Case: SZCXF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FMCA 1229
Outcome: affirmed
The background to this matter is set out in the reasons of the Federal Magistrate: see SZCXF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FMCA 1229 at [1] - [4] . In summary, I repeat those circumstances below. 3 The appellant is an Iranian citizen who first arrived in Australia in November 1998. Shortly after his arrival on a business trip he met and married a woman, who was an Australian citizen of Iranian background. She sponsored him for a Subclass 820 visa. The marriage foundered after the appellant allegedly discovered his wife had been unfaithful and, unknown to him, had been married three times previously. The appellant left the matrimonial home with only a few possessions and returned to Iran. Whilst in Iran he had the experiences which are the subject matter of his claim to be a person to whom Australia has protection obligations. On 13 August 2001, he returned to Australia and made an application for a protection visa on 21 September 2001. The application was refused by the delegate of the Minister, and the Tribunal affirmed that decision on 27 January 2004. On review, the Federal Magistrates Court set aside the decision and remitted the matter to the Tribunal to be determined according to law. On 12 September 2006, the Tribunal again affirmed the decision under review and handed that decision down on 5 October 2006. 4 The appellant says that his divorce from his former wife was handled appropriately and that she was given a sum of money which he understood was accepted as satisfactory. However, upon his return to Iran he was approached by her brothers, who indicated that the family was not happy with the arrangement and demanded further payment from him. When that was refused he was hit and they warned him that this was just the beginning. In relation to this period of time, the Tribunal stated: 'One afternoon as he was returning home from work he was stopped on the street near his home. Two men who identified themselves as being from the disciplinary forces demanded that he follow them to the local disciplinary forces' centre. [His former wife's] brothers had told the disciplinary forces that he was a political dissident and a proselytizer. She also wrote to the Iranian Embassy in Canberra and the disciplinary forces in Tehran saying that he had been involved in evangelical Christian practice in Australia. He did have some contact with Christians while in Australia. Whilst he was married to [his former wife] he attended a few church services with his friends. However he was not a Christian and still followed the Muslim faith. He knew that the accusations were serious. While detained he was interrogated about his business trips. He was asked about his link with some anti-Islamic groups. His denials were not believed. He was hit and called a deviant. He was told he should be careful and would be monitored. He was warned he would be severely punished if he stepped out of line. He did not know how he could prove to the authorities that he was not a Christian when they were convinced that the opposite was true. His business trips were increasingly monitored by the disciplinary forces. He was under suspicion and was constantly harassed by telephone calls from the security forces throughout the night. He was disturbed and disorientated and it became almost impossible to sleep.' 5 The appellant maintained that although he was not detained again until 2001 he was kept under constant surveillance, particularly in relation to his business trips. These trips were taken at the behest of a Bonyad (a powerful Iranian business organisation), one of whose employees he had paid off in order to obtain business from it. After the appellant returned from a business trip to Sweden in February 2001 he was arrested again. He claimed that he was beaten up during the course of his interrogation and was released because of the injuries that he suffered. The appellant stated that during his interrogation he saw a letter that had been written to the authorities in the handwriting of his former wife. He also claimed that he was being interrogated about certain photographs that had been taken by and of him in and around churches in Italy and Australia. He claimed that these had been provided to the authorities by his former wife. He claimed that those photographs were used to corroborate the statements made by his former wife and her brothers that he was a proselytizer. The appellant also claimed before the Tribunal that he was arrested on a third occasion, on which he was not asked about religious or political matters, but had been told to write his life story so that the authorities could verify it. 6 In its reasons, the Tribunal accepted that the appellant often travelled abroad for business purposes. It accepted that the appellant had been involved in corrupt activity with an employee of the Bonyad, which might lead him to face penalties if discovered. The Tribunal accepted that the appellant had been questioned by authorities after returning to Iran in 1999, that he was questioned again and possibly ill-treated in 2001. It stated that he may have subsequently faced charges, had the deeds to his home held as security and had access to his bank accounts denied.