Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act, and CPI 29 – Identifying Information and Personal Identifiers under the Citizenship Act.
Whilst the Tribunal is not bound to strictly apply general policy guidance issued by the government, the Tribunal refers to His Honour Brennan J in the decision of Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No.2)[4] (hereinafter referred to as “Drake”), where His Honour stated:
In my view, the Tribunal, being entitled to determine its own practice in respect of the part which Ministerial policy plays in the making of Tribunal decisions, should adopt the following practice.
When the Tribunal is reviewing the exercise of a discretionary power reposed in a Minister, and the Minister has adopted a general policy to guide him in the exercise of the power, the Tribunal will ordinarily apply that policy in reviewing the decision, unless the policy is unlawful or unless it’s application tends to produce an unjust decision in the circumstances of the particular case. Where the policy would ordinarily be applied, an argument against the policy itself or against its application in the particular case will be considered, but cogent reasons will have to be shown against its application, especially if the policy is shown to have been exposed to Parliamentary scrutiny.
The general practice of the Tribunal will not preclude the Tribunal from making appropriate observations on Ministerial policy, and thus contributing the benefit of its experience to the growth or modification of general policy; but the practice is intended to leave to the Minister the political responsibility for broad policy, to permit the Tribunal to function as an adjudicative Tribunal rather than as a political policy maker, and to facilitate the making of consistent decisions in the exercise of the same discretionary power.
The general practice will require the Tribunal to determine whether the policy is lawful, not in order to supervise the exercise by the Minister of his discretion, but in order to determine whether the policy is appropriate for application by the Tribunal in making its own decision on review.
[Tribunal emphasis]
[4] [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 645.
With reference to the reasons of Brennan J in the decision of Drake, the Tribunal will now outline the relevant general policy guidance that has been submitted for consideration and contained in the exhibits of this decision in Annexure 1.
The Tribunal has before it, CPI 16 – Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act [5] (CPI 16) which aligns with the Attorney General’s Department National Identity Proofing Guidelines 2014 (the Guidelines).[6] The Guidelines describe identity as follows:[7]
[5] Exhibit 1, Section 37 T documents, T3, pages 105-118, CPI 16.
[6] Exhibit 1, Section 37 T Documents, T3, page 119-54, National Identity Proofing Guidelines.
[7] Ibid, page 129.
2.1 What is identity?
2.1.1 A person’s identity is not a fixed concept; it is highly dependent on context. It is some combination of characteristics or attributes that allow a person to be uniquely distinguished from others within a specific context.
2.1.1 A person’s identity in Australia (for the purposes of these Guidelines) is generally considered to be established at birth with the creation of a RBDM[8] birth record that details unique information about an individual – such as name, date and place of birth. For people not born in Australia, their identity in Australia is generally established from personal details recorded on DIBP[9]Australian immigration documents or records.
[8] [Australian] Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages: See Exhibit 1, Section 37 T documents, T3, page 126.
[9] Australian Government Department of Immigration and Border Protection: See Exhibit 1, Section 37 T documents, T3, page 126.
The Guidelines further provides “Identity proofing objectives”:
2.2      Identity proofing objectives
2.2.1 The veracity of claims about a person’s identity is established through evidence provided to meet some or all of the following five identity proofing objectives (depending on confidence in the claimed identity required):
1Confirm uniqueness of the identity in the intended context to ensure that individuals can be distinguished from one another and that the right service is delivered to the right individual. This would include a check that another person has not previously claimed ownership of the identity (i.e. there is a sole claimant), for example by checking the organisations database for identity records with the same attributes.
2Confirm the claimed identity is legitimate to ensure the identity has not been fraudulently created (i.e. the identity is that of a real person) through evidence of commencement of identity in Australia. Where greater confidence in the claimed identity is required, this objective may also include a check that an identity has not been recorded as deceased (e.g. through the Fact of Death file).
3Confirm the operation of the identity in the community over time to provide additional confidence that an identity is legitimate in that it is being used in the community (including online where appropriate). Even where a person is able to obtain genuine identity documents in a fictitious name, it will be harder to provide evidence that the identity has been active in the community, particularly over an extended period of time and if evidence reflects the breadth of a person’s life, such as:
·         Citizen: evidence that demonstrates the person’s life as a citizen and any support or services they are provided by government
·         Money: evidence that demonstrates the person’s financial and working life, and
·         Living: evidence that demonstrates where they live and what they consume.
4Confirm the linkage between the identity and the person claiming the identity to provide confidence that the identity confirmed through objectives 2 and 3 is not only legitimate, but that the person claiming the identity is its legitimate holder. This has traditionally been done by comparing a person’s face against a photograph and although there is an increasing range of technologies that can provide alternative methods, such as comparison of a biometric captured at enrolment against a biometric previously captured by a trusted organisation.
5Confirm the identity is not known to be used fraudulently to provide additional confidence that a fraudulent (either fictitious or stolen) identity is not being used. This could be through cheques against internal registers of known fraudulent identities or against “dummy records” recorded in the system. Where possible, this could include cheques against information provided by external sources such as law enforcement agencies.
CPI 16 (at [4.4]) and the Guidelines also provide that when assessing identity, a combination of three elements are relied upon. They are referred to as the 'three pillars of identity'. The pillars are as follows:

Three pillars of Identity

Individual Characteristics

Biometrics

Personal identifiers, which include fingerprints, facial images, or a person’s signature. Biometrics can be used for comparison, with, for example, facial images held by the Department or other domestic or international agencies.

Documents

Only reliable identity documents can satisfy this pillar. A reliable identity document is issued with robust identity proofing processes along with issuance protocols and security features.

Documents contain biodata, or personal information, such as name, date of birth, nationality, and/or citizenship, and may also contain biometric information

Life Story

A person’s life story is a narrative of the events that happened to them from birth to present. Officers should consider the events that happened to the person, and the information and detail correlating to the events. A person’s life story may include descriptions of family composition, education, employment, countries of residence, countries visited, social footprint, and online presence.

The CPI 16 further provides that:
Officers should not rely on a single pillar to establish a person’s identity. Considering a single pillar in isolation is generally inadequate for providing a reliable basis on which to establish a person’s identity. In order to comprehensively test a person’s claims with regard to their identity, decision-makers should consider each pillar.
In most cases the consideration of the three pillars is embedded in the identity process. The citizenship Applicant is likely to be well documented, information provided to the Department will have remained consistent over a long period of time, and no inconsistencies or concerns will have been identified. Through their reliability and comprehensiveness, identity documents testify to important events in the Applicant’s life story. Through personal identifiers contained in identity documents the Applicant’s biometrics held on departmental records are matched and confirmed.
The other relevant paragraphs of CPI 16 provide, inter alia:
4.12 How do I assess a person’s identity – an evidence based approach
In order to make an informed assessment of a person’s identity, officers must seek to establish a person’s identity from birth using an evidence based approach. It is not sufficient to be satisfied of a person’s identity at one point in time, as a person’s identity is not a point in time concept; it must be verified incrementally throughout a person’s life and considered historically.
The way in which officers should approach the concept of assessing a person’s identity from birth is to create an identity timeline, thus creating a complete picture of the person’s identity from birth to present. The objective is to link the applicant’s identity at birth to the identity provided in their application for Australian citizenship by considering key chronological events in the person’s life. The three pillars are the methodology for establishing a person’s identity, and officers must turn their mind to the individual characteristics in order to piece together a person’s identity timeline and create an ‘identity picture.’
…
While officers should make every effort to inform themselves of an applicant’s identity, the onus is on the applicant to provide information or evidence to support their identity…..
4.13 Assessing pillar one – biometrics
For the purposes of identity, the term biometrics refers to the recorded measurement of a person’s unique physical, identifiable attributes used for identification and authentication and to anchor an individual to a claimed identity.
Section 10 of the Act defines a personal identifier as any of the following (including any of the following in digital form):
·fingerprints or handprints of a person (including those taken using paper and ink or digital live scanning technologies);
·a measurement of a person’s height and weight;
·a photograph or other image of a person’s face and shoulders;
·an iris scan;
·a person’s signature;
·any other identifiers prescribed by the regulations (except an identifier the obtaining of which would involve the carrying out of an intimate forensic procedure within the meaning of s23WA of the crimes act 1914).
Biometrics can assist with linking a person’s biographic information (name, date of birth) to a personal identifier (signature, photograph of a person’s face).
…
If two facial images are compared, and concerns are identified, officers should rely on the expertise of forensic face examiners.
…
4.14 Assessing pillar two – documents
Documents are an important element of the process in establishing a person’s identity. While they do not establish or verify a person’s identity in and of themselves, they contribute to a person’s identity timeline by providing an anchor to corroborate information pursuant to pillar one (biometrics) and pillar three (life story).
When assessing pillar two, decision-makers should consider and assess whether the documents and information they contain are consistent, or otherwise, and whether they element support or refute a person’s claimed identity.
The crucial element of a document, whether genuine or not, is the story the document tells. Documents need not be identity documents to tell a story for instance, a hotel invoice may demonstrate a person’s presence in a particular place at a point in time.
Where necessary, officers may need to research the administrative issuance process of a particular document; see below example.
·It is important to consider that the assurance standards underpinning an identity document may vary between authorities, jurisdictions, and countries. Awareness of the issuance process, and associated checks, if any, may inform the weight that is attached to a document. A document issued after a tight verification process, with consistent administrative practices, using a secure substrate with sufficient security features, will be considered more reliable when compared to a document lacking these assurance standards.
…
4.15 Assessing pillar three – life story
When assessing a person’s life story in the context of a citizenship application, officers should seek to create a complete identity ‘picture’ of the person from birth. This is not done by asking a person to recite their life story in interview. Instead, a practical way in which to begin an assessment of a person’s identity, while at the same time considering their life story, is to consider their identity timeline.
…
There may be cases where one pillar may be given more weight than others. For example, cases where the applicant claims they are stateless and therefore undocumented. In such cases, the available pillar (for example, life story) may become more significant when assessing the person’s identity. There is also likely to be a heightened need to explore further material. This may include, but is not limited to researching credible open source country information. This research will enable the officer to test and verify whether the applicant’s claims, relevant to aspects of their life story, are consistent with the situation in a particular country. Credible country information will support and add weight to a decision and can be cited in the decision record.
Section 24(3) is in effect a prohibition on the exercise of the power to confer citizenship unless the Tribunal can be reasonably satisfied of the Applicant’s identity: Sinnathamby and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 2579 at [54]-[56].

In Dhayakpa and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 148 ALD 162 at [117], the Tribunal observed in relation to a Tibetan refugee who was unable to produce identity documents relating to the period prior to his arrival in Australia that:
Neither the Act nor the common law requires that identity can only be established by the production of documents appropriate to an established or undisturbed society. The decision in Confidential is not an authority that documentation is a requisite for the Minister to be satisfied as to identity. I accept the submission for the applicant that the case merely stands for the proposition that where an applicant has failed to avail himself of opportunities to secure evidence of identity which might reasonably be expected to exist and which he has been advised to secure, the application ought to be rejected. The question here is whether the identity can be established to the satisfaction of the tribunal.
In CDNB and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 757 (hereinafter referred to as “CDNB”), a case concerning applicants who claimed to be stateless Faili Kurds, (also spelt “Feyli”), and who were unable to produce identity documents relating to the period prior to their arrival in Australia, the Tribunal observed at [9]:
…production of documentation to establish identity is not legally essential, but where such evidence is not produced for the grant of citizenship, there will need to be a cogent and acceptable explanation as to why, in order for me to reach a state of positive satisfaction of the identity of the applicants. Furthermore, I must form a view that other evidence given by the applicants as to the personal background must be reliable.
In Ater and Minister for Home Affairs [2019] AATA 4677 at [72], the Tribunal stated in relation to an applicant originally from South Sudan who did not have any identity documents:
…there is an expectation that the Applicant demonstrate reasonable efforts to obtain those documents or other supporting evidence that may assist in satisfying a decision maker as to his identity. In the Tribunal’s view, it is not sufficient for the Applicant merely to state that such documents are not able to be produced in order to satisfy the Tribunal. Further, in the Tribunal’s view even where an applicant has demonstrated that reasonable efforts have been taken to obtain identity documents, if the applicant is unable to obtain those documents, it falls upon an applicant to provide other forms of evidence on which the Tribunal may be satisfied as to the identity of an applicant.… in the absence of documentary evidence confirming identity, persuasive evidence in other forms, for example third party statements and other material relevant to an applicant’s individual circumstances, may be required to enable a reasonable degree of satisfaction to be achieved.
The Tribunal recognised (at [61])that limited weight can be placed on documents issued following the applicant’s arrival in Australia, as these documents are most likely issued on the basis of the Applicant’s identity stated in the Australian identity documents such as a protection visa, and as such provide little indication as to the Applicant’s identity prior to his or her arrival in Australia.
BACKGROUND
The background facts as stated below are an unedited copy of paragraphs 2 to 19 of the Respondent’s Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions (SFIC).[10] The document as presented contained errors which were corrected at hearing, most notably that the Applicant was born in Iran, not Iraq.
[10] Exhibit 3, Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions including Annexure A dated 21 August 2020.
Background Facts
2.The applicant claims to have been born in Eilam, Iraq on 10 August 1987 (T2, 16; T7, 302).
3.On 18 August 2010, the applicant arrived in Australia aboard a vessel named Yallah (T2, 16).
4.On 2 September 2010, the applicant attended a Refugee Status Assessment interview (T17, 379). At the Refugees Status Assessment interview, the notes of an officer of the then Department of Immigration and Citizenship (Department) record that the applicant claimed:
(a)he was stateless and had no passport (T17, 379);
(b)he attended five years of schooling but could not get a certificate for schooling (T17, 379);
(c)his father was a casual labourer and he was a tailor and fashion designer (specifically in relation to bridal dresses), he saved his money (T17, 379); and
(d)the people smugglers took everything including his green card in Indonesia (T17, 379).
5.On 6 September 2010, the applicant attended an entry interview with an officer of the Department (T18, 382). At the entry interview, the applicant claimed that:
(a)he had a green card (that was white), however, it was taken by the 'smuggler' (T18, 385);
(b)he went to a primary school at aged 6-7 called Mokhtar Adeli, in approximately 2005 he attended Golestan Institute to achieve six months of English and in approximately 2006 to 2010 he went to Pooya Institute to achieve four years of English (T18, 385);
(c)he worked as a tailor, at a jewellery shop and as a shop keeper at a bridal store (T18, 385);
(d)he 'wanted to live somewhere better than Iran' and 'wanted an ID being known as somebody' (T18, 391);
(e)he organised to come to Australia through his employer's friends in Tehran, with the applicant stating "friend of employer arranged it through a friend. He arranged a meeting with a guy "Sohail." He came to store and I told my employer I wanted to leave. Sohail asked questions and where you want to go. I said anywhere. We paid 3,000,000 toman and 2 photos. I saved the money, I paid for institute fees and … things and the rest of the money was rept. 1 month later he returned …passport received 2 days before I depart including ticket. (T18, 366)"
(f)that the total amount of money paid, was 8 million toman, being, 3 million for passport and tickets and 5 million for the rest of the journey and that the applicant's employer paid Sohail all the money (T18, 396);
(g)that the document he used to travel to Australia was "an original passport but fake" (T18, 397);
(h)that he flew from Tehran to Dubai and then to Jakarta and that when he was in Indonesia "he took my money bag and emptied my bag lucky my money was in my pocket" (T18, 397);
(i)whilst in Iran, he was constantly harassed, abused and assaulted by the Basij as he was a Faili Kurd (T18, 400).
6.The applicant made a request for a refugee status assessment on 18 September 2010 and applied for an independent merits review in relation to his refugee status assessment on 14 January 2011. On 22 July 2011 the Independent Merits Reviewer found that the applicant met the criterion for a protection visa as set out in s 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (T20, 409).
7.On 17 August 2010, the Department wrote to the applicant to notify the applicant that the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship had exercised his power to allow the applicant to lodge a protection visa application (T22, 428).
8.On 18 August 2010, the applicant lodged an application for Protection (XA-866) visa (T23, 429). In his visa application, he applicant relevantly indicated that:
(a)the applicant departed from Imam Khoemieni International Airport, Tehran (T23, 462)
(b)that he is in regular contact with his mother, who remains in his home country (T23, 463);
(c)that his mother, father, two sisters and brother remain in Iran (T23, 475);
(d)he went to a primary school called Mokhtar Adeli from 1993/1994 to 1999, in approximately 2005 he attended Golestan Institute to achieve six months English and in approximately 2006 to 2010 he went to Pooya Institute to achieve four years English (T23, 476);
(e)he left his home country from Imam Kohemini International Airport, Tehran legally (by ticking the relevant box) (T23, 462);
(f)that he worked as a tailor, at a jewellery shop and as a shop keeper at a bridal store and also included further details in relation to his employment history (T23, 476).
9.On 1 September 2011, the applicant was granted a Protection (Class XA) Subclass 866 (PV) visa (T24, 477).
10.On 8 September 2015, the applicant applied for Australian citizenship by conferral (T4, 155). In his application, the applicant again claimed that he was stateless. In support of his application, the applicant provided a number of identity documents that had been issued after his arrival in Australia. The applicant attached a statement dated 12 April 2019 stating that as a Faili Kurd, he was not accepted into the Iranian community and was unable to obtain a birth certificate or other evidence for his children (T4, 192).
11.On 14 March 2019, the Department wrote to the applicant requesting that he provide documents relating to his identity prior to his arrival in Australia (T6, 203). The letter provided a list of documents that the applicant could provide in support of his identity prior to his arrival in Australia. The list included birth certificates, marriage certificates or dowry contracts, overseas driver licences, children's birth certificates or registration of birth, and death and burial certificates of family members. The letter also requested that the applicant provide a completed 'Form 80 - Personal particulars for assessment' and that he provide further detail in relation to his life story to support his identity.
12.On 4 April 2019, the applicant provided further information, including: Form 80 (with attachment), certified copy of original Australian Travel Document, certified copy of original Australian Driver's licence, Australian partner's citizenship certificate, the Applicant's original application for a Protection (Class XA) subclass 866 visa, the Applicant's Refugees Status Assessment Record, a submission dated 14 July 2011 submitted to the Independent Merits Reviewer and From 956 with attachment. The applicant also provided a letter in relation to his overseas issued documents and life story in an effort to support his identity (T7, 211).
13.On 10 April 2019, the Department wrote to the applicant's representative reiterating that as set out in the letter of 14 March 2019, if the applicant was unable to present any original overseas documents/information then a statutory declaration should be provided covering a number of points. The correspondence then set out these points again (T8, 340).
14.On 12 April 2019, the applicant's representative wrote to the Department providing: a letter of the applicant to the Department (dated 11 April 2019), a statutory declaration of the applicant (date 12 April 2019) as well as other documents previously provided to the Department on 4 April 2020 (T9, 342).
15.On 17 April 2019, the Department again wrote to the applicant's representative requesting that the applicant submit his travel documents / titre de voyage (T11, 350).
16.On 16 December 2019, a delegate of the respondent refused to approve the applicant's application for Australian citizenship (T2, 16) on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied of the applicant's identity.
17.On 16 January 2020, the applicant applied to the Tribunal seeking review of the delegate's decision (T1, 4).
18.On 9 March 2020, the applicant provided the Tribunal and the respondent with further material, being photos and an X-ray image. On 10 June 2020, the applicant provided the Tribunal and the respondent with further material, being an x-ray allegedly taken in Iran and a Qscan report on the x-ray.
19.On 23 July 2020, the applicant provided a 'certified copy' of the X-ray from Iran.
The Summary of Contentions provided in the Respondent’s SFIC at paragraphs 37 to 80 is set out as follows:
Summary of Contentions
37.The respondent contends that in circumstances where the applicant:
(a)    has been unable to produce any primary identity document relating to his identity prior to his arrival in Australia, and in particular, to substantiate his claim that he was a stateless Faili Kurd;
(b)    has not demonstrated that he has made reasonable attempts to obtain documents that may be expected to exist in relation to his identity and has not provided a cogent and acceptable explanation for his failure to make such attempts and/or provide these documents; and
(c)    has provided inconsistent information to the Department in relation a key aspect of his life story as a stateless Faili Kurd, and that his claimed life story appears unlikely in light of available country information;
the Tribunal cannot be satisfied of the applicant's identity to the standard required by subsection 24(3) of the Act.
Documentary evidence relating to identity
38.The respondent contends that the applicant has not demonstrated that he has made a reasonable attempt to obtain identity documents from Iran (and Iraq), or provided a cogent and acceptable explanation as to why these documents could not be produced.
Identity cards and refugee registration cards (green cards and white cards)
39.The respondent contends that the applicant's claim that he was unable to obtain identity documents from Iran should be assessed in the context that Iran is generally a well-documented society and those residing in Iran can ordinarily be expected to produce documents to establish their identities. DFAT country information recognises that Iran has laws and bureaucracies regulating identity registration, and a large number of transactions in Iran require identity documents.² In CDNB and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 757 at [11], the Tribunal described Iran as an 'established and undisturbed' country for the purposes of issuing identity documents.
40.Country information relating to Faili Kurds residing in Iran suggests (T29, 567-570) [T29 is subject to a confidentiality order and its contents have been redacted]:
[Redacted Quote]
41.In relation to Iranian documentation the Applicant states that:
(a)he has never had an Iranian birth certificate, National Iranian ID card, a genuine Iranian passport or an Iranian Driver's Licence (T9, 346);
(b)he did have a 'refugee card' but this 'refugee card' was taken by a smuggler in Indonesia (with the Applicant also stating that the card had no value in Iran and has never been renewed) (T9, 346);
(c)this refugee card was a white card that had his name, his father's name, birth place, expiry date and a serial number. It also states that "this card is only for the purposed of identifying the holder as a person expelled from Iraq" (T7, 286);
(d)he is unable to obtain a new refugee card from outside of Iran (T9, 346); and
(e)his family is unable to obtain a new refugee card on his behalf as he has been living independently for nearly 10 years and he fears harm for his family if his family were to approach the Iranian authorities (T9, 346).
42.The country information set out above suggests that the 'vast majority' of stateless Feyli Kurds in Iran have in fact been granted white cards by the Iranian government. Further, in CDNB, the Tribunal referred to evidence from the Stateless Project: Feyli Kurds report which stated that 'the white card is issued by the Authorities so that they can identify you. The issuance of identity documents is for the benefit of the Authorities as much as it is for the benefit of the card holder' (at [48]). In relation to the 'refugee white card' referred to by the applicant, it is not clear if this card was issued by the Iranian authorities. If the card was issued by the authorities, the Respondent contends that there does not appear to be a reason why the Iranian government could not be contacted for proof of the applicant's identity.
43.As set out above (at (d) and (e)), the applicant has stated first, that he is unable to obtain Iranian documentation from Australia and second, that his family are unable to obtain Iranian documents on his behalf. First, the respondent notes that the Applicant has not provided any information as to why he cannot obtain identity documents from Australia i.e. via the Iranian embassy. Second, the applicant has not provided evidence to corroborate his assertion that his family would be in danger if they attempted to obtain copies or evidence of Iranian documentation on his behalf. The respondent further expands on the contentions by reference to the applicant's family in relation to a lack of documentation at paragraphs 55 to 56.
44.In circumstances where the applicant does not have any documentation, the respondent contends that the applicant must provide a "cogent and acceptable explanation as to why no such evidence has been provided" (CDNB at [9]). Further, the respondent contends that no such explanation has been provided by the applicant, nor has any evidence been provided by the applicant to demonstrate that he has made genuine attempts to acquire identity documents from Iraq and Iran, or the relevant embassies.
Other Citizenship
45.Country information suggests that Faili Kurds residing in Iraq prior to 1980 held either Iraqi or Iranian citizenship (T29, 564) [T29 is subject to a confidentiality order and its contents have been redacted]:
[Redacted quote]
46.Since the end of the Saddam Hussein regime, many Faili Kurds have been able to regain their Iraq citizenship. DFAT country information report in in respect of Iraq³ indicates:
Since 2003, Faili Kurds have returned from Iran to Iraq…While most were initially stateless on their return to Iraq, many have now been able to regain their citizenship. Legislation to return citizenship is now in place, although the process can be administratively complex if an individual lacks sufficient documentation to demonstrate Iraqi origin.
47.The process for Faili Kurds to regain Iraqi citizenship begins as follows (T28, 553):
Where Feyli Kurds have Iraqi parentage they can obtain an Iraqi passport from Iraqi Embassy which needs to be stamped by MFA to obtain exit permit or travel to Iraq to obtain Iraqi identity documents and an Iraqi passport… The Iraqi Embassy (and Iraqi government) does not appear to have any issues with providing travel documents to Feyli Kurds where they are satisfied they are Iraqi (either by birth or parentage).
48.Relevantly, the Iraqi National Law (No. 26 of 2006) provides:⁴
Iraq’s Nationality Law (Law No. 26 of 2006).
Article 3
A person shall be considered Iraqi if:
a.he/she is born to an Iraqi father or an Iraqi mother;
b.he/she is born in Iraq to unknown parents. A foundling found in Iraq shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be considered to have been born therein.
Article 4
The Minister may consider Iraqi any person born outside Iraq to an Iraqi mother and an unknown or stateless father, if he chooses the Iraqi nationality, within one year from coming of age (reaching the age of maturity), unless he fails to do so, due to financial circumstances, provided that he is residing within Iraq at the time of application for the Iraqi nationality.
…
49.The applicant claims that he and both of his parents were born in Iraq - his mother in Kahneqain in about 1956 and his father in Baghdad in about 1936 (see T7, 265). The applicant further claims that both of his parents are stateless.
50.Country information suggests that, as the applicant's parents were born in Iraq prior to his family's expulsion by the Saddam Hussein regime, it is likely they acquired Iraqi citizenship by birth. This would have entitled them to obtain identity documents in Iraq, such as a birth certificate or a nationality certificate. Further, it appears that the applicant's parents would have been eligible to reacquire Iraqi citizenship after the end of the Saddam Hussein regime.
51.Similarly, that information suggests that as the applicant's parents are Iraqi, then the applicant would also be able to acquire Iraqi citizenship pursuant to article 3 of the Iraqi Nationality Law.
52.The applicant stated that on one occasion, his father attempted to leave Iran in 2005 to try and reclaim property in Iraqi (T7, 286). However, the applicant has not provided the travel documents that his father obtained to go to Iraq nor has he explained why he and his family members have not attempted to gain relevant identity documents from Iraq. The respondent contends that the applicant has not made a reasonable attempt to obtain identity documents from Iraq, or provided a cogent explanation as to why he did not persist in obtaining these documents.
Other documents
53.The applicant claims that whilst in Iran he attended three different schools there and worked in three different jobs (T7, 234-235). However, the applicant has not provided any documentation relating to his schooling or employment in Iran (such as school enrolment papers, graduation certificates, school reports, employment contracts or supporting statements from former employers or teachers). The applicant has also not explained why these document have not been provided.
54.The respondent contends that the applicant has not provided any cogent and acceptable reason for his failure to provide a number of identity documents that may reasonably be expected to exist in support of his identity prior to his arrival in Australia.
55.The respondent further notes that the applicant's parents and sibling still reside in Iran, and that he is still in regular contact with his mother (and that in 2011 he called her three to four times a week) (T23, 463).
56.The applicant has not provided any documentation at all in relation to his family members. Noting the in country information in relation to white cards (as set out above at paragraphs 39 to 44) the Respondent contends that it is highly unlikely that the applicants family members remain in Iran without any documentation. Further, the Respondent contends that it is unlikely that the applicant's family members were able to get telephone numbers without providing identity documents in order to get the telephone numbers This is supported by in country information which states that "normally, identity documents would be required to buy a house, car, mobile phone or establish a utilities account."⁵
57.In support of his claimed identity the applicant has provided an x-ray which he alleges was taken in Iran (with the document stating that the x-ray is from the Milad Specialist and Super Specialist Hospital) as well as report (by QSCAN radiology) comparing the facial composition of the 'Iranian' x-ray to a recent x-ray. The applicant alleges that this is proof of his identity. The respondent notes the x-rays show screws and metalware to the untrained medical eye and that conclusion is supported by the QSCAN report. However, without a further medical report, it is not clear what procedures have taken place in relation to the person the subject of the x-ray.
58.The respondent contends that the x-rays (and accompanying report) are not proof of the applicant's identity before he arrived in Australia for the reasons that follow.
(a)the respondent notes that the x-ray allegedly taken in Iran, including the 'translated and certified version' provided by the Applicant on 23 July 2020, do not state the date the x-ray was taken. The respondent contends that without a date it is difficult for the applicant to establish when this x-ray was taken, and whether it was in fact taken before the Applicant's arrival in Australia.
(b)the respondent contends that it is not clear whether the Iran x-ray relates to the applicant or another person with the same name as the applicant.
(c)the respondent notes that the applicant did not raise the 'procedure' that led to the inclusion of the metalware in his face or that the X-ray had been taken in his arrival interview (T18) or in relation to his protection visa (i.e see T20). Further, when he arrived in Australia the applicant stated that he had "come to Australia to find a different life, one unlike his father has experienced" further noting that his father is sick and cannot afford appropriate treatment (T20, 413). The respondent contends that the Applicant's father's inability to pay for medical treatment further supports the contention that the x-rays are not of the applicant as that procedure would have also likely been costly.
(d)The respondent notes that the metalware and screws in the x-rays indicate that a surgical procedure was undertaken. The respondent contends that it is unlikely that such a procedure was provided in Iran to an undocumented stateless Feyli Kurd. The respondent contends that this is therefore more likely that either these X-rays are not of the applicant at the time he alleges or if that they are, the Applicant is not an undocumented stateless Feyli Kurd.
59.The Respondent notes that in country information states that "accessing healthcare services without identification is possible, but requires payment without drawing on health insurance."6 The respondent contends that this supports their position that either these x- rays are not of the Applicant at the time he alleges or if they are, the Applicant is not an undocumented Feyli Kurd.
Conclusions on documentary evidence of identity
60.The respondent contends that a stateless Faili Kurd in the applicant's position would ordinarily be expected to have a number of identity documents, including a refugee registration card from Iran, hospital records and records relating to his employment and educational history, as well as being able to provide identity documents of his family members who remain in Iran (i.e a white card). The applicant has not provided any of these documents even though he is in regular contact with his family who still reside in Iran.
61.In light of the matters set out above, the respondent contends that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the applicant has provided sufficient evidence that he has made a genuine attempt to secure evidence of identity that may reasonably be expected to exist, or that he has provided a cogent and acceptable explanation for his inability to produce these documents. Following the approach in Dhayakpa, the respondent contends that the application for review should be dismissed.
Life story
62.Even if the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has made a reasonable attempt to secure evidence relating to his identity prior to his arrival in Australia and that the applicant has provided a cogent and acceptable justification for not being able to produce documents in support of his identity prior to his arrival in Australia, the respondent contends that the Tribunal cannot be positively satisfied of the applicant's identity in light of the fact that his life story, as recounted by him, appears to be unlikely in light of an inconsistent statement made by the applicant and the available country information about Iran.
Departure from Iran
63.The applicant claims that he departed Iran in August 2010 via Imam Khomeini International Airport in Tehran on a fake passport transiting through Dubai and Indonesia (T18, 397). He claims that he paid a total of approximately 8 million toman to cover the cost of his travel to Australia (T18, 396).
64.The respondent notes that country information from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada in relation to Tehran airport departures as at 2006 states:
…a United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNHCR) official provided the following information based on consultations with UNHCR personnel in Tehran:
Verification of passports and documentation at departure points at land borders and airports is carried out in the last phase of exit procedure. This means that in airports, after the tickets are checked and the luggage is delivered to the airline and before getting into the waiting area for departure, the passports shall be checked by a Disciplinary Forces officer who verifies in [the] NAJA [law enforcement] database whether the passport is fake and whether the person standing in front of the officer is the same person whose name and photo appears on the passport.
….
departure procedures are still such that it would be highly improbable that anyone with a forged passport in which name and number do not tally would be able to leave the country. Security officials at the airport possess lists of suspected or wanted persons and it is not unusual that passengers wishing to leave are prevented from leaving and told to refer to the security department. In general, the security checks at Tehran airport are still very strict and it is doubtful that anyone with a security record and convictions in Iran for political offences would be able to leave the country legally by air.
65.Information from the Danish Immigration Service indicates that there are a number of checks in place when a passenger departs from the Imam Khomeini International Airport (as at 2008):⁸
The first security check takes place upon entry from the public area into the terminal area for travellers only. The passenger's luggage will be checked at this point. The luggage goes through a scanner and if anything looks suspicious, the Immigration Police will take the person aside and open the suitcase. The passport of the person travelling is checked and the person passes through a detector (women and men go through separate detectors). This check is the responsibility of the Immigration Police.
After passing through the luggage check the passenger goes to the check-in counter. At the check-in counter, flight personnel will check in the passenger's luggage, check the visa and issue a boarding pass. If anything is wrong in terms of visa or passport, the flight personnel will contact the Immigration Police. After check-in, the passenger goes to a counter where Immigration Police conducts a third security check. The Immigration Officer sits inside a booth behind a glass window. He checks the passport and personal information on a computer system.
The passport and the exit visa are verified. The data of the passport holder appears on the screen, together with a photograph of the traveller. If the person is married and has children, the photos and names of his wife and children will also appear on the screen. If the passport holder is registered on a list of individuals who have an outstanding issue with the government or for other reasons are not allowed to leave Iran, this information will appear on the screen.
When the security check is completed, and if the person is allowed to leave Iran, an exit stamp will be stamped in the passport. The person travelling now enters the duty free zone.
Before entering the area with flight gates, yet another security check is conducted. This is a physical check where the hand luggage is scanned and the passenger goes through a metal detector. This security check is conducted by the Revolutionary Guards. The Immigration Police and airline personnel conducted the previous checks.
The very last check is done just before boarding, where the traveller shows his or her boarding pass. Airport personnel conduct this check.
66.An investigation into Feyli Kurd cohort by the Department includes the following information (T29, 572-573):
[Redacted Quote]
67.The respondent contends that the applicant's account of his departure from Iran appears to be implausible in light of country information relating to departure procedures from Iran. The respondent submits that having regard to the security measures implemented at Imam Khomeini International Airport, it appears unlikely that the applicant would have been able to depart from that airport with a fraudulent Iranian passport. Further, it appears unlikely that the applicant would have preferred departing Iran via Imam Khomeini International Airport on a fraudulent Iranian passport where Iran's border with Turkey is 'porous' and the risk that a fraudulent passport would be detected is lower. The respondent contends that the fact that the applicant was able to transit through Dubai and Indonesia without apparent difficulties further suggests that it was likely that he departed on a genuine Iranian passport, casting doubt on his claims of statelessness.
68.In relation to the applicant's departure from Imam Khomeini International Airport the respondent notes that despite the applicant's claims he left on a fake passport (T18, 397) on 18 August 2010 the applicant indicated that he legally exited his home country from Imam Kohemini International Airport, Tehran (T23, 462). The respondent contends that this inconsistent evidence supports the respondent's position that the applicant departed on a genuine Iranian passport.
69.At his entry interview the applicant stated that to facilitate his travel to Australia he paid approximately 8 million toman (which was paid by his employer to a person named Sohail) (T18, 396). The respondent notes that the applicant claimed that he worked as a tailor's assistant in a Bridal and Tailoring shop in Tehran (T23, 476). The respondent also notes that the applicant stated that he decided to travel to Australia 2 months before the trip (T18, 395). The respondent contends that it is unlikely that the applicant by saving money (T18, 395), was able to save up to 8 million toman in two months. Also, the respondent notes that it is unclear why the applicant's employer paid the money (T18, 396) when the applicant also alleged he was saving money (T18, 396). Further, the respondent notes that the applicant has not provided any documentation to support his life story, such as a statement from the store owner or evidence of the owner's identity.
70.As set out above at paragraph 58(c) the respondent contends that the applicant has made an inconsistent statement in relation to his medical history. The respondent makes this contention as the applicant did not raise the 'procedure' that led to the inclusion of the metalware in his face or that the X-ray had been taken in his arrival interview (T18) or in relation to his protection visa (i.e see T20).
71.In light of the applicant's inconsistent statement in relation to the medical evidence the respondent contends that the Tribunal cannot be positively satisfied of the Applicant's identity in light of the inconsistencies in the applicant's account of his life story.
72.Having regard to the matters highlighted above, the respondent contends that, more likely than not, the applicant's departure from the Iranian international airport did not occur as alleged. Rather, more likely than not, having regard to the strict border controls present at that airport, the applicant departed on a genuine passport. In those circumstances and where the respondent contends that the applicant has made an inconsistent statement in relation to his medical history the respondent submits that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied of the applicant's identity, including his claim that he is stateless.
Requisite level of satisfaction of applicant's identity
73.The respondent contends that, on the basis of the evidence before the Tribunal, there is a significant level of uncertainty surrounding the applicant's identity. The applicant:
(a)has been unable to produce any primary identification document relating to his identity prior to his arrival in Australia, particularly, to substantiate his claims that he is a stateless Faili Kurd;
(b)has not demonstrated that he has made a reasonable effort to secure identity documents (or documents that might otherwise assist in establishing his identity) that may be expected to exist for stateless Faili Kurds living in Iran, and he has not been able to provide a cogent and acceptable explanation for not being able to produce these documents; and
(c)in relation to a key aspects of his life story his life story appears unlikely in light of available information on undocumented Faili Kurds living in Iran, casting significant doubt on his life story as a stateless Faili Kurd.
74.The respondent contends that authorities suggest that in light of the significant rights and privileges conferred by being granted Australian citizenship, an applicant's identity must be demonstrated to a high level of satisfaction. The respondent contends that where there are doubts surrounding the applicant's identity, the application must be refused.
75.The Explanatory Memorandum to the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 states (at 41) '[t]here may be cases where identity is unclear or cannot be satisfactorily ascertained. In these circumstances the Minister cannot approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.'
76.In Sinnathamby and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 2579, the Tribunal observed (at [54]-[56]):
The Parliament has couched section 24(3) in terms that the Minister must not approve an application for citizenship unless the Minister is satisfied of the person’s identity. It is in effect a prohibition on the Minister exercising his powers under the Act to confer citizenship unless he can be satisfied in regard to this requirement.
The Courts and this Tribunal have frequently considered what is meant by the statutory phrase that a person is “satisfied” of a requirement … In Briginshaw, Dixon J (as he then was) stated:
The truth is that, when the law requires the proof of any fact, the Tribunal must feel an actual persuasion of its occurrence or existence mind that is attained or established independently of the nature and consequence of the fact or facts before it can be found … reasonable satisfaction is not a state of mind that is attained or established independently of the nature of the consequence of the fact or facts to be proved. The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the Tribunal. In such matters "reasonable satisfaction" should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences.
Essentially, therefore, in this matter, the Tribunal, standing in the shoes of the Minister, must be persuaded to a degree of reasonable satisfaction that something is so, and the degree of satisfaction may vary according to the consequences that flow. In this case, the Parliament has decided that being from that is a range of significant rights, responsibilities and privileges.
77.In Beyan and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 256, which concerned an applicant who was unable to produce identity documents relating to the period before his arrival in Australia, the Tribunal stated (at [38]):
a Certificate of Australian Citizenship is a legal document of considerable significance and the Tribunal should not countenance an outcome which could lead to such a certificate being issued in circumstances where, as is the present case here, the identity of the Applicant is far from clear.
78.In Boshra Al-Hussaini and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] AATA 1267 the Tribunal confirmed where there are doubts as to the applicant's identity, the applicant's citizenship application should not be approved:
On the evidence before it, it is not possible for the Tribunal to come to a definitive conclusion on all of those questions, although it does find that the First Applicant was married to Mohammed Ali by way of a sigheh arrangement.
The evidence is just not persuasive enough one way or the other to allow a definitive determination of the other questions. The Respondent has a strong case in raising the doubts which it does about the various claims made by the First Applicant. Equally, the First Applicant has plausible explanations and responses to some of those expressed doubts.
The Tribunal accepts the point made in In [sic] Dhayakpa that:
Neither the Act nor the common law requires that identity can only be established by the production of documents appropriate to an established or undisturbed society. The decision in Confidential is not an authority that documentation is a requisite for the Minister to be satisfied as to identity.
However, it has to be said that in this matter, it is only by the production of some documentation that the divergent claims and assertions can be settled in a way which does not potentially compromise the integrity of the citizenship process.
What this clearly leads to is a conclusion that, for the purposes of s 24(3) of the Act, the identity of the First Applicant cannot be established with the degree of satisfaction necessary to meet the requirements of legislation and policy and hence she cannot be granted citizenship by conferral.
79.In CDNB, the applicants claimed to be a stateless Faili Kurd. The Tribunal concluded that it was unable to be satisfied of CDNB's identity in circumstances where:
(a)CDNB had provided inconsistent information relating to his place and country of birth and had failed to provide an adequate explanation for the inconsistencies;
(b)CDNB had made no effort to obtain documents relating to his identity; and (c)
(c)CDNB's evidence regarding his life in Iran as an undocumented person, and the fact that he did not persist in seeking to obtain official documentation was 'unconvincing'.
80.The respondent contends that, in the present case, in circumstances where there is a significant level of uncertainty surrounding the applicant's identity, the Tribunal cannot reach the requisite level of satisfaction of the applicant's identity required by subsection 24(3) of the Act.
[Errors in Original]
Applicant’s Statement

In a written statement to the Tribunal,[11] the Applicant pointed to errors in the Respondent’s SFIC regarding his place of birth and his occupation. He also complained of what he described as “catastrophic administrative mistakes” made in the course of his application, the first of which was the misplacement of a statutory declaration he had submitted. He pointed out that this was the only piece of supporting evidence provided to the Department to assist them with determining his identity. He requested a “Case-by-Case” consideration of his application, and said that the DFAT report generalised the experience of Kurdish people in Iran and did not reflect his experience and life in Iran.
[11] Exhibit 4, Applicant's Submissions in Reply provided on 23 September 2020.
The Applicant said that he had provided an X-ray image which was biometric evidence, of his face from Iran with a current supporting image and report to confirm his identity. He submitted that the X-ray images, along with his statutory declaration, satisfy the supporting document requirements for a Stateless Kurdish person’s identity.
In his statutory declaration of 12 April 2019,[12] the Applicant declared, inter alia:
[12] Exhibit 5, Statutory Declaration of Mohsen Karimi dated 12 April 2019.
As a stateless Faili Kurd I am unable to provide any documents from my former country of habitual residence, Iran. On the 4 April 2019 my representative submitted a letter on my behalf to the representative further provided supporting material from my protection visa application process which details my life story and shows I was accepted as being stateless, (therefore documentless) by the then Department of Immigration and Citizenship on 27 July 2011 labelled attachment i)
I confirm for the purposes of my citizenship by conferral application I have never had and an Iranian birth certificate, National Iranian ID card, a genuine Iranian passport or Iranian Driver’s licence because I am stateless.
I follow this statutory declaration with my sworn statement from my original protection visa claim which explains at paragraph 3 what happened to my white card and false passport in Indonesia when I was travelling to seek asylum in Australia in August 2010. This “refugee card” and my false passport were taken by the people smugglers in Indonesia just before I got on to the boat to travel to Australia. This card had no value in Iran and has never been renewed. It had expired many years before.
I am unable to obtain a new refugee card from outside of Iran. My family is unable to acquire one on my behalf as I am an adult and have been living independently from them for nearly 10 years in a foreign country. I also fear it would cause them harm if they had to approach the Iranian authorities on my behalf, for any reason, now I have been granted protection in Australia and because they too are statelss and have no identity documents.
The date I left Iran and how I came to travel to Australia is detailed in the attachment to Form 80 at Part E. Qu. 18. I left using a false passport obtained through a people smuggler. As shown I flew to Jakarta, Indonesia (leaving from the Ayatollah Khomeni International Airport in Tehran), Iran on 14 August 2010. I left Indonesia on 15^th August 2010 by boat and arrived to Christmas Islan on 18^th August 2010.
My family composition is detailed in the attachment to Form 80 at Qu, 44 and 45 – Associated People.
My employment history is detailed in the attachment to Form 80 at Part F - Qu. 19 -Employment details.
My education history is detailed in the attachment to Form 80 Part G - Qu. 20 Education.
My travel and visa history is detailed in the attachment to Form 80 Part E Qu. 18 - Details of travel abroad.
As above and as attached in my original sworn statement of claim from my original protection visa claim, dated 18 September 2010, is an account of my life story. This is further summarised at pages 2 – 5 of the Refugee Assessment Record dated 21 December 2010 and previously submitted as attachment g. My personal history is summarised again at page 1 of the legal submission provided to the Independent Review on 14th July and clearly outlines my situation in Iran in the context of Refugee Law and Independent Country Information, labelled attachment h).
[Errors in original]
HEARING
In opening submissions Ms Hargrave referred to the three pillars of identity and said that the relevant pillars that were in question were documents and life stories. She referred to the case of CDNB cited above where an applicant had not provided any primary source documentation of his identity and the Tribunal stated that he must instead provide a cogent and acceptable explanation as to why no such evidence had been provided.
She submitted that the Tribunal could not be satisfied of the Applicant’s identity firstly because he had been unable to produce any primary identification documents relating to his identity prior to his arrival in Australia; secondly he had not demonstrated that he had made reasonable efforts to secure identity documents that might be expected, nor had he provided a cogent and acceptable explanation of not being able to provide these documents; and thirdly key aspects of his life story of how he left Iran, appeared unlikely in the light of available country information. She submitted that the facts cast significant doubt on his life story of being a stateless Faili Kurd.
Ms Hargrave referred the Tribunal to the DFAT report of country information,[13] and also to her written submissions in the Respondent’s SFIC regarding the X-rays that Applicant had provided.
[13] Exhibit 3, Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions including Annexure A dated 21 August 2020.
The Applicant criticised the duration of the process of his application, and referred to his statutory declaration dated 12 April 2019 (referred to above), and said he had done his best to explain his circumstances. The Applicant said that the initial decision was made based on a statutory declaration of another person with the same first name. He told the Tribunal that he did not have any other documents to support his identity.
The Applicant said that he had found pictures of himself, and said that it was him in the photograph of the boy practising martial arts that had been provided. He said that he has provided his X-ray and the report confirming it. He said that he has 15 screws and three plates in his head to the upper right side of his right eye, and under both eyes. They were inserted when he was 17 or 18 years old at Milad Hospital in Iran. The Applicant said that to the best of his ability to translate, the translation appeared correct. He confirmed that the script beneath the X-ray accorded with the translation he had provided.
He said that he had a further X-ray conducted in Brisbane and a second report which had regard to the X-ray from Iran. He said that he provided the Iranian X-ray to Qscan, and he believed they prepared the report with identical findings.
He said his X-ray from Iran was posted to him by his brother from Iran, who “had to pay a massive amount of money to some dodgy mailing company” in order to get it to Australia. He had not retained the mailing package in which it came. The Applicant said that this showed that he had been trying his best to provide material and said that the X-ray was unique as a fingerprint, and was a personal identifier biometric. He said that it also contained biodata, and together with the statutory declaration he had provided, satisfied the three pillars of the Guidelines.
The Applicant gave evidence of his present circumstances including his eight-year relationship with his partner and his work in Nauru. He is presently studying law. The Applicant spoke passionately about his desire to become an Australian citizen and the privilege of his life in Australia. He said that he was a stateless person and did not have any documents, and therefore asking him to provide documents was a “great trick”.
Under cross-examination, the Applicant said the X-ray in Iran was taken following a car accident resulting in facial injuries. He had surgery, and was given the X-ray in case any other doctors needed to perform further surgery. He thought he had a sinus problem arising from the surgery but no eye issues. His surgery was paid for by the driver’s insurance, similar to what happens in Australia. He said he first mentioned his car accident to the Department within the last year. He did not consider there was any reason to mention it to the government.
He had not tried to contact the hospital to confirm the genuineness of the X-ray, but said the name of the hospital was on the X-ray, the same as the more recent X-ray from Qscan. He did not recall the name of the doctor from the hospital in Iran.
He did not recall what documentation that he had to provide when he was treated at the hospital, but he assumed that it was done on the basis of the white card that he had at the time.
His parents were both born in Iraq, and he knows that they are not Iraqi citizens, as they do not have any papers. He was unaware of their entitlements under Iraqi law. His parents had not made any attempts to get documents from Iraq. His father travelled there in 2005. This was after the chaos following the downfall of Saddam Hussein. The Applicant said that the journey may have been for religious purposes as Shia shrines are based in Iraq. He has not provided any documents confirming his birth. He said that he was born in a house, not a hospital or clinic, and his birth was not documented. His parents reside in Tehran. He speaks to them about every two or three weeks by a telephone they acquired through a “trusty person”.
The Applicant acknowledged that he had not provided statements or video from any members of his family corroborating his story. He initially said that his parents are not educated, and he could not ask them to provide this material. However, at page 25 of the transcript, he said that he could ask them, and walk them through it if that would satisfy his application.
He confirmed that he attended school, but had no certificate of completion of school, and did not know how to reach the places where he studied. The schools were very basic two room buildings, one of which possibly without a door, and it was not like a school in Australia.
He is not in any contact with anyone from Iran except his mother, and does not even have Iranian friends in Australia. He doubts if his parents had any contact with any of his fellow students.
The Applicant gave evidence of his work, which included a range of different activities, some of which were only for a day or two. He acknowledged that he had not provided any documents supporting his employment history, but explained this by saying that his employment was often on an informal basis. He had no means of communicating with his prior employers.
He acknowledged having had a green or white card, which was taken from him on arrival in Indonesia. He had not contacted the Iranian authorities and explained that he did not wish to contact them in any shape or form as it might have consequences for him or his family. He said that he has had encounters with the Revolutionary Guard in the past and it was not nice. He had no knowledge of the Iranian consulate in Australia.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that he arranged to leave Iran quite suddenly. A man named Sohail was a regular customer at the shop where he worked for a man named Mr Nejat Najafi. Mr Najafi told the Applicant that Sohail could assist him to get out of Iran. He gave his employer passport photos and received a passport and tickets from Sohail. He was assured that it was a genuine passport.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that he had no problem exiting Iran, and had been assured that the passport was genuine, although he presently acknowledged it was a fraudulent passport. He was referred to his Application for a Protection visa,[14] where he stated that he had left Iran legally but did not recall this. The Tribunal notes that in that Application the Applicant stated that he left Iran legally and had no difficulty obtaining a travel document in order to do so.
[14] Exhibit 2, Supplementary Section 37 T documents, T18, page 462.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that his employer paid Sohail around three to five million tomans, and was again referred to his application for a Protection visa where he had stated that he had paid eight million tomans in total, and said that he would trust that document rather than his present recollection. His earlier statement would be more accurate, and he had not refreshed his memory from the document.
The Applicant said that when he worked in Iran, his earnings varied. He could not recall the exact amount of his pay, and he used to get a lot of tips. He used to live off his tips. His employer retained his monthly earnings as he had no bank account.
The Applicant said he was not aware of his family’s day to day activities in Iran, and is not able to send money to them owing to sanctions.
When asked about his departure from Iran the following exchange occurred:
MS HARGRAVE: Thank you. I have one more question on your exit from Iran. Are you aware that departmental information states,
It would not be possible to pass airport authorities at the airport in question without sufficient documentation, at least not without the complicity of the airport authorities
?---Sorry, the last bit, unless what, last bit?
Reads,
… at least not without the complicity of the airport authorities
?---I don’t know how it was managed, but I did do it. I think they bribed someone or something, sure have done something. But I was reassured that the passport was genuine. He was quite proud of it, he was like, “You go and enjoy this, you know, this is great” so I don’t exactly know how it was managed behind the scenes, but I didn’t have any problem exiting, that’s how much I can tell.
MEMBER: Can I just interrupt there. Did you say you had to use a password when you got to the airport?---Passport.
Passport. You didn’t have to give anyone a password as such?---No. Passport. Sorry.
Okay?---The document, my travel.
Did your passport appear to you to be a genuine government-issued passport?---I wish I could answer that. I don’t know. I did not see many Iranian passports so that I have a point of reference to check mine against them, but I never had a previous experience with the passport, so I took a leap of faith with them saying it’s genuine.
Was it in your true name and showing your true details?---Yes. Yes. Yes. It had my name because I was sure of that, it had my name. But I’m not sure about other details, but it had my name on it and my picture.
Okay. So you don’t know if this was a criminally manufactured entirely counterfeit document or if it was a document issued from within the government, but issued corruptly?---Yes. I’m not sure. But – yes, but I wasn’t sure that – I am sure that it was not acquired legally because it’s – it was impossible that I was being given a passport.[15]
[15] Transcript, pages 33 to 34.
The Applicant said that his first name is common in Iran, as common as Matthew or Michael are in Australia.
The Tribunal refers to the following exchange with the Applicant in re-examination:
MEMBER: Does any member of your family have a passport?
WITNESS: Passport?
MEMBER: Yes?
WITNESS: No, they do not.
MEMBER: Driver’s licence?
WITNESS: No, they do not.
MEMBER: Bank account?
WITNESS: No, they do not.
MEMBER: Any verifiable documentation?
WITNESS: Like that X-ray I had, something like that?
MEMBER: Any verifiable documentation?
WITNESS: I’m not sure.
MEMBER: Okay.
WITNESS: I can – no, I can’t say that, no. I don’t know. Honestly I don’t know.[16]
[16] Transcript page 38 lines 31 to 47 and page 39 lines 1 to 11.
Following the Applicant’s evidence, questions arose as to the authenticity of the X-rays from Iran. The Applicant requested an adjournment for the purposes of providing proper translations, and after consideration, the Tribunal agreed to adjourn the matter to a date to be fixed to allow the Applicant this opportunity.
At the resumed hearing, the Tribunal received a further eight documents from the Applicant, as well as further submissions from the Respondent.[17] Ms Hargrave also informed the Tribunal of an updated Citizenship Policy and said that the Tribunal should not have regard to what was referred to as Chapter 1 and Chapter 3 of the previous Citizenship Policy dated 1 June 2016 which were no longer in force. Accordingly, she informed the Tribunal that the Respondent no longer relied upon paragraph 24(a) of the Respondent’s SFIC.
[17] Exhibit 9, Applicant’s Translated Medical Documents lodged on 30 November 2020 and Exhibit 10, Respondent’s Further Submission dated 22 December 2020.
Under further cross-examination, the Applicant told the Tribunal that he had obtained Exhibit 9 by contacting his brother who had approached his doctor for the documents. When asked if he had undertaken any further steps to get the X-rays verified, he said there was no way to do that. The Applicant said it would be “100 times graver” for a member of his family to approach government for documents than it was to send his brother to the doctor. This was because of the way he left Iran. The Applicant said that he had never asked his family to approach government and he would never do that. This was based on his understanding of life when he was living there over 10 years ago.
The Applicant also told the Tribunal that he was not asked to provide any form of identity documentation to the hospital, but said that he was sure someone had, because it had his name on the medical files and all his details. He said he could not comment on whether his information could have been given orally to the hospital.
The Applicant told the Tribunal he had not spoken with his family about what documentation they currently had in Iran. He said that the phones were tapped and his calls were being recorded.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that when he left Tehran he transited through one of the Gulf countries and went to Indonesia where he passed through customs and immigration in Jakarta. He still had his passport and white card at that stage. He could not recall if the white card would have disclosed that he was a Kurd. He said it would simply have disclosed him as an Iraqi refugee, even though he was born in Iran.
In closing submissions Ms Hargrave said the Tribunal should seek to establish the Applicant’s identity from birth using an evidence-based approach in order to be positively satisfied as to the Applicant’s identity. She cited authority in support of the proposition that if an Applicant cannot provide primary source documentation of their identity, they must provide a cogent and acceptable explanation as to why such evidence has not been provided. She also stated that it was not sufficient for the Applicant to merely state that such documents are not able to be produced. She submitted there was insufficient documentary evidence to establish the Applicant’s identity from his birth to his arrival in Australia, and secondly that the Applicant’s life story appears implausible in some respects.
Ms Hargrave submitted that the Applicant had not provided any government documentation, and has sought no further documentation from the embassy or his family, or asked his family if they have such documentation.
Ms Hargrave submitted that the Applicant’s evidence about documentation not existing was contrary to the country information, and was not supported by statements from any other people. Ms Hargrave further submitted that the Applicant may be able to acquire Iraqi citizenship as his parents had been born in Iraq, and the applicant had not attempted to follow up regarding his parent’s documents.
Ms Hargrave also submitted that the Applicant had not produced any documentation from either his schooling or his three different jobs. She said that although the medical documents did add support to the Applicant’s contention that the X-rays were of him, the medical documents did not establish the authenticity and originality the X-rays.[18] She said that the medical documents did not refer to an X-ray being taken, did not reference the part of the hospital where he was being treated, and the Applicant was unable to explain how his personal details ended up on the documents. She submitted it would be highly irregular to put substantial weight on the X-ray and claimed corresponding medical records as a foundation identity document to favour the Applicant’s claimed identity, in circumstances where the Applicant was unsure what procedures were used to verify his identity. Ms Hargrave conceded that the medical documents had been validly translated, but argued that this did not establish the authenticity of the originals.
[18] Exhibit 8, X-Ray image of human skull.

She submitted that the Applicant had provided an implausible story of his departure from Iran, and submitted that his medical records may be implausible with his claimed statelessness.
Ms Hargrave further submitted that the Applicant’s claimed departure from Iran was inconsistent with in country information, being that it was very unlikely that he would have been able to depart with a fake passport, and he had provided no satisfactory explanation as to how he was able to pass through immigration using a fake passport.
Ms Hargrave further submitted that it was highly unlikely that the Applicant would have been able to access health care services on multiple occasions in 2005 without the benefit of identity documentation. She submitted that the Applicant was not stateless, and was in fact an Iranian citizen, and that was how he was able to access the medical services through the use of documentation, and how he was able to depart Iran.
CONSIDERATION
In cases of this nature, the onus is on the Applicant to adduce credible evidence to support his claimed identity from birth to present. It is not sufficient for the Tribunal to be satisfied as to his identity at one point in time. The available evidence does not establish a consistent persuasive timeline from birth to present, nor his status as a stateless Faili Kurd.
The country information shows that Iran is a well-documented country, with strict scrutiny of passengers departing by air. The Applicant’s evidence is that he paid for the preparation of a fake passport, which he subsequently presented as genuine to authorities in Iran and Indonesia, in the knowledge that it was fake, and gained departure from Iran and entry into Indonesia in reliance on it.
The Respondent has submitted that it is more likely that the Applicant is an Iranian citizen rather than a stateless Faili Kurd. The Tribunal considers this to be a real possibility. Whilst the Applicant has given evidence that the passport on which he departed from Tehran was fake, there exists the possibility that it was genuine, and that he is an Iranian citizen. If he is, this would also be consistent with his allowance of the people smugglers taking his white card and his passport. If either or both of these documents were fake or expired, there was no harm in retaining them and producing them to Australian authorities as part of his explanation as to how he left Iran. Had this happened, a fake passport would have been quickly detected, and this in fact may have supported his contentions to some degree. However, if the passport was genuine, its production would have been swiftly fatal to the Applicant’s aspirations of life in Australia. Likewise, the white card, even if expired may have defeated his aspirations.
Moreover, if the passport was genuine, and the Applicant is a citizen of Iran, this would also explain his failure to make any attempt to secure any identity documentation from the Iranian embassy, as a communication would confirm his status as an Iranian citizen if that was in fact that case. The lack of documentary evidence before the Tribunal regarding the Applicant’s birth, schooling, work history, or departure from Iran prior to entering Australia do nothing to alleviate this concern. When asked by the Tribunal if any member of his family had any verifiable documentation, he replied “I don’t know. Honestly I don’t know.” This answer suggests that he has not asked his family members if indeed they had any verifiable documentation, and therefore has not availed himself of the opportunities to obtain evidence that might reasonably be expected to be obtained.
The Applicant claims to be of Iraqi parentage. If this is so, he would be able to acquire Iraqi citizenship pursuant to article 3 of the Iraqi Nationality Law referred to above. He has provided no documentation from his parents or any member of his family of any attempt in this regard. Having regard for the country information before the Tribunal, the failure to produce any such documentation raises a concern about the efforts the Applicant has made in this regard. Once again, it may be that providing evidence would destroy his prospects.
The Applicant’s hospitalisation and extensive medical treatment in Iran are not necessarily inconsistent with his claimed status. That evidence at its highest establishes a name, and the presence of metal work in his head. It is of no use in determining his ethnicity or nationality.
CONSIDERATION THE PILLARS OF IDENTITY
Pillar one – Biometrics
Section 10(1) of the Act provides for Personal Identifiers in the following terms:
10 Personal identifiers
(1)For the purposes of this Act, a personal identifier is any of the following (including any of the following in digital form):
(a) fingerprints or handprints of a person (including those taken using paper and ink or digital live scanning technologies);
(b) a measurement of a person’s height and weight;
(c) a photograph or other image of a person’s face and shoulders;
(d) an iris scan;
(e) a person’s signature;
(f) any other identifier prescribed by the regulations (except an identifier the obtaining of which would involve the carrying out of an intimate forensic procedure within the meaning of section 23WA of the Crimes Act 1914).
The medical evidence in this case, while it tends to establish that the X-rays in evidence are of the Applicant in substance, at best it goes only to his name at the unstated date the X-rays were taken in Iran, and sheds no light on whether he is an Iraqi citizen, an Iranian citizen, or, as he claims to be, a stateless Faili Kurd. The source of information recorded in the medical records is unclear, and there is an absence of evidence confirming its authenticity. The medical evidence is therefore of limited benefit, and must be given limited - if any- weight.
There is insufficient evidence to satisfy the Tribunal in respect of his personal identifiers.
Pillar 2 – Documents
Other than the medical evidence, the Applicant’s identity prior to coming to Australia is entirely undocumented, and this is very much at odds with the country information that has been provided, which the Tribunal accepts. The Applicant did not know if any member of his family had verifiable – even expired – documentation. There is no evidence that he or any member of his family has made any inquiry as to their possible status as Iraqi citizens. Nor has any approach been made to the Iranian government either in Iran or via the Iranian Embassy in Australia seeking the production of verifiable documentation. The Applicant has not provided any corroborative statements from family or friends and has had ample opportunity to do so.
The Tribunal considers that there is insufficient documentary evidence in respect of the Applicant’s identity. The Tribunal does not consider that the Applicant has exhausted all avenues available to him (considering his parents Iraqi citizenship). There is country information that he could get documents from the Iranian Embassy.
The Tribunal considers that the Applicant has not done enough to substantiate his identity.
Unfortunately for this Applicant, by removing documentation he held when he entered Indonesia, those whom he paid to assist him have deprived him of evidence which may have been determinative of this application.
Pillar 3 – Life Story
There is no evidence regarding the Applicant’s life story before the Tribunal of which the Applicant is not the original source. The Tribunal accepts that while it is quite possible that no birth certificate was issued, country information places a large question mark over the lack of subsequent documentation of this Applicant.
At the resumed hearing on 23 February 2021, the Applicant told the Tribunal that he contacted his brother in Iran and he approached his doctor and obtained the further medical documents recently provided. He asked his brother to obtain anything pertaining to his accident. His brother went to the doctor and the hospital. The Applicant said it was very risky for his family to approach the government because of his manner of departure. He had not asked his family to approach the government. He had made this decision based on his experience ten years ago.
The Applicant was uncertain as to how the hospital came by the information they recorded about him. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the medical records submitted by the Applicant were “issued with robust identity proofing processes”.
There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal so as to allow it to be satisfied as to the Applicant’s identity from birth to his arrival in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that the circumstances of his departure from Iran are implausible having regard to credible country information.
The Applicant’s family circumstances, education and work history are not the subject of independent verifiable evidence before the Tribunal. He appears to be entitled to Iraqi citizenship, in which case he would not be stateless. This is something the applicant ought to have explored, and there is no cogent and acceptable explanation of his failure to do so.
Whilst his failure to seek assistance from the Iranian embassy might be based on fear of reprisals against his family, it could equally be founded on a fear that inquiries might reveal that he is in fact an Iranian citizen. This would certainly explain his apparent ease of departure from Tehran, the disposal of documents in his possession prior to entering Australia, and his statements to the Department on arrival that he did not have difficulties obtaining a travel document and that he left Iran legally.[19] It would also explain why he has not asked his family to approach the government in Iran regarding identity documents.
[19] Exhibit 2, Supplementary Section 37 T documents, T23 page 462.
The Tribunal gives limited weight to identity documents issued since the Applicant’s arrival in Australia, as he is the sole source of information recorded in them, and decision makers are required to establish a person’s identity from birth.
Having considered the totality of the evidence regarding the three pillars of identity the Tribunal remains unsatisfied as to the identity of the Applicant.
Accordingly, the decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 91 (ninety one) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member R Maguire

........................................................................
Associate
Dated: 16 July 2021

Date(s) of hearing: 8 October 2020 and 23 February 2021

Date final submissions received: 22 December 2020

Applicant: Self-represented (by videoconference)

Solicitors for the Respondent:
Ms L Hargrave (by videoconference)

Clayton Utz

ANNEXURE 1

Exhibit Number Description of Exhibit Date of Document Party Filing Date

1
Section 37 T Documents (pages 1 - 356) - R 20/03/20

2
Supplementary Section 38AA Documents (pages 356 – 585) - R 06/07/20

3

Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (pages 1 – 20), including:

a. Annexure A – DFAT Country
    Report
24/08/20 R 24/08/20

4
Applicant’s Statement in Reply 23/09/20 A 23/09/20

5
Statutory Declaration of Mohsen Karimi 12/04/19 A 09/03/20

6

Bundle of Photographs (6 photographs) including:

a. Scan of page with text;
b. Man and boy in mountains;
c. Scan of page with text;
d. Child practicing martial arts;
e. Man and child in field; and
f. X-ray of skull
A 09/03/20

7
X-ray Report Dr Cara Odenthal 09/06/20 A 10/06/20

8
X-ray Screen Translation from Persian to English by Hadi Zaher 15/07/20 A 15/07/20

9
Translated Medical Documents including:

·      Medical history and physical examination sheet dated 26.5.2005

·      Operation report sheet dated 26.5.2005

·      Progress notes sheet dated 30.07.2005

·      Progress notes sheet dated 21.08.2005

·      File Summary sheet 12.11.2005

·      Progress notes sheet dated 15.10.2005

·      Operation report sheet dated 12.11.2005

·      File summary sheet dated 13.11.2005

·      Progress notes sheet dated 15.11.2005
- A 30/11/20

10 Respondent’s Further Submission 22/12/20 R 22/12/20

[2021] AATA 2358

16 July 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

*Three pillars of Identity*	*Individual Characteristics*
Biometrics	Personal identifiers, which include fingerprints, facial images, or a person’s signature. Biometrics can be used for comparison, with, for example, facial images held by the Department or other domestic or international agencies.
Documents	Only reliable identity documents can satisfy this pillar. A reliable identity document is issued with robust identity proofing processes along with issuance protocols and security features. Documents contain biodata, or personal information, such as name, date of birth, nationality, and/or citizenship, and may also contain biometric information
Life Story	A person’s life story is a narrative of the events that happened to them from birth to present. Officers should consider the events that happened to the person, and the information and detail correlating to the events. A person’s life story may include descriptions of family composition, education, employment, countries of residence, countries visited, social footprint, and online presence.

Date(s) of hearing:	8 October 2020 and 23 February 2021
Date final submissions received:	22 December 2020
Applicant:	Self-represented (by videoconference)
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms L Hargrave (by videoconference) Clayton Utz

Exhibit Number	Description of Exhibit	Date of Document	Party	Filing Date
1	Section 37 T Documents (pages 1 - 356)	-	R	20/03/20
2	Supplementary Section 38AA Documents (pages 356 – 585)	-	R	06/07/20
3	Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (pages 1 – 20), including: a. Annexure A – DFAT Country Report	24/08/20	R	24/08/20
4	Applicant’s Statement in Reply	23/09/20	A	23/09/20
5	Statutory Declaration of Mohsen Karimi	12/04/19	A	09/03/20
6	Bundle of Photographs (6 photographs) including: a. Scan of page with text; b. Man and boy in mountains; c. Scan of page with text; d. Child practicing martial arts; e. Man and child in field; and f. X-ray of skull	A	09/03/20
7	X-ray Report Dr Cara Odenthal	09/06/20	A	10/06/20
8	X-ray Screen Translation from Persian to English by Hadi Zaher	15/07/20	A	15/07/20
9	Translated Medical Documents including: · Medical history and physical examination sheet dated 26.5.2005 · Operation report sheet dated 26.5.2005 · Progress notes sheet dated 30.07.2005 · Progress notes sheet dated 21.08.2005 · File Summary sheet 12.11.2005 · Progress notes sheet dated 15.10.2005 · Operation report sheet dated 12.11.2005 · File summary sheet dated 13.11.2005 · Progress notes sheet dated 15.11.2005	-	A	30/11/20
10	Respondent’s Further Submission	22/12/20	R	22/12/20