DTH18 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1957

ARG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 250 FCR 109; [2016] FCAFC 174

AVQ15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 133; (2018) 266 FCR 83

AXE17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 695

AYY17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 261 FCR 503; [2018] FCAFC 89

BRZ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 677

BVD17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 268 CLR 29; [2019] HCA 34

Carrascalao v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 252 FCR 352; [2017] FCAFC 107

CGA15 v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 268 FCR 362; [2019] FCAFC 46

CQG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 253 FCR 496; [2016] FCAFC 146

Guclukol v Minister for Home Affairs (2020) 279 FCR 611; [2020] FCAFC 148

Minister for Home Affairs v Omar (2019) 272 FCR 589; [2019] FCAFC 188

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Sabharwal [2018] FCAFC 160

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh (2014) 231 FCR 437; [2014] FCAFC 1

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Stretton (2016) 237 FCR 1; [2016] FCAFC 11

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW (2018) 264 CLR 541; [2018] HCA 30

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZGUR (2011) 241 CLR 594; [2011] HCA 1

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611; [2010] HCA 16

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZRKT (2013) 212 FCR 99; [2013] FCA 317

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611; [1999] HCA 21

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323; [2001] HCA 30

MZZGE v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 72

NABE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (No 2) (2004) 144 FCR 1; [2004] FCAFC 263

Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicant S20/2002 (2003) 73 ALD 1; [2003] HCA 30

Singh v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 267 FCR 200; [2019] FCAFC 3

Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2001) 109 FCR 152; [2001] FCA 389

SZDXZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCAFC 109

1. The applicants claimed to fear harm by being forcibly returned to Iran. By Ground 3, the applicants contend that the Authority failed to properly consider the applicants' claim to fear harm upon return to Iran as involuntary returnees.
2. At [51] of its reasons the Authority dismissed that claim because "Iran has historically refused to issue travel documents to facilitate the return of involuntary returnees".
3. The applicants concede that the Authority did make a predictive assessment in considering the risk of harm in the reasonably foreseeable future. However, they argue that the Authority only focussed on whether Iran accepted involuntary removals at present and failed to consider whether there was a prospect of return to Iran on an involuntary basis in the reasonably foreseeable future. They contend that by selectively summarising the current Iranian position, without careful regard to available country information, the Authority failed to properly consider whether involuntary return to Iran might become possible in the future.
4. Counsel submits that the DFAT report which formed part of the country information before the Authority noted the existence of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Australia and Iran which provided for involuntary return of certain categories of Iranian nationals. The Authority relied on the part of the DFAT report saying that "Iran has historically refused to issue travel documents to allow the involuntary return of its citizens from abroad". However the applicants submit that the Authority failed to take into account the immediately following qualification, which was that "[o]n 19 March 2018...Iran and Australia signed a Memorandum of Understanding...that includes an agreement by Iran to facilitate the return of Iranians who arrived after this date and who have no legal right to stay in Australia"[12]. Counsel submitted that although the MOU does not apply to the applicants, as they had arrived in Australia before 2018, the Authority still should have considered the change in diplomatic position which now allows a cohort of Iranians to return on an involuntary basis.
5. Counsel for the applicants relied on DFO19 and Anor v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs and Anor [2023] FCAFC 38 (DFO19) in support of the proposition that the Authority ought to have considered the effect of the MOU in its overall assessment of whether the applicants may be returned to Iran involuntarily. In that case, the Full Court found that:

(2018) 266 FCR 83

(2017) 252 FCR 352

(2020) 279 FCR 611

(2019) 272 FCR 589

(1996) 185 CLR 259

(2016) 237 FCR 1

(2018) 264 CLR 541

(2011) 241 CLR 594

(2010) 240 CLR 611

(1999) 197 CLR 611

(2001) 206 CLR 323

(2016) 250 FCR 109

(2018) 261 FCR 503

(2019) 268 CLR 29

(2019) 268 FCR 362

(2016) 253 FCR 496

(2014) 231 FCR 437

(2013) 212 FCR 99

(1997) 191 CLR 559

(2004) 144 FCR 1

(2019) 267 FCR 200

(2001) 109 FCR 152

(2012) 202 FCR 1