THE TRIBUNAL'S REASONS
3 The applicant is a single man from Iran. He is about 30 years of age. He first arrived in Australia on 28 March 2000, having left Iran nearly six weeks beforehand. To be eligible to be granted the visa, it was necessary that the delegate of the respondent, and on review the Tribunal, be satisfied that the criteria for the grant of the visa specified in the Act and the Migration Regulations were met. Relevantly for present purposes, s 36(2) of the Act prescribed the criterion that the applicant be a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol, using those terms as defined in the Act (the Convention). Australia would owe protection obligations to the applicant under the Convention if the delegate of the respondent and, on review, the Tribunal was satisfied that he is a "refugee" as defined in Article 1A(2) of the Convention.
4 The applicant's claims as to why he is a refugee varied over the course of time. He was first interviewed by an officer of the respondent on 1 April 2000. He then said that he left Iran on a valid passport in his own name, legally and openly, and he did so because he did not like living in Iran. He thought it did not respect individuals, and provided him and others with little opportunity to advance in life. He said that he had no particular concerns with the way he had been treated in Iran, and in particular did not identify any concerns which might give rise to a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason if he were to return there. The applicant gave a different version of the circumstances in which he left Iran, and why he did not want to return there, when he made his application for a protection visa on 7 October 2000, and yet a further and different claim in the period between the two hearings conducted by the Tribunal in relation to his claim on 6 March and 26 June 2001. At the hearing on 6 March 2001 he had added the claim that he feared persecution if he were to return to Iran by reason of him having applied for the protection visa within Australia. On 16 May 2001, by documents submitted by his migration agent, he maintained that claim and also said that he feared returning to Iran because, since he had been in Australia, he had been studying and proposed to convert to Christianity, and that he would be mistreated upon his return to Iran by reason of his conversion from Islam. At the hearing on 26 June 2001 initially he maintained those further claims and enhanced them, in response to questions asked by the Tribunal, in particular providing further details in support of them, and, in the case of his claim to fear persecution by reason of his imminent conversion to Christianity, he said that fear was enhanced because he would be unable to avoid the wish to evangelise once he had returned to Iran. It may be noted that the applicant was baptised a Christian on 28 August 2001, and notified the Tribunal prior to its decision.
5 Towards the conclusion of the hearing on 26 June 2001, the applicant resiled substantially from the claims that he had made. He had previously told the Tribunal that he had completed his national service in about 1991, and then worked as a machinist with a private company until 1994 when he was invited to, and undertook, work for the Sepih, the Iranian Public Service, as a machinist. He claimed that in about February 1996, he was suspected of co-operating with an anti-government group, he believed due to his friendship with a co-worker. He said he was arrested and detained and beaten. He was held for some months before he was judicially discharged. He maintained that claim. In fact, he told the Tribunal that he had then been unable to return to work with Sepih, and worked long hours as a door to door salesman for little reward. He had limited means and found his situation to be hopeless. He was unable to earn sufficient to be able to be eligible to marry, and did not in a practical sense enjoy any freedom or quality of life. It was for that reason, he said, that he then decided to leave Iran and to come to Australia. He confirmed on that occasion that he had left Iran legally and openly, due to his hopeless situation within the community and to his concerns about human rights abuses conducted by the authorities, although he himself had not been a victim of them, other than for the arrest and subsequent mistreatment in the six month period in the first half of 1996.
6 He had previously told the Tribunal that in about mid-1999, due to his concerns about the human rights abuses of the regime, he had become interested in opposing it. He had made some contacts, and became part of a group of about 30 persons who were involved in regular meetings, printing and distributing anti-government leaflets. He had assumed that interest following a demonstration by students. In early February 2000, at a meeting at which he had not been present, the ring leader of that group was arrested. He then feared, he claimed, that he would be arrested himself for his involvement in that group, and so contacted a smuggler to secure his egress from Iran. He feared mistreatment upon his return because of his anti-government activities, known to the authorities. It was that part of his claims which he subsequently told the Tribunal towards the end of the second hearing were simply not true. Although he was concerned about human right's abuses, particularly following student demonstrations in 1999, he himself had suffered no adverse consequences which could amount to persecution of him, or which led him to have any fear, much less a well-founded fear of persecution at the time he left Iran, or if he were now to return there.
7 He did, however, maintain before the Tribunal his claim to have been studying with a view to converting to Christianity. He produced a certificate from Father Monaghan confirming that he was undertaking study towards becoming a Christian whilst a resident at the Woomera Immigration Processing and Detention Centre. He said that he feared persecution in Iran if he were to return there, because although Christians in Iran do exist and do practise their religion, it was not tolerated for a Muslim to convert to Christianity and that the penalty for apostasy was death. He also said that he feared that he would be unable to resist evangelising if he were to return to Iran, so that there was a real chance that he would attract the attention of the authorities for those activities and be identified as an apostate.
8 Not surprisingly, the Tribunal remarked that:
"However, given his demonstrated preparedness to construct and fabricate claims for the sole purpose of achieving his aim to remain in Australia through the grant of a protection visa his credibility is so damaged that I am left with serious doubts in regard to these remaining matters (that is, the claims from which he had not resiled in the course of the second hearing)."
The Tribunal addressed those claims in turn.
9 It considered that his claim to have been detained and held for six months in 1996 was presented by the applicant at the hearing in a vague way, and that at times he was evasive. It was unable to understand his failure to make mention of the incident of his arrest and detention when he was first interviewed on 1 April 2000, particularly as he was explicitly asked then why he had left Iran. The nature of the questions he was then asked made it plain to him the significance of giving accurate answers at that time, but when asked why he had left Iran he stated "nothing happened to me". The Tribunal therefore concluded that the applicant did not mention that incident at his first interview because it did not occur. It found specifically that the claim was a fabrication.
10 It also had reservations about whether the applicant had an association with a protest group from about 1999 as he claimed. In any event, as the Tribunal noted, neither the applicant nor anyone else in that group suffered any adverse consequences by reason of membership of such a group, and the Tribunal concluded that there was no chance that he would suffer any adverse consequences by reason of his membership of such a group if he were to return to Iran. It also concluded that, because the applicant had made no mention of that matter when he was first interviewed on 1 April 2000, he held no fear of adverse consequences upon return to Iran by reason of his membership of such a group.
11 Finally, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's claim to have converted to Christianity. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant has undertaken a course of study towards conversion to Christianity since he has been in the Woomera Immigration Detention Centre, and that he has been baptised. However, the applicant had acknowledged to the Tribunal that he had fabricated claims to support a claim to have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason when he had been told, following his interview on 1 April 2000 that those matters he then raised were not likely to make him eligible for a protection visa. His claim to conversion was not made prior to the Tribunal's hearing first on 6 March 2001. His commencement of attending Christian service at the Woomera Immigration Processing and Detention Centre corresponded more or less with the occasion of that hearing and after the Tribunal had expressed to the applicant its concerns about the credibility of his other claims then made. Consequently, it found that the applicant's move to embrace Christianity occurred after he had been notified by the Tribunal, by letter of 24 February 2001, of matters which the Tribunal regarded as significant personal factual matters adverse to his claim pursuant to s 424A of the Act, and the hearing of 6 March 2001 when the Tribunal had repeated its concerns that his claims to that point may be false. The Tribunal considered the possibility that the applicant's appearance of conversion to Christianity could be genuine and coincidental in timing. However, having regard to the pattern of the applicant's claims over the course of the application, it found that his conversion to Christianity was "yet another instance of opportunism and a claim of convenience". It found the claim to be contrived and that the applicant is not a genuine convert and therefore that he does not face a real chance of persecution by reason of his claimed conversion to Christianity if he were to return to Iran. Nor did it accept that he would be motivated to proselytise if he returned to Iran. It said:
"However, since I find, without reservation, that the applicant has converted to Christianity opportunistically and thus find he has no real commitment I accordingly find that he would not proselytise if he returned to Iran now or in the reasonably foreseeable future."
12 The Tribunal nevertheless considered the prospect that, because the applicant has publicly engaged in a conversion to Christianity, at least within the limits of the Iranian community in the detention centre, there may be a prospect that the authorities in Iran would become aware of this and impute to him a genuine conversion. It considered that the chance of that occurring would be remote, but in any event on the basis of independent country information, concluded that a person of the applicant's standing within Iran would not be of interest to the authorities even if they assumed that he had converted to Christianity. It found that he is otherwise of no political interest to the authorities in Iran and did not come within the category of persons who, by reason of their standing, would attract the authorities' attention for having converted to Christianity.
13 Consequently, the Tribunal did not accept that the applicant's reasons for his conversion to Christianity are genuine, and found that he has converted to Christianity solely for the purpose of providing a basis for a protection visa. It found as a fact that he would not proselytise in Iran. There is only a remote chance that the Iranian authorities would become aware of his conversion, by reason of others in the Woomera Immigration Processing and Detention Centre learning of it, but it found positively that the applicant would in any event be of no adverse concern to the authorities and he would not face a real chance of persecution in Iran by reason of his conversion to Christianity in any event. Furthermore, as he was not at the time he left Iran of any adverse interest to the authorities, it concluded that his claimed conversion to Christianity would create no additional impediment to his safe return to Iran.
14 The Tribunal was therefore not satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Convention, and affirmed the decision of the delegate of the respondent to refuse to grant the applicant the protection visa.