Sosani v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 1101

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sosani v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2000] FCA 1101

SOSANI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
W 22 of 2000

CARR J
8 AUGUST 2000
PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W 22 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	SAEID GHARIBVAND SOSANI Applicant
AND:	THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent
JUDGE:	CARR J
DATE OF ORDER:	8 AUGUST 2000
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application be dismissed.

2.        The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W 22 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	SAEID GHARIBVAND SOSANI Applicant
AND:	THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent

JUDGE:	CARR J
DATE:	8 AUGUST 2000
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an application for an order of review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 21 January 2000 in which the Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs not to grant a protection visa to the applicant.  The applicant, who is a citizen of Iran and now 35 years of age, arrived in Australia by air and without any travel documents on 30 July 1999.  He was placed in detention and has remained in detention since his arrival.

2. On 25 August 1999 the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (“the Department”).  On 27 October 1999 a delegate of the respondent refused to grant the applicant a protection visa. 

3. On 2 November 1999 the applicant sought review of the delegate’s decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal.  The Tribunal in its reasons first set out the relevant article of the Refugee’s Convention and some of the law relating to the interpretation of that article.  The Tribunal referred to the applicant’s claims and evidence as provided during an interview with an immigration inspector on arrival at Perth Airport, in written submissions to the Department, in further written submissions to the Tribunal and in the applicant’s oral evidence given to the Tribunal on 20 December 1999.

   FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

4. The claims made by the applicant at the various stages of his application and before the Tribunal, and its findings of fact are as set out at pages 4 to 16 and 22 to 26, respectively, of its Reasons for Decision dated 21 January 2000, which are annexed to and incorporated by reference into these reasons.  In summary, the Tribunal found that the applicant was not a credible witness because he had fabricated a claim concerning the taping of satellite broadcasts, and because his account of his escape from a hospital in Isfahan and, immediately thereafter, from Iran was implausible.  The Tribunal did not accept any of the applicant’s claims as to his political opinion, and detention and torture in Iran for his political opinion, as being genuine.  The Tribunal found that it was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of return to Iran, nor that if he returned to Iran, he would face a real chance of persecution for a Convention reason.

   APPLICATION FOR ORDER OF REVIEW

5. On 7 February 2000, the applicant lodged an application for an order of review.  The grounds of the application were that:

   ·     procedures that were required by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to be observed in connection with the making of the Tribunal’s decision (“the Decision”) were not observed;

   ·     the Decision involved an error of law, being an error involving the incorrect interpretation of the applicable law or an incorrect application of the law to the facts as found by the Tribunal, or both; and

   ·     there was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the Decision.

   MY REASONING

6. As the applicant was unrepresented and cannot speak English, he was unable to identify the errors of law which he claimed had been made by the Tribunal.  I have read the Tribunal’s reasons and can find no reviewable error on the Tribunal’s part.  The Tribunal, at pp 2-3 of its reasons correctly set out the relevant law.  It can be seen to have understood what is meant by a “real chance” of persecution for a Convention stipulated reason.  It then examined the applicant’s claims of persecution.  That examination can be seen in those passages from its reasons which I have annexed to these reasons. 

7. The Tribunal (at the top of p 23 of its reasons) then stated that there were aspects of the applicant’s evidence which led it to have reservations about the applicant’s credibility.  It turned to six matters which, subject to two matters, it would appear gave rise to those reservations on the Tribunal’s part.  First, the Tribunal accepted the applicant’s explanation for some differences between statements made at his airport interview and his later evidence.  The Tribunal said that it placed no importance on the difference between his airport interview and his later evidence.  Later it repeated that observation in relation to the applicant’s estimates of the length of time taken on significant parts of his escape journey.  The Tribunal said that it based its assessment of his claims on the evidence given in the hearing in relation to those parts of the journey.  The Tribunal recognised its duty to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt and expressly referred to the fact that it was “mindful” of the consistency of the reason given for his detention by the Iranian authorities.

8. The Tribunal gave its reasons for disbelieving the applicant’s claims.  It drew in its conclusions as follows:

   “After carefully considering the applicant’s claims, the Tribunal finds the applicant is not a credible witness, given his fabrication of the claim as to taping satellite broadcasts, and the implausibility of his escape.  The Tribunal does not accept any of the applicant’s claims as to his political opinion and detention and torture in Iran for his political opinion as genuine, since even the original claim is tainted by the improbability that he, an MKO suspect, would have been taken to hospital and/or not secured while he was in hospital.”

9. I have found nothing in the materials in evidence in this application from which it might be reasonably inferred that procedures required by the Migration Act to be observed in connection with the making of the Decision were not observed. 

10. Nor do those materials, in my view, show any incorrect interpretation of the applicable law or an incorrect application of the law to the facts as found by the Tribunal. 

11. It was clearly open to the Tribunal to disbelieve the applicant’s account of what had happened to him in Iran.  To the extent that the Tribunal based its credibility findings on the applicant’s omission of any mention of the taping of the MKO broadcasts until the hearing before it, it is clear, in my view, that it did not err in doing so.  The present case is to be distinguished from Guden v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 236. Guden (a decision of a Full Court of this Court) turned on what the Tribunal saw as omissions from the applicant’s initial submissions.  In this case the omissions, on which the Tribunal relied, persisted through the various stages right up to the hearing before it. 

12. In oral submissions the applicant contended that the Tribunal had ignored correspondence from a representative of the MKO in Australia.  There were two letters in evidence from that representative.  The first appears at page 87 of Exhibit R1 and the second at pages 175-176 of the same exhibit.  It is sufficient to refer only to the second letter.  It is quite clear that the Tribunal did not ignore this correspondence.  It specifically referred to the latter letter at page 16 of its reasons.  Even had the Tribunal not referred to this correspondence, that would not in my view have amounted to reviewable error.

13. During the course of the applicant’s submissions (particularly in reply) it became apparent that he was seeking to challenge the factual findings made by the Tribunal and to have the Court review the merits of the case which he had presented to the Tribunal.  That, of course, is something which this Court may not do.  In my view, the “no evidence” ground has not been made out. 

    CONCLUSION

14. For the foregoing reasons, the application for review will be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding fourteen (14) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Justice Carr.

Associate:

Dated:             8 August 2000

The Applicant appeared for himself
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr P R Macliver
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	8 August 2000
Date of Judgment:	8 August 2000

The airport interview record is dated 30 July 1999 and is at folios 25 to 30 of the Departmental file. In that interview it is recorded that the applicant said he planned to leave Iran about 23 March 1999 and he left on 28 June 1999, arrived in Malaysia about three days after he left ran, and remained there until 29 July 1999. The record states that the applicant said that he left Iran for the following reason:

‘A very powerful and influential man in Iran, Sayad Sherazy, was killed. The day after I was standing next to my shop with a group of people and I told them “I'm glad he was killed because he was a very cruel man; he used to kill all the soldiers or trick them by force to the war zone, so I am happy he is dead" .I did not think they would tell the authorities, but they did. I was arrested and jailed. When they took me to the torture room, at first I was fit so it wasn't so bad, but later I had a broken arm, ulcers and stomach ulcer and I became unconscious often. I was taken to hospital. A friend (Reza's) brother worked at the hospital and he told Reza I was bad and may not make it. Brother and another friend Hamid helped me to escape from hosp. Through a window at night. I was taken to another town near the border. It took time for me to heal. Hamid knew Ramin (smuggler) and for $USI0,000 provided by my father, Ramin arranged my travel. I did not have an ID card or a passport. Ramin told me we went to Malaysia and stayed there until yesterday.’

The applicant is reported as stating that his family was alright at that stage but when the authorities know he is missing, they will be questioned, and if the applicant is returned to Iran, the whole family will be hanged.

At folio 14 of the Departmental file is a copy of a letter dated 31 July 1999 stating that the applicant said on arrival to an airport officer that he had travelled with only a boarding pass and that he had not travelled with a passport.

In the primary application, the applicant stated that he attended school from 1972 to 1981, and he qualified as a 'motor mechanic driller' in 1991. He gave his previous occupations in

Iran as follows: 1986 to 1987, he was a conscript in military service; 1990 to 1991, he was a self-employed mechanic; from 1992 to 1994, he was a 'driller' for 'National Oil Prospectus' ; and from 1994 to Apri11999, he was a 'pressor' at 'Pakan Bodybuilders, Isfahan, Searah Malekshar'. He gave his addresses in Iran as follows: from 1965 to 1998, he lived at '31 opposite 18th Lane Nafton Masgea Solayman Iran', and from 1998 to June 1999, he lived at '7 Ghaem Alley Chahar Rah Daneshi Robat St Isfahan' .

The applicant, in a statutory declaration dated 2 September 1999, said,

'1. I am thirty four years old and I was born ...in Farsan Share Kord, Iran. I have never been married. I have five sisters and four brothers still living in Iran. My parents are still alive and they too are in Iran. I am an asylum seeker in that I fled my country and I am afraid to go back for fear of persecution and execution.

2. My problems with the authorities started at my work place. It was one day after Siayad Shirazi, a Commander of the Security Forces, had been shot dead. My work colleagues and I were talking about the incident and I remarked that his slaying had been a good thing in that it was revolutionary because he betrayed the nation in the war and caused the death of many soldiers for his personal gain. The very next day, the 13th April 1999 three people came at my work place and ordered me to go with them. When I asked why I should go with them and who they were they said that I would find out. One of them showed me an ID card but I could not read what was written. At the same time I also saw his weapon. I was forced to go with them. After about an hour's drive we arrived at their offices. They asked me my names. about my history and my family. They asked about the conversation that I had had at work and its purpose. They ended up demanding that I tell them the name of the group I was a member of as well as the other members of the group I was working with. I

N99/30584 4   226

disclaimed membership of any group. I also told them that I did not work with any body. They assaulted me before locking me away in a room for some time. They came back with another man and resumed their questioning of me. Again I denied working with any body and membership of any group. The person that had come with them produced a stack of leaflets and asked me what it was doing in my house if I was not a member of any group. Some of the leaflets contained speeches by Montezeri denouncing the killing of Mojahedin members. All documents in that pile had one thing in common: they were critical of the Iranian government. Also amongst the leaflets was a picture of Darush Forokar and his wife. Darush and his wife had been critics of the Iranian government before they were mysteriously killed.

3. After some relentless questioning I was taken to the Dastgerd Prison in Isfahan. I was tortured for the next three nights before being taken to the Revolutionary Court in Chahar Baghe Bala. I was again questioned in a private room, not in court. They wrote some statements as they pleased and forced me to sign them. They handed over my case to a judge. The Judge decreed that I be detained. I was taken back to prison and solitary confinement. Every two or three days they would come and torture me. My physical and mental condition deteriorated by the day, and by the time I left prison I had lost eight kilograms. During the torture my left hand and tooth were broken. Even though some plaster was put onto my hand this was slovenly done and my hand is crooked up to this day.

4. In June 1999 I was taken to the Prison Medical Centre because of my physical condition and stomach complaints. I had digestive problems. Unable to treat me the Prison Medical Centre referred me to the Khorshid Hospital in Ostandari Road, Isfahan. I was put in a special prisoner's room, the Ostandari Room, on the third floor. Seeing my condition the doctor asked the guards what had happened. By luck the nurse in attendance with the doctor happened to be a brother of my friend. My friend, Reza, had told his brother about my case. Reza's brother told me of a fire escape exit on the second floor should I need to escape. I told Reza's brother to phone and make arrangements with another friend, Hamid, to station himself next to the hospital at midnight in case I was able to escape. Hamid was also to relay the message to my father. The only problem I had to contend with was the two guards though they did not believe that I could escape.

5. I escaped from Khorshid Hospital on the day of my admission there. Around midnight my guard's attention was diverted when a pager called his name and he had to attend a phone. The other guard was not in attendance. I went to the second floor and to the fire escape. I escaped to the backyard of the hospital and moved swiftly to the foreground where I found Hamid waiting in a car. He could not recognize me when I opened the car door due to my physical condition...'

The applicant then described how he and Hamid drove to 'a house outside Isfahan' where he washed and shaved the applicant, and they then 'went on the same night to Zahaden' where
Hamid had two 'Balushi' friends who 'stayed next to Bahar Hotel'. He and Hamid arrived in Zahaden 'in the afternoon' and Hamid discussed the applicant's situation with the Balushi
friends who promised to take the applicant away the same night and 'promised to do all the arrangements'. On the same night, Hamid's Balushi friends gave the applicant 'a Balushi
attire' to put on 'for disguise'. They 'drove by car towards Iranshar' but 'changed direction by turning into a dirt road before actually reaching Iranshar'. They 'drove for some time', and then got out of the car and started walking'. Over a hill, they 'reached a man with three camels' who, 'as arranged', gave them the camels. They 'rode through the night and at dawn ... reached a certain house', which the Baluschi men told the applicant was in 'Kuwaite Pakistan'.  After breakfast, the applicant again changed his clothes, and they 'continued [the] journey by car'. At noon, they reached a railway station where they boarded a train for Karachi. They reached Karachi 'the following morning'. They went to a barber's shop where the applicant's hair was trimmed and a photograph was taken of him, and then he was left in a house in a suburb called Clifton next to the beach. He stayed there until 8pm. He was told he would be sent to Malaysia on an Iranian passport, and he left Pakistan for Malaysia 'as arranged'. In Kuala Lumpur he was met by 'Raimin', who had been requested

N99/30584   227

to do so' by the Baluchi men. Raimin took the passport which had the applicant's photograph in it but not his name. Raimin was a Persian living in the USA; Raimin let the applicant stay in a room on the third floor. The applicant contacted his father on Raimin’s mobile telephone, and the applicant asked his father to pay a contact of Raimin's $US 10, 000 which paid for Raimin to take the applicant 'to a safe place'. When the money was paid, Raimin took to the applicant to another city for about one hour and then they returned to Kuala Lumpur where Raimin left the applicant at the airport with 'a card and a ticket'. The applicant said they then flew for about eight to nine hours, then Raimin and he waited for one and a half hours then Raimin gave him a 'red coloured passport' with the applicant's photograph in it and another card and ticket and then the applicant continued on the next plane alone. The applicant said if he returned to Iran he would be executed 'because they killed thirty thousand Mujaheedin in 1988 without trial and they were buried in a mass grave'.

The Tribunal has listened to the tape of the Departmental interview. In the interview, the applicant said he left Iran on about 28 March 1999. He said he had worked for a government and then when he was fired, he had a job with a 'company that was basically private', and worked there for about five years before he came to Australia. The interviewer asked the applicant whether he had experienced problems with his religion; he said he was a 'Shi'ite Muslim and he had not experienced any problems in Iran because of his religion. The interviewer asked the applicant whether he was a supporter of any political groups in Iran; the applicant said he was not a member of any political group. The interviewer asked the applicant whether he had joined any political groups in Iran; the applicant said he supported the Mujaheedin, ‘but not as an active member', because they opposed the current government. The applicant said the 'main aim' of the Mujaheedin 'was to topple down this government in Iran' .The interviewer asked why, if he did not ‘actively support' the Mujaheedin, he was detained ‘regarding his membership of this group'. The applicant said that in his workplace,

'We were talking about the assassination of Sayed Sherazi, this man was an army commander of the Iranian government, and I supported this assassination by the Mujaheedin, and I told my colleagues that this is a revolutionary movement by this group' .

The interviewer asked why the applicant was supportive of the assassination of Sayed Shirazi; the applicant said that he supported the assassination because Shirazi was 'one of the government's high ranking officer and also he betrayed the people by doing wrong and
helping those mullahs'. The interviewer asked why such a statement would create suspicion of being a member of the Mujaheedin; the applicant said the authorities thought this because after he was arrested, his house was searched and they found some pamphlets in his house which were ‘related to one of the opposition leaders in Iran', because those pamphlets contained some information and advice from the leader, questioning why the government terrorised the members of Mujaheedin, the authorities connected the applicant with the Mujaheedin. The interviewer asked how his making the comment about the assassination led to his arrest; the applicant said that he thought that one of his colleagues had informed the security forces about his comment. The interviewer asked why he had made such a statement if he thought such a thing could occur; he said he did not think such a thing could happen

N99/30584 6   228

because he was working with these people for many years and did not think they would inform on him; he said he felt 'safe' and did not think there was a spy amongst his colleagues. He had not shared his thoughts with his colleagues before, but on this occasion, he had made the comment because, he said, 'I did not like this regime, and when this happened, it was maybe because of my joy' .The interviewer asked why he had anti-government pamphlets in his possession; the applicant said, 'I normally received this from my brother-in-law and I read them for more information about the situation ...their idea of the other opposition groups ...which oppose the Iranian government' .The pamphlets were from the supporters of the Mujaheedin, the applicant did not know precisely who produced the pamphlets.

The applicant said he was detained for approximately three months in the Dastgerd Prison because the authorities thought he was a supporter of the Mujaheedin. The first day he was detained, the applicant was beaten and a tooth was broken; after two weeks, they broke his arm; he was interrogated frequently; he was not allowed any visitors. The interviewer asked him what questions he was asked during the interrogations; the applicant said, 'They normally write the statement themselves, and they were asking me to sign it, and I was in such a bad state that I didn't realise where I am or what I am doing, so I think I signed whatever they asked me to'. The applicant said that in the detention place, he 'was always handcuffed with another guard and so I had no way of escaping or doing anything'. He interviewer noted it was a long time for him to be detained given he was not connected to any group; the applicant said that Shirazi was assassinated by Mujaheedin, and his comments were 'very related to this group', so they must have thought he must be a member of the Mujaheedin. The applicant said he had never been arrested before. The interviewer checked that the applicant was only arrested once; that is, in April 1999; the applicant said he was arrested in March 1999; the interpreter said the time given by the applicant could be end of March early April.

The applicant said that he was beaten in detention, and his arm was broken, and one night, he got seriously ill; he had stomach cramps and blood in his urine; the next morning, he was, almost unconscious' and they thought he 'had died', so they took him to the medical centre at the prison and because his 'situation was really serious at that stage' and they couldn't treat him at the centre, they took him to hospital. He was taken to hospital, with two guards, on a stretcher because he was not able to walk at that stage. In the hospital, he was put in a room on the third floor. A doctor and a nurse looked after him. The nurse was the sibling of a friend of his; he did not recognise the sibling at that stage because he 'was in a very bad state', however, the nurse introduced him/herself to the applicant and said "I'm Reza". The doctor asked the guards about the applicant's 'situation' and why the applicant was in such a bad state. Then, while the doctor was talking to the guards, the showed me the emergency exit' from the hospital and told the applicant he had to pull himself together and he would
arrange for someone to pick the applicant up from the hospital. The nurse contacted one of the applicant's friends, called Hamid and told him to come to the hospital at midnight and also, the applicant said, 'they contacted my parents'. The nurse took him to the X-ray department to take some X-rays of his stomach and his ribs; the nurse pretended he did not know the applicant to avoid the guards becoming suspicious. Before the nurse went off duty, he gave the applicant an 'injection' of 'three type of liquid foods...[and put] some medicine in

N99/30584  229  

the bags'; he had this injection ‘almost at midnight'. At about midnight, one guard was out of the room and the other guard was paged by the hospital to come to a telephone call; the applicant pulled out the 'serum' which was 'connected' to him; he had sneakers on and got himself to the second floor and left the hospital through the emergency exit he was told about by the nurse. The interviewer asked the applicant why the guard would leave him if there was a possibility of him escaping; the applicant said, ‘All day, my situation was very bad; most of the time I was crying in the bed; they would think I would never recover before a few days'. The applicant said that he was admitted in the morning, and when he managed to escape at midnight on the day he went into hospital, he was a little stronger because he had been given fluids and medicine. When he left the hospital, he had more strength from the treatment he received and from fear that he did not want to return to prison. When he left the hospital, he saw Hamid's car, and got into it.

The interviewer asked the applicant when he decided to leave Iran; he said he decided to leave Iran when he left the hospital. The interviewer asked how he arranged to leave the
Iran. He said that Hamid took him to a house where the applicant shaved and took off his moustache and changed his clothes; the same morning, they left Istafan and the next afternoon, they arrived in Zahaden. He did not rest because he and Hamid knew the

applicant was in danger and that if the applicant was found with Hamid, Hamid too would be arrested. The journey to Zahaden took the whole day and most of the way, the applicant was lying on the back seat. When they got to Zahaden, Hamid spoke to a friend who was a 'Baluch'; the applicant said the Baluchi do most of the people smuggling out of the country. Hamid told the Baluchi man that the applicant's life was in danger, and he must be smuggled out of the country as soon as possible. That night, the applicant was taken from Zahaden.
The applicant illegally crossed the border accompanied by two Baluchi men. The two Baluchi men asked the applicant to put on a Baluchi dress, and they drove, then before they got to Iranshar, they drove down a dirt road, and then met a man with a camel. They took the applicant to a house in Kuwait, which they said was in Pakistan, and asked him to change his clothes again. On the journey, every so often, the car driver (or when they were on Camels, the camel driver) would stop, hide the applicant, and check the road was clear, and then they would continue on their journey. The applicant first went from Zahaden to near Iranshar by car for about one and a half hours, then they 'walked for a while', then they travelled on camels for the rest of the journey. The interviewer asked how long the journey took; the applicant said, 'We start the journey just at the beginning when it gets dark, and we were in Kuwait by morning'; the applicant said he did not know when it got dark, but they arrived at approximately ‘near dawn’, but the ‘sun wasn't completely up’. The interviewer noted that from Isfahar to Kuwait is nearly 700 kilometres, and noted this did not seem possible; the applicant said he drove for about two and a half hours in the car, and then travelled the rest of the journey by camel through a mixture of desert and mountains. The interviewer asked

the applicant how he had managed to travel such a long distance by camel since such a short time before, he had been so ill; the applicant said

'The feeling that I had, that was a feeling of my life being in danger. If I knew I was going to be in prison, even for ten years, maybe I wouldn't do it. But I was sure that if I was arrested, not only would I be executed, but under the most severe torture, I would have to give some other names like my brother-in-law who gave me those pamphlets, or any other names that they wanted, and even if it wasn't really a matter of anything. So this feeling, made me to do this journey'.

N99/30584   230

The applicant said that when he escaped from the hospital, Hamid told him he, the applicant,
had to escape from Iran and Hamid said he had spoken to the applicant's father who agreed to pay for the applicant to leave, whatever it cost. Initially, the applicant wanted to go to USA where he had some cousins, and the Baluchi men agreed for him to go to Canada and from there, he could travel to USA. However, in Pakistan the Baluchi men told him that he was
going to go to Malaysia, where Raimin would help him. The interviewer asked the applicant why he did not stay, or seek UNHCR help, in Pakistan. The applicant said he did not stay in Pakistan because he had no one there, and he did not go to the UNHCR because he did not know he 'could such things there'. He stayed in Pakistan for about 24 hours; the day he
arrived in Pakistan, they caught a train to Karachi, and the next day, at 8pm, he travelled to Malaysia. He did not choose to come to Australia; rather, Raimin organised the ticket. The
travel from Malaysia to Australia cost him in total $USlO,OOO; the applicant's father paid this money to a 'middle-man' who worked for Raimin, and the applicant's father paid for the rest of the applicant's journey (from Iran to Malaysia); his father paid because the applicant's life was in danger and his father was willing to sell everything he had to get the applicant to
safety. The money paid to Raimin's contact paid for a travel document (a red passport with the applicant's photograph in it) and the airline ticket. The applicant was told by the smuggler he had to destroy the passport.

The interviewer asked the applicant what he thought would happen if he returned to Iran. The applicant said that when they detained him, the authorities were suspicious that he was a
member of the Mujahadeen, but his escaping would make them sure he was a member and he would be executed if he returned to Iran. The applicant said that if he went back he would be executed, and not only him, but others.

The applicant said he liked his country and his ethnic group. He said his ethnic group is 'Bakhtiari'; these groups 'normally move around vast regions, still living in tents ...their bases of living is cattle and some farming, and the government normally don't help this
group, although they say they have lots of programs, basically they don't care about these groups’.

The adviser noted that the applicant had some identity documents. The interviewer asked the applicant about these documents. The interpreter said the documents were as follows: a letter which stated that the applicant was dismissed because he didn't attend work for personal
reasons; a birth certificate; an identification card; and a driver's licence. The applicant said he had a letter issued from his previous government workplace when they fired him. The interviewer noted that the documents tendered to her were copies of such poor quality that
they could not be translated; the applicant offered to ask for better copies to be sent to him.

In the primary decision, the Minister's delegate stated that the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant held a subjective fear of return to Iran, noted that 'during the interview on
aspects of his claims the applicant's responses were vague' and that the applicant said he had , ‘never been a member of any political parties’, and found that 'the applicant's claim of being persecuted if he were to return to Iran on the basis of his own or imputed political opinion are not well founded'. The delegate also noted that the applicant's claims to have escaped from

N99/30584   231

hospital where he had been so weak he was on a glucose drip, and that it took six hours, including on a camel, to travel to Kuwait, were implausible.

The Tribunal hearing was held by video link between the applicant in Port Hedland and the applicant's adviser, interpreter and the Tribunal member in Sydney. The applicant gave evidence through an interpreter .

The applicant's adviser stated that he had requested the Mujahadeen (MKO) in Australia to give a letter of support in respect of the applicant and he would forward this letter when he received it.

The Tribunal asked the applicant about his family in Iran. The applicant said that his father has a shop in a bazaar; his mother is a housewife; one of his four brothers works as a
technician in the steel industry, one works in a petrochemical company in Isfahan, one works as a welder in a government company, and one works as a mechanic in a government
company; his sisters are all housewives. The Tribunal asked the applicant where he lived until he left Iran. The applicant said that he lived with his parents until 1992; his parents still live in this home where he lived until 1992. In 1992 to 1994, the applicant was working for a drilling company in Ahvaz, and he lived in Ahvaz. In 1994, when he returned to his parents' town of Isfahan, he found a job, and he lived separately from his parents, on his own, in a house he rented until he left Iran, though he was close to his parents and visited his parents, ‘quite often'. His two younger siblings still live with the applicant's parents.

The Tribunal asked the applicant when was his first contact with his parents after he was

released from detention. The applicant said that that the first contact he had with home after he was released from detention was when Hamid telephoned Reza. When he arrived in

Pakistan he wanted to dial a neighbour's telephone number to contact his parents, but he was not ‘successful’. The next day, he arrived in Malaysia and telephoned, on a mobile
telephone, the neighbour and spoke to his father. The last time he spoke to his family was
two weeks after he was put in detention in Australia, when he spoke to his younger brother
through the neighbour's telephone; he told his brother he had arrived safely and told them to be 'careful'. The Tribunal asked whether his family had said anything to him since he left
Iran about adverse events like visits from the authorities; the applicant said he and his family 'have been scared to talk about things', and that he had not been told of any adverse incidents. The applicant said he told his brother not to tell anyone he had left Iran.

The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he was ever a member of any political group; he
said he was not a member of any political group but he was a 'supporter' of the Mujahadeen. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he had any activities with the Mujahadeen; the
applicant said he had no 'physical activities' but, he said, 'coming to the ideas and ideologies, I have been in touch with my friends and those people who I knew in that regard'. The
Tribunal asked him what contact, if any, he had with the Mujahadeen; the applicant said that he spoke to his friends about the ‘messages’ he received 'on the satellite'. The Tribunal
asked the applicant to elaborate. The applicant said because of the ideologies he had, he and a friend, Faramarz, listened to the 'Voice of Mujahadeen' and to the ideas given in the
broadcast. They taped from satellite television the speeches about twice a week, and passed

N99/30584   232

them to their friends and 'trusted people'. They distributed the tapes to about four people; the applicant distributed the tapes to Jafa and Youness, and Farwarz took two tapes and
distributed them to two others, and these people distributed the tapes to others. They did this from 1994 about two months after the applicant returned to Isfahan and at first, lived with Faramarz, and the last time they taped Mujahadeen programmes was a week before the
applicant was detained. The Tribunal asked why the applicant had not mentioned this before if it was true; the applicant said he was not asked questions about his political activities
before. The Tribunal noted that it had listened to the tape of his Departmental interview and its memory was that he was asked questions about his political activities, but the Tribunal would listen to the tape again before deciding this issue.

The Tribunal asked who the applicant talked to about the Mujahadeen ideologies; he said he spoke to Faramarz and Morad, who were not members of the Mujahadeen, but were
supporters of the Mujahadeen. Faramarz was in Isfahan and Morad was in Ahvaz; the
applicant knew Faramarz and Morad since high school since they lived in the same area as the applicant and attended the same high school; when the applicant left Ahvaz, he
maintained contact with Morad by visiting him in Ahvaz. The applicant said that he had
talked to Faramarz and Morad about ideas when they were in high school together, but he
and they only spoke about the Mujahadeen in 1994 when he and Faramarz started listening to the satellite broadcasts of the Mujahadeen in 1994. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he spoke to other people, apart from Faramarz and Morad, about the Mujahadeen. The
applicant also talked to friends whom he knew in the past and to family members, about his 'own ideologies'; he spoke to them about 'problems in the country...the massacres and
killings...the crimes in Iran and the letters which Mujahadeen had sent'. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he spoke to people at his work about these matters; he said the only time he spoke about such things was 'when the incident happened' to him and he spoke to them about the killing; before that, he did not talk at work about his political opinion and views, he only talked about things which happened in the country.

The Tribunal asked the applicant did he have any other political activities at all; the applicant said he didn't have 'physical activities' but he had 'discussions with friends in Iran' who were sympathetic but not members of the Mujahadeen. He did this since 1992 when he started working in the oil drilling company. He said this was why he had 'problems' in the oil drilling company in Ahvaz. In Ahvaz, his manager wanted him to attend religious demonstrations and he and the applicant 'always argued' about the applicant's resistance to doing this. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he was dismissed from his job in Ahvaz; the applicant said he was 'being forced by the manager to take part' in the activities such as the national demonstration for 'army day' and the manager said people working for the company should take part in these activities, and he did not, and so he was dismissed.

The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he had read anything about the Mujahadeen; the
applicant said that from 1981, when the MKO was 'free in Iran and active', he read 'Samad Behrang', an author who the 'MOK was publishing and selling'; he used to buy these

publications from the bookstores which sold them. He also read the free publications of the Mujahadeen which publications he got from his friends. He read about the ideologies and
goals of the Mujahadeen, and tried to understand them, and he spoke to Morad about these

N99/30584   233

ideologies and asked him 'what was happening'. He also read what Morad wrote about the Mujahadeen ideology. He did this for a few months in 1981, until the authorities started arresting Mujahadeen members. When this happened in 1981, the applicant burnt the
Mujahadeen publications to avoid being implicated himself. The Tribunal asked the applicant why, if he agreed with the views of the Mujahadeen, he did not join this group. The
applicant said that the Mujahadeen has 'political activities in Iran which are not free' and 'it is not easy that easy to approach them and join them' otherwise the authorities would 'have cracked them down completely'.

The Tribunal asked the applicant what were his political views. The applicant said he believes in democracy, which he understands to be freedom of speech and freedom of
publication and political parties, 'a society ...framed in an ideology of unity'. He said that the ideology of the Mujahadeen 'is to destroy the bloodthirsty regime of Iran which is cruel and tyrant (sic)'.

The Tribunal asked the applicant again why he had not mentioned these political activities before the hearing. The applicant said again that he was not questioned about his activities
before. He said he told them he had not joined the Mujahadeen and hadn't been given orders by the MKO, but because of their ideas, he and his friends did do these things. The Tribunal reiterated that it did not accept that he had not been asked about his activities in the
Departmental interview, and that it found it extraordinary that if his evidence of taping
Mujahadeen programmes and distributing them was true, that he would not have mentioned it before the hearing. The applicant said he had said to the Departmental interviewer that he was a supporter of the Mujahadeen and this implied, he assumed, that he understood the
ideology of the Mujahadeen. The Tribunal noted that in the Departmental interview, when
the applicant was asked about the goal of the Mujahadeen, he said only that the Mujahadeen
wanted to topple the current regime which appeared inconsistent with the applicant's detailed evidence at the hearing as to the goal of the Mujahadeen. The applicant said he did not
understand what the Tribunal meant; they asked him questions and he answered, and the Tribunal had asked questions differently.

The Tribunal asked the applicant why he left Iran. The applicant gave evidence consistent
with his statutory declaration as to his stating at work that the killing of Shirazi was good and his being detained the next day. He said he had said the killing of Shirazi by a gun shot in
the street was good because Shirazi had targeted the Mojahideen. He said that when he was detained, he was told he was 'an anti revolutionary traitor' because of the things he said at work, and they asked him repeatedly why he supported the killing of Shirazi and who were the friends he 'cooperated' with. He told them he did not belong to any groups and he had no friends in these groups who he cooperated with and he did not know any names. They
beat him till he fell on the floor, and then they kicked him. Then a new questioner showed
him pamphlets which the questioner said had been found in the applicant's house; the person
said to him, 'If you don't have anything to do with these groups, what are these pamphlets we have found in your house'. He also said they had found some photographs in the applicant's house. He said he was detained for about three months and that he had not been detained
before.

N99/30584  234

The Tribunal asked the applicant about the pamphlets he was presented with when he was
detained. The applicant said that the pamphlets came from his brother-in-law, and included
letters. The applicant said that his brother-in-law used to get the pamphlets from his friends. The pamphlets which were taken from the applicant's home and presented to him when he
was detained, were the first the applicant had received from his brother-in-law. The Tribunal asked he applicant why he had not burnt them; the applicant said that he kept them at home because his friends used to 'come over and read them'.

The Tribunal asked the applicant about his escape from detention. He said he was taken to hospital because he had stomach and kidney pains because of being beaten and he had low
blood pressure. He was taken to hospital on a stretcher and he was given three different drips and he had injections. He said that in the hospital, the nurse introduced himself as the
brother of a friend of the applicant's called Reza; the nurse told the applicant that the only thing he could do for the applicant was to show him the emergency exit on the floor below where the applicant was; he described where the emergency was, and he said he would
telephone Hamid and tell him to wait at the emergency door of the hospital. The applicant
asked the nurse to tell Hamid to contact the applicant's father and tell him of the applicant's situation. Then the nurse left. When the second drip was finished, the doctor and the nurse returned and they took him to the X-ray room to take X-rays of the applicant's stomach, and then took him back to his room. Then night fell, the nurse changed, and the new nurse
changed his drip. The applicant said he kept 'sobbing and ...sighing all the time', and he, and the guards, would not have thought he would be able to escape, but he felt better after the
drips and injections he had received all day. The applicant was lying in bed thinking it was almost midnight and then the guard who was in his room at the time was paged to answer a telephone call. The applicant took out the drip and although he wearing prison clothes and
had bare feet (he was taken to the hospital wearing prison clothes and slippers), he found the emergency exit and left the hospital. The applicant found Hamid and they left the hospital in Hamid's car.

The Tribunal noted that surely if he was in hospital, he would have been wearing a hospital gown; the applicant said that he was kept in a special room for prisoners and so he was wearing his prison clothes. The Tribunal asked the applicant what he had meant in his

written statement when he said he could not escape from prison because he was handcuffed at all times; the applicant said he had meant that when he was taken to court, he was handcuffed to a guard. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had said in the Departmental interview that Reza's brother changed his drip, whereas in the hearing, he said the new nurse changed his last drip; the applicant said Reza's brother gave him an injection before he finished his shift, and the new nurse changed his drip. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had said in the Departmental interview that the nurse took him for an X-ray, whereas in the hearing, he said the nurse and the doctor took him for an X-ray; the applicant said that he had said in the interview that the nurse, doctor and two guards took him for an X-ray.

The Tribunal asked how long each stage of his trip from Iran took; the applicant said he did not have a watch, or 'a book and paper to write down the times' when he left and he did not know how long it took. However, he estimated that the trip from Estafan to Zahedan took
about twelve to thirteen hours. The Tribunal noted that the trip from Estafan to Zahedan was

N99/30584   235

nearly 1000 kilometres and so it appeared that it would take longer than about twelve hours, especially as they were going over mountainous terrain. The applicant said they were in a

private car, a 'pretty new' Paykan [which the interpreter said was a type of English Hillman], and this was quicker than a bus. When they got to Zahedan, Hamid told the applicant that he had contacted the applicant's father who told him to spend his own money to get the applicant out of Iran and then the applicant's father would reimburse Hamid later. At Zahedan, Hamid told him that he was going to get two Baluchi men to get the applicant out of Iran. The applicant then changed to Baluchi clothes, which he said were long loose pants and a long loose shirt. The trip from Zahedan to near Iranshar took about two to two and a half hours in the car with the two Baluchi men; then they walked for about 10 to 20 minutes and reached a man with three camels. When they reached the camels, it was night time; they travelled on the camels through the night and stopped in Pakistan when 'it was close to dawn', before the sun rose, the next day. Then they went to a train station; on the way to the train station, the applicant and the Baluchi men went through two checkpoints; the Baluchi men knew people at the checkpoints and paid them, and the applicant and the men passed the checkpoints safely. The applicant said that then they travelled on a train for about 22 to 23 hours to Karachi.

The Tribunal noted that in his previous written statement he had said he travelled with the

Baluchi men to 'Kuwait' in Pakistan, but the Tribunal could find no evidence of a town called 'Kuwait' in Pakistan, and the places in Pakistan of similar names were between 1000 to 2000 kilometres from Zahaden which would be impossible to ride on a camel in the time given by
the applicant. The applicant said 'the same situation happened' in the Departmental interview and he 'was interrupted' and he was only repeating the name of the place as he heard it. The interpreter said the town was commonly misspelt as 'Kuwait, but in fact, it was spelt

‘Quetta’; the adviser said that his understanding was that the correct spelling of this town, where he had visited, was 'Kuwitt' .

The Tribunal asked the applicant how his father got money to finance the applicant's flight;
the applicant said that money was not a problem because his father owned about six or seven shops in the bazaar.

The Tribunal noted that there were some copies of documents such as a birth certificate on the Departmental file and asked the applicant how he got these documents; he said he
received them by fax after the applicant had contacted a friend, Abbass who lived in Shahin

Shahr in Estafan to ask him to ask the applicant's brother to send the applicant documents he needed; the applicant's brother asked a friend to send the documents through a private fax machine. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he could get the originals of these
documents; the applicant said this would be difficult. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had offered at the Departmental interview to get clearer copies and asked if he could in fact do so; he said that he could not because his brother is scared to send the documents again. The documents which the applicant submitted were as follows: A birth certificate which

stated that the applicant's date of birth was 23 March 1965. A letter, dated 18 April 1999, from '110 Workplace' which the applicant said was his previous work place which said he worked there until 11 April 1999, and he left because 'of some personal problems’ and had not returned to work and that work had sent the applicant's wages. The Tribunal noted that
the letter from his work place did not mention the applicant being detained; the applicant said

N99/30584   236

that it did not mention his detention because his detention had nothing to do with his workplace and the letter was only to finalise the matter of his payment.

The Tribunal asked the applicant why he had said in the airport interview that Reza and

Hamid took him from the hospital but in his later evidence he said only Hamid took him from the hospital; he said that Reza's brother helped him, he did not say Reza helped him. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he had said in the airport interview that in the border town, he moved from house to house recovering before he left Iran, but in his later evidence he said he left Iran straight away; he said he did not say this. The Tribunal noted that nevertheless, there were differences between the evidence recorded in the airport interview and in his later evidence, and asked whether the applicant had any comment on these differences. The applicant said that when he gave the interview at the airport he was very distressed and tired because he had been travelling for two nights. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether there was anything else the applicant wished to say. The applicant said that if he returned to Iran he 'would definitely be executed'. He said that because of his political opinions, and the way he talked about the killing of Shirazi, and the pamphlets which he had which were in his possession and related to the Mujahadeen, and given that he had signed a paper at court which he did not know what it contained, ‘it was proof to them’ that he was 'a member of Mujahadeen', which he had told he was not, and so he would' definitely be tortured and harmed' .

The Tribunal noted that it had not seen material referring to the Mujahideen broadcasting

programmes by satellite into Iran; the adviser said it would not be possible to get information from the MKO in Australia as to pamphlets and satellite programmes, but as far as he knew, these did exist. The Tribunal asked that the adviser provide it with information about satellite programmes, and anything else which might be relevant.

The Tribunal said it would have to consider whether it was plausible that the applicant, a
person with no known previous political activity would be perceived by the authorities as a
Mujahideen supporter and detained for three months because he said at work he approved the killing of Shirazi. The Tribunal also queried whether it was plausible that a person who was taken from prison as so sick he needed to be in hospital could travel as the applicant said he
had, though it accepted that people who were weak could make great physical efforts in times of need. The Tribunal noted too that the distances which the applicant said he travelled on a camel appeared impossible, though it would check the distances against the new spelling of
the previously cited 'Kuwait’. The Tribunal also had to consider whether if the applicant had engaged for a long time in taping and distributing Mujahideen material, it was plausible that he would omit to state this until the hearing. The applicant said he had made two or three written requests to see his previous adviser to change his statement; the Tribunal noted that
no such requests were on the Departmental file. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he
signed the statement if it was not accurate; the applicant said he was told that the adviser
would only change it if he attended the detention centre and he did not attend the detention centre. The Tribunal asked why then did the applicant not tell his new adviser that his previous statement did not reflect his claims accurately; the applicant said he had no
information at first about what his new adviser had told the Minister's delegate. The adviser said he had received a 14 page hand-written statement in Persian from the applicant which he

N99/30584   237

had told his previous adviser; the Tribunal asked whether it mentioned the taping of the satellite programmes; the adviser said it did not mention it in 'a precise way', but there was mention of other things omitted by the previous adviser from the statutory declaration. The Tribunal said it would consider a translation of the applicant's 14 page submission if it was submitted to it; the adviser said this would take a long time to translate the whole statement; the Tribunal said that it would consider translations of relevant excerpts if they were submitted.

After the hearing the Tribunal received the following from the adviser:

- A letter, dated 23 December 1999, from the applicant's adviser stating,

'In relation to Mr Sosani, I again approached Mr Massali the head of MKO/NCR support
group in Australia and discussed the applicant's claim of being a supporter of MKO.

Mr Massali said to me that [a] long time ago another person called Dr Razavi a lecturer of Curtin university and former head of Iranian community in Western Australia talked about
Mr Sosani to him. But Dr Razavi died of heart attack couple of months ago and he is unable to comment about Mr Sosani.

But Mr Massali said to me that in order for him to provide RRT information concerning the applicant's past affiliation to MKO first he must do certain investigation and searching about the applicant's claims. I said to Mr Massali his report must be ready by ...29 December 1999.'

- A letter, undated, received by the RRT on 30 December 1999, from 'Mr Massali for MKO and NCR support group in Australia', which stated that there was 'no way' for the writer 'or anyone else in PMOI [MKO]' to reject or confirm his MKO activities inside Iran because the MKO in Iran has no contact with MKO offices outside Iran. However, the writer, said, he
had spoken to the applicant and ‘he answered my questions, in connection to his arrest and interrogation quite sincerely and my understanding is that Mr Gharibvand's story in relation to his arrest and torture appears to be genuine claim (sic). But I cannot comment about other issues he raised.’

- A letter, dated 29 December 1999, from the applicant's adviser stating that the adviser had .perused the applicant's 14 page handwritten statement and he 'couldn't find the words or
sentences relating to [the] applicant's affiliation to MKO', though he noted that the applicant had been consistent in this statement in his claims of approving the killing of Sayyad Shirazi
‘as a revolutionary act', being arrested by the authorities after talking about the killing by the MKO, and his hospitalisation and subsequent escape from Iran. The adviser also stated that when he asked the applicant why he did not talk about 'his affiliation with MKO in Iran', the applicant stated 'that a person called Mr Ravazi ...advised him not to talk about this issue and leave the issue of MKO activities for the interview. The problem is that few months ago Mr Ravazi died...'. To this letter the adviser attached several newsletters called 'Iran Liberation' published by 'national Council of resistance of Iran' in Britain, which included, inter alia, information about Mojahedin activities in Iran.

N99/30584   238

FINDINGS AND REASONS

THE APPLICANT'S CLAIMS

The applicant claimed that he was at risk in Iran because of his political opinion. He stated
that when a military leader, Sayyad Shirazi was murdered on 12 Apri11999, he said to his colleagues at work that it was a good thing he was killed, and the day after, he was detained, accused of being part of the MKO (which claimed responsibility for killing Sayyad Shirazi), confronted with MKO pamphlets taken from his home, and mistreated. After three months in detention, his physical condition deteriorated and he was transferred first to the prison
hospital and then to a public hospital from where, with the help of friends, he escaped from Iran, via Pakistan and Malaysia, to Australia. At the hearing, he made a new claim, that
twice a week, from 1994 to 1999, he and a friend taped television broadcasts from MKO on the friend's satellite, and distributed the tapes to four others who in turn distributed the tapes to their friends. He said he had read MKO publications in 1981 before the MKO were banned, and he read writings of his school friend, Morad, which explained the MKO ideology.

CREDIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT'S CLAIMS

The Tribunal found the applicant in the hearing to be apparently genuine. As well, the
country information indicates that the authorities in Iran detain people, including those they suspect of association with the MKO, for their political opinion. It also indicates that after the assassination of Sayyad Shirazi, the authorities made strong statements against the MKO and its supporters. The applicant could describe in the hearing how Shirazi was killed (though

N99/30584  244

presumably anyone present in Iran at the time who was literate would also be aware of the
details of this widely publicised event). Further, the Tribunal accepts though satellite dishes were banned by the Iranian authorities in 1995, during the period the applicant claimed he was taping and distributing tapes of MKO satellite television transmissions, the country
information above also indicates that the MKO did make regular transmissions from Iraq into Iran. Nevertheless, the Tribunal notes that there are aspects of the applicant's evidence which lead the Tribunal to have reservations about the applicant's credibility.

First, the applicant's evidence in his airport interview was different in some matters of
substance, such as how long he remained in Iran after his escape from hospital, from his later evidence. However, the applicant said at the hearing that he was tired and stressed at the
airport interview, having travelled continuously in a poor physical condition for days since his escape from hospital. The Tribunal accepts this is a reasonable explanation and has
placed no importance on the difference between his airport interview and his later evidence.

Secondly, the Tribunal finds it highly unusual that the authorities would have taken a person detained as being a suspected member of the MKO to hospital, and implausible that the
applicant, even if he was sick, would have been left unguarded and not even handcuffed to
the bed and/or locked in the prisoners' room if he was in fact a suspected MKO member who was in detention.

Thirdly, the applicant omitted any mention of his taping MKO broadcasts and his previous reading of MKO materials until the hearing. The Tribunal notes that initial omission of
claims may indicate fabrication of claims to enhance an applicant's claim to a protection visa, and fabrication of parts of claims may reflect adversely on the applicant's credibility as a whole. The applicant said that he did not state this activity at the Departmental interview
because he was not asked about his political activities in the Departmental interview. After re-listening to the tape, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant was not directly asked about
his political activities in Iran (though he was certainly given scope to talk about any political activities, such as taping MKO broadcasts, he may have engaged in). In any case, the
applicant also said that he was questioned differently in the hearing so had answered differently. The Tribunal finds no fault at all with the Minister's delegate who conducted the Departmental interview - the applicant was asked at length about his claims. Nevertheless, the Tribunal accepts the applicant's point that different questions asked in a different sequence may have elicited different, more detailed, answers from him. Still, he did not mention these political activities in his otherwise detailed statutory declaration and this is harder for the Tribunal to reconcile with these later claims being true. The applicant said that his statutory declaration did not reflect his actual claims and that he had asked, unsuccessfully, to see his previous adviser in order to correct his statement. This may be so, but it does not explain why he did not tell his subsequent adviser that this claim had been omitted, and why his 14-page hand written statement which he faxed to his subsequent adviser did not contain any mention of his taping and distributing MKO broadcasts and/or reading MKO literature. The Tribunal notes that in the adviser's letter, dated 29 December 1999, the adviser said that when he asked the applicant why he did not talk about 'his affiliation with MKO in Iran', the applicant stated 'that a person called Mr Ravazi ...advised him not to talk about this issue and leave the issue of MKO activities for the interview'. The

N99/30584   245

Tribunal does not find this explanation particularly convincing since the applicant did not mention anything about the MKO tapes in the Departmental interview. The Tribunal therefore has some doubts about the credibility of this claim, and notes too that if this
evidence is fabricated, this throws some doubt on the credibility on the applicant's claims as
to having been a MKO supporter and/or found to have had MKO pamphlets in his possession. The Tribunal has considered whether, though the applicant did not state this, it is possible that the applicant did not mention his taping and distribution of MKO satellite programmes until asked in detail what he meant by his statement that he supported the MKO and believed in their ideology not because they did not occur, but rather, because this activity was undiscovered by the authorities and unconnected with his detention and subsequent flight from Iran. However, after considering all the evidence, including the applicant's different explanations for omission of this evidence, the importance of this claim (given it surely would have been an important element of the applicant's expression of his political opinion, even if it was undiscovered), and the memorable nature of the activity (given that it involved illegal use of a satellite, plus taping of illegal broadcasts twice weekly for five years, and distributing these illegal tapes to friends who then gave the tapes to other people), the Tribunal does not accept that it is plausible that the applicant would have omitted this claim if it was true.

Fourthly, while the applicant was able to expand on the goals of the MKO in the hearing, the Tribunal notes that he was far less able in the Departmental interview (in which he said simply that the MKO wants to bring the Iranian regime down), which could indicate recent reading on the applicant's part to establish, post interview, his credibility as an MKO supporter.

Fifthly, the Tribunal notes that the description of the applicant's alleged journey out of Iran appears implausible. The applicant's evidence was that he escaped from hospital in Estahan at about midnight, about one and a half hours later, that is, on the following day at about
1.30am, he went from Estafan, Iran to Zahedan, arriving at Zahedan at about lunchtime the same day, and then from Zahedan to Pakistan took till just before dawn the next day. The Tribunal notes that the applicant's estimates of the length of the journey from Estahan to Zahedan and from Zahedan to Iranshahr were different in the Departmental interview from in the hearing. The Tribunal notes that inconsistency can indicate lack of credibility, but given that the applicant was not wearing a watch at the time and was making estimates, the Tribunal has not placed any importance on these discrepancies. The Tribunal has based its assessment of his claims on the evidence given in the hearing since it was the subject of close questioning by the Tribunal. The distances (according to the Microsoft Encarta World Atlas 1999) which the applicant travelled after leaving hospital are as follows: from Estafan to Zahedan is 944 kilometres; from Zahedan to Iranshahr is 255 kilometres; and from Iranshahr to Quetta is about 700 kilometres. The applicant said that he was so ill in prison that he was taken to hospital, and yet he also said that after about a day in hospital, he managed to travel night and day virtually continuously by car, camel, train and plane to come to Australia. The Tribunal accepts that a person under great imperative may execute otherwise amazing feats of strength, but even putting aside the question of whether he was physically capable of
undergoing the journey as he described, there is still the issue of the times the applicant said
it took to travel the distances he allegedly covered. The Tribunal accepts that it is possible to

N99/30584 24   246

travel 944 kilometres from Estafan to Zahaden in about twelve to thirteen hours in a car, and accepts that the estimate of two to two and a half hours that applicant said it took by car from Zahedan to Iranshahr may be an understandable underestimate, given he did not have a watch and so the time he gave for the journey was only approximately the time taken. However, he also said that he travelled overnight, and arrived before dawn, from near Iranshahr to Quetta by camel, and the Tribunal finds it incredible that one camel could cover the distance of 700 kilometres overnight, that is, in a maximum of about twelve hours. The country information available indicates that camels travel at a normal speed of about five kilometres an hour to, in the case of a racing camel at a gallop, twenty kilometres an hour, and generally cover about 48 kilometres a day: 'Meet The Camel', http :// states that dromedary camels 'troop about ten miles per hour'; accessed by the RRT on 7 January 2000, states, 'Normal 'amble speed' for a walking camel is 5kph/3mph; a working camel will typically cover 40km/25 miles a day. Racing camels can reach 20kph/12mph at the gallop' accessed by the RRT on 7 January 2000, states, 'Strong camels usually ...cover about 30 mi (48 km) a day...'. The applicant said he was not sure whether he and the Baluchi men actually travelled to Quetta, because he only knows that this is where the Baluchi men told him they had travelled to on the camel. However, the Tribunal notes that it is clear from his evidence that he was in Pakistan when the camel journey ended, given that he said in his statutory declaration and in the hearing that he changed his clothes from the Baluchi clothes after they stopped travelling by camel, and travelled by car to get a train in Pakistan for Karachi. And so even if he and the Baluchi men travelled by camel 'as the crow flies' not to Quetta, but 'as the crow flies' to the Pakistan border, this still was, according to the Microsoft Encarta World Atlas 1999, over 200 kilometres, which also seems an impossible feat to accomplish on camel overnight, on flat land, let alone land as mountainous as was the terrain necessarily covered by the applicant and his companions, and by healthy people, not someone in a weak physical state, as the applicant allegedly was. After considering the applicant's evidence, the Tribunal finds that his evidence of his journey out of Iran is implausible.

Last, the Tribunal notes that the applicant's evidence was that he last spoke to his family two weeks before the hearing, and up to that time, no adverse incidents such as visits from the authorities had been told to him as having occurred to his family, which the Tribunal finds most unusual if the applicant was in fact a person who was detained for three months as an MKO suspect and he had escaped custody ..The Tribunal finds that if the family had in fact been contacted, it is implausible that they would not have told the applicant when he contacted them.

On the one hand, the Tribunal is mindful of the need to give applicant the benefit of the
doubt. The Tribunal is also mindful of the fact that the applicant has been consistent in his claim as to the reason which provoked his detention and his subsequent alleged flight from Iran. Also, the country information as to Iran indicates that the Iranian authorities do in fact target people suspected of supporting the MKO, and that the authorities were especially vigilant towards the MKO after the MKO assassination of Sayyad Shirazi. The Tribunal is
also mindful of the seriousness of applicant's claims, and therefore grave consequences if the Tribunal incorrectly assesses his claim as lacking credibility. Also, the Tribunal has

N99/30584   247

considered the fact that the applicant appeared to it at the hearing as genuine, and Mr Massali (letter received by the RRT on 30 December 1999) also thought the applicant to be genuine in his claims of detention and torture .

On the other hand, the Tribunal notes that it has found above that it is implausible that if the applicant was a MKO suspect in detention, he would have been left unguarded and/or
unsecured in hospital, it is implausible that he could have made the journey from lranshahr to Pakistan as he said, it is most unusual that the authorities would not have contacted his family after his alleged escape if in fact he had escaped, and it is implausible that he would have omitted to state before the hearing that he engaged in illegally taping and distribution of
tapes, of MKO satellite broadcasts if in fact he had engaged in this activity. After carefully considering the applicant's claims, the Tribunal finds the applicant is not a credible witness,

given his fabrication of the claim as to taping satellite broadcasts, and the implausibility of his escape. The Tribunal does not accept any of the applicant's claims as to his political opinion and detention and torture in Iran for his political opinion as genuine, since even the original claim is tainted by the improbability that he, an MKO suspect, would have been taken to hospital and/or not secured while he was in hospital. After considering all the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of return to Iran, nor that if he returns to Iran, he will face a real chance of persecution for a Convention reason.

CONCLUSION

Having considered the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as
amended by the Refugees Protocol. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2) of the Act for a protection visa.

DECISION

The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant a protection visa.

N99/30584  248