RRT Case No. N01/38355

RRT Reference: N01/38355 (18 October 2002)

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

RRT Reference: N01/38355

Country of Reference: Iran

Tribunal Member: Kim Rosser

Date decision made: 18 October 2002

Place: Sydney

Decision: The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant protection visas.

BACKGROUND

The applicants are a mother and her children. They claim to be citizens of Iran. They arrived in Australia and they lodged an application for protection (class XA) visas with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). An applicant for a protection (class XA) visa is entitled to be considered against the criteria for each of its subclasses: 785 (Temporary Protection) and 866 (Protection). A delegate of the Minister for Immigration refused to grant protection visas and the applicants applied for review of that decision.

THE LEGISLATION

Under s.65(1) of the Act a visa may be granted only if the decision maker is satisfied that the prescribed criteria for the visa have been satisfied.

Subsection 36(2) of the Act, as in force before 1 October 2001, provided that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol. (Amendments to s.36(2) introduced on 1 October 2001 do not apply to the present applications.) "Refugees Convention" and "Refugees Protocol" are defined to mean the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees respectively: s.5(1) of the Act. Further criteria for the grant of a protection (class XA) visa subclasses 785 and 866 are set out in Parts 785 and 866 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 respectively. Under those provisions, family members are derivatively entitled to a protection visa on the alternative basis that they are members of the same family unit as an applicant who is found to be a refugee. (See Munkayilar v MIMA (1998) 49 ALD 588 at 592-593, Mijoljevic v MIMA [1999] FCA 834 at [14]-[18], Dranichnikov v MIMA (2001) 109 FCR 397 at [22]-[23], MIMA v Shtjefni [2001] FCA 1323 at [17].) However, all applicants must satisfy the remaining criteria.

Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and the Refugees Protocol and, generally speaking, has protection obligations to people who are refugees as defined in them.

DEFINITION OF "REFUGEE"

Article 1A(2) of the Convention defines a refugee as any person who:

owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

The High Court has considered this definition in a number of cases, notably Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379, Applicant A & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs & Anor (1997) 190 CLR 225, Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559, Chen Shi Hai v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2000) 201 CLR 293, Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Haji Ibrahim (2000) 204 CLR 1, and Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Khawar (2002) 187 ALR 574.

Sections 91R and 91S of the Act now qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the regulations to a particular person.

There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.

Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s 91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve "serious harm" to the applicant (s 91R(1)(b)), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s 91R(1)(c)). The expression "serious harm" includes, for example, a threat to life or liberty, significant physical harassment or ill-treatment, or significant economic hardship or denial of access to basic services or denial of capacity to earn a livelihood, where such hardship or denial threatens the applicant's capacity to subsist: s 91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.

Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors. However the motivation need not be one of enmity, malignity or other antipathy towards the victim on the part of the persecutor.

Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition ? race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase "for reasons of" serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s.91R(1)(a) of the Act.

Fourth, an applicant's fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a "well-founded" fear. This adds an objective requirement to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a "well-founded fear" of persecution under the Convention if they have genuine fear founded upon a "real chance" of persecution for a Convention stipulated reason. A fear is well-founded where there is a real substantial basis for it but not if it is merely assumed or based on mere speculation. A "real chance" is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.

In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. Whenever the protection of the applicant's country is available, and there is no ground based on well-founded fear for refusing it, the person concerned is not in need of international protection and is not a refugee.

Whether an applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.

CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

I have before me the Department's file, which includes the protection visa application and the delegate's decision record. I have had regard to the material referred to in the delegate's decision, and other material available to me from a range of sources. The first named applicant gave oral evidence to the Tribunal.
Only the first named applicant has made specific claims under the Refugees Convention. For convenience, therefore, I will refer to the first named applicant as the applicant.

Application for a protection visa

According to her application for a protection visa the applicant is an Iranian national. She is a Zoroastrian. The applicant travelled to Australia using a passport issued in Tehran. Her Australian visa was issued in Tehran. The applicant indicates that from the early 1980s until her departure from Iran she has been involved in a family business. The applicant has also worked in a particular profession. The applicant indicates that she applied to migrate to Australia in the mid 1990s.

The applicant claims that:

- She was faced with many restrictions when she was working in Tehran.
- She was refused a licence to run her own business because she is Zoroastrian;
- She could not get a job in the government department because of her religion;
- There is no future for her children in Iran;
- She is not allowed to have a food business, as Muslims think that non-Muslims are dirty;
- She and her female children are not allowed to watch her male children participating in tennis and swimming competitions;
- If she and her female children wish to go jogging in the park they have to wear long thick clothes or a chador which is impossible in summer heat. They are not allowed to ride a bicycle or jog on the footpaths;
- She and her female children are not allowed to use the same pool or beach that men are using;
- Everything is censored in Iran;
- She and her female children have to wear Islamic clothes;
- Her children have to learn Arabic and recite from the Koran at school;
- When she and her female children were on a bus, officials told her female children to cover themselves properly;
- Non-Muslims do not get as much compensation as Muslims do if they are killed;
- If a Zoroastrian falls in love with a Muslim they have to convert to Islam before they can marry;
- A Zoroastrian will not inherit if there exists a Muslim heir;
- Zoroastrian girls are kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam;
- Zoroastrian youth are not allowed to go to parties where there is dancing with the opposite sex or singing or loud laughing;
- Officials search cars and conduct breath tests of drivers and passengers;
- Her youngest brother converted to Islam and married a Muslim. When their father died, this brother inherited all their father's property;
- Her husband's business was ostracised because it was run by a non-Muslim. The business closed down because of a lack of customers and her husband now drives a taxi;
- Her family could not find a suitable place to live. Muslims would not let property to them and there are few Zoroastrians with property to rent. They rented a flat from a Zoroastrian family living overseas. However, they and their furniture were thrown into the street when the property was taken over by Revolutionary Guards. They moved into an apartment owned by relative in Australia. However, after a short time another tenant harassed their family and had her husband arrested. This person has continued to harass and threaten them and has made threats to the property owners in Australia.

The applicant provided a range of documents in support of her claims.

Interview with the delegate

At an interview with the delegate, the applicant provided information consistent with her written claims. She provided additional information, including:

- After his business closed down, the applicant's husband was dismissed from several jobs over a number of years because of his religion. He worked several years in each of these jobs;
- Her Muslim brother harassed her and her family when she shared a house with him. As a result of this she and her family decided to look for accommodation elsewhere;
- She and her family were given one week's notice before being evicted from a flat owned by a Zoroastrian who lived overseas;
- She and her family were harassed by a tenant who lives in a building owned by her relative. Her husband was taken into custody for a short time because of a complaint made by this tenant. The tenant wanted to take over her relative's property. He continued to harass her relative even after the applicant and her family moved out of the property.

Further material

Prior to the hearing the applicant provided two documents:

- A letter from the applicant's current employer stating, inter alia, that the applicant is an exemplary employee and
- A letter from someone, stating, inter alia, that the applicant was a political activist for the cause of a free and democratic Iran.

Submissions

The applicant's adviser provided written submissions in relation to the facts of the case and the law to be applied in this case. He submits, inter alia, that the applicant would be at risk of persecution in Iran because she has applied for refugee status in Australia.

Hearing

I asked the applicant where she was living prior to coming to Australia. The applicant stated that she was living in Tehran. She was living with her husband and her children. She was living in accommodation owned by a relative who lives in Australia. She had lived there for several years. The applicant stated that her husband moved sometime ago and now lives in an apartment which he rents. The applicant stated that the apartment is not rented from a family member.

I asked the applicant about her family. The applicant stated that a brother, his wife and children still live in Iran. This is the brother who has converted to Islam. The applicant stated that her other relatives are no longer in Iran. The applicant stated that her husband's sibling's live in Tehran. The applicant stated that her husband is currently working as a taxi driver. Her husband's sister is a housewife. His brother works in a small business.

I asked the applicant about her employment. The applicant stated that she worked part-time. She stated that she resigned from her work in the end of 1990s. The applicant stated that she has previously worked in a family business. However, she stopped working in the business in the early 1990s. The applicant stated that she did not seek other employment after she left her last job in the end of 1990s. The applicant stated that she was refused a licence to operate a business during the period that she was working in her last job. The refusal was on the basis of her religion.

I asked the applicant what she did in Iran to practise her religion. The applicant stated that she usually went to the temple every day. She also prays, participates in religious celebrations and generally tries to observe the teaching of her religion. The applicant stated that she does the same sorts of things in Australia. The applicant stated her husband also practices his religion. She stated that she practises her religion in Australia to the same extent that she practised it in Iran.

I asked the applicant what she feared would happen to her if she returned to Iran. At this point in the hearing the applicant asked her adviser to leave the room. After he left she told me that her adviser is Muslim and that she would prefer to speak to me without him being present. The applicant stated that she had promised to tell the truth and that she would do so. She stated that she wished she had not been born in Iran and that since being in Australia she had felt free for the first time in a number of years. The applicant indicated that at times she had felt suicidal when she was living in Iran, although she stated that she would never commit suicide.

I discussed various aspects of the applicant's claims with her, including her claims that her children had to learn Arabic and the Koran at school and that Zoroastrians could not own food businesses. The applicant agreed that learning Arabic and the Koran could benefit children from minority religions as it could assist them to gain admission to university. In addition, I put to the applicant my understanding that in Iran a number of food businesses are owned by non-Muslims and that only a very small minority of Muslims would refuse to eat food prepared by non-Muslims. (DFAT County Profile for Use in Refugee Determination: Islamic Republic of Iran para 2.3.17.4, March 1996). The applicant agreed that this was the case.

I asked the applicant about the document provided to the Tribunal prior to the hearing. I asked the applicant what was meant when she was described as a political activist. The applicant stated that she and other Zoroastrians believe that the monarchy should be restored in Iran. She stated that some Zoroastrians in Iran used to receive information from someone. She stated that this used to be copied and then handed out. She used to hand out some of this material to Zoroastrian friends. The applicant stated that the Iranian authorities do not know that she did this.

The applicant confirmed that otherwise her claims are as set out in her application for a protection visa.

Independent evidence

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's Country Profile for Use in Refugee Determination: Islamic Republic of Iran (March 1996) states in relation to Zoroastrians:

2.3.14.1 Zoroastrianism has been officially enshrined in the Constitution as a recognised creed and have a seat reserved in the Majlis to represent the Zoroastrian minority. They are a small but thriving community (numbering 30,000) who may freely worship at their fire temples. Their religious leader is Moubad. They are economically influential with a strong sense of community.

2.3.14.2 Early in the revolution the Zoroastrians experienced the same problems as Christian groups. They suffered more active discrimination partly on account of their wealth and partly because Khomeini had described them as "fireworshippers" and "blasphemers". However Zoroastrians have tended to stay out of politics and keep a low profile. As with other officially recognised religious minorities, Zoroastrians who wish to marry a Muslim need to convert to Islam (at least officially) for the marriage to be recognised.

2.3.14.3 Despite Khomeini's expressed antipathy towards them, Zoroastrians traditionally have enjoyed a reputation for honesty and integrity. Since the death of Khomeini, there is no evidence to suggest that Zoroastrians suffer any grave or systematic discrimination or harassment solely on account of their religious affiliation.

The US State Department's 2001 Report into International Religious Freedom states that there were no reports of government harassment of the Zoroastrian community during the period covered by the report.

A 1996 news report indicates that a world conference of Zoroastrians was held in Iran. The report states:

The world's Zoroastrian religious community on Wednesday opened a congress in Tehran, the first such event held in Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Some 800 delegates from Iran and 10 other countries, mostly scholars or community representatives, are attending the four-day Sixth World Zoroastrian Congress. Congress President Mahyar Ardeshiri, a 63-year-old Iranian surgeon, said the gathering was intended "to preserve the Zoroastrian identity".

Zoroastrianism, founded by the Persian prophet Zoroaster in the sixth century BC, is followed by some 200,000 people, mostly in Iran and India. Ardeshiri told Reuters that Iranian authorities had cooperated "beyond imagination" with organisers of the meeting.

Iran recognises Zoroastrianism, the country's main religion before the Moslem conquest in the seventh century, Judaism and Christianity as official minority religions. It grants religious and political rights to their communities. Tehran has denied repeated charges by Western governments and human rights groups that it discriminates against religious minorities.

Iranian Vice-President Ataollah Mohajerani and Shi'ite Moslem clerics attended the opening session of the congress. "Zoroastrianism is based on love and friendship which causes different religions to come closer. And this is what the Islamic Republic makes efforts to achieve," Mohajerani said in his inaugural speech.

Organisers said 200 foreign delegates from India, Pakistan, United States, Belgium, Britain, Canada, Italy, Australia, Germany, and New Zealand were attending. (Reuter Business Briefing Electronic Download, sourced from Reuter News Service, "World Zoroastrians in first Iran meeting since 1979" 19 June 1996 CX17759).

Journalist Robin Wright gives an account of her 1999 meeting with Parviz Ravani, then serving his second term as the Zoroastrian Member of Parliament. He told her that there were laws which the Members of Parliament from minority religions would change if they could. The example he gave was the law which meant that the property of a member of a minority religion is inherited by a Muslim convert if there is one in the family. However, Mr Ravani also told Ms Wright that Zoroastrians could be much worse off than they are. He stated:

"Minorities live better in Iran than in other countries in this region. We do our religious things freely," he added, noting that he made wine at home, as did many of his friends. "We're much more comfortable and much safer than Muslims in India or Christians in Saudi Arabia," he said...

Like members of the other recognized minorities, many Zoroastrians told me that they fared better after the election of President Khatami, who was born and brought up in Yazd. His father, a powerful cleric, had worked closely with the local Zoroastrians.

"Khatami has lived among us and knows us well" Ravani said. "He knows we want coexistence". (Robin Wright The Last Great Revolution" Turmoil and Transformation in Iran 2000, pp 216-217).

FINDINGS AND REASONS

The applicant claims that if she returns to Iran she will be discriminated against and harassed because she is a Zoroastrian. The applicant also claims that she had problems in Iran because she is a woman. In addition, she claims that she distributed monarchist material to other Zoroastrians. In assessing the applicant's Convention claims I am required to determine whether she has a well-founded fear and if so whether what she fears amounts to persecution for a Convention reason.

I accept that the applicant is an Iranian national. I accept that she is Zoroastrian. I consider that the applicant gave evidence in a frank and straightforward way. She impressed me as a truthful and sincere witness who demonstrated no tendency to exaggerate or embellish her evidence.

I have considered whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of her religion. The independent evidence, which I accept, indicates that Zoroastrians in Iran face discrimination in a number of aspects of their lives. However, the independent evidence does not suggest that Zoroastrians face such serious mistreatment that it can be characterised as persecution. In my view, if Zoroastrians did face harm serious enough to amount to persecution in Iran for reason of their religion, this would be reflected in reports such as the Report on International Religious Freedom published by the US State Department. The independent evidence does not suggest that Zoroastrians are prevented from practising their religion or restricted in their religious practice. The applicant has not claimed that she was prevented from practising her religion in Iran or that she was restricted in her religious practice. The applicant's evidence at the hearing indicated that she was able to practise her religion in Iran to the same extent as she does in Australia. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the applicant will be prevented from practising her religion or restricted in her religious practise if she returns to Iran. In addition, I am not satisfied that any discrimination that the applicant might face in Iran for reasons of her religion would be serious enough to amount to persecution for a Convention reason.

I accept that when she worked she was faced with many restrictions. I further accept that the applicant was denied a licence to operate a business because of her religion. I accept that the applicant was distressed and humiliated by this discrimination. However, the applicant was not denied the right to work because of her religion. On the evidence she gave during the hearing, the applicant resigned from her position in the end of 1990s and did not seek further employment.

I accept that the applicant's husband's business was ostracised because it was owned by a non-Muslim. I accept that the applicant's husband ultimately closed his business because of this. However, the applicant's husband went on to obtain jobs. He is now employed as a taxi driver. I accept that the applicant's husband is not employed in a capacity which reflects his qualifications. However, the evidence before me does not suggest that the applicant's husband has been denied the right to employment or has been unduly restricted in his ability to obtain work because of his religion.

I accept that the applicant's children have been obliged to learn Arabic and the Koran at school. However, I do not consider that a requirement to learn Arabic and the Koran harms non-Muslim students ? let alone that it amounts to harm serious enough to be characterised as a persecution for a Convention reason.

I accept that property belonging to the applicant's father was inherited by her brother who converted to Islam rather than by other members of the family. This practice and the law which allows it clearly discriminate against members of religious minorities and may act as an incentive for some people to convert to Islam in order to inherit more property than they would otherwise be entitled to. I accept that the applicant has been deeply distressed by this. I also accept that the applicant was deeply distressed by her brother's attitude to her and her family. However, the evidence before me does not suggest that the official discrimination against religious minorities in terms of inheritance or the attitude of the applicant's brother to her and her family has caused the applicant such serious detriment that it could be characterised as persecution.

I accept that the applicant and her family had problems concerning their accommodation, on the first occasion when they were evicted from premises that were being confiscated by Revolutionary Guards and on the second when they were harassed by another tenant in the accommodation in which they lived. I accept that the applicant was deeply distressed by these problems. However, I am not satisfied that these problems can be characterised as persecution of the applicant for reasons of her religion. In addition, I note that the applicant's husband has moved from the accommodation where he, the applicant and their children were previously living and rents an apartment elsewhere. There is nothing in the independent evidence to suggest that Zoroastrians are prevented from renting accommodation in Iran. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the applicant's previous problems with accommodation currently give rise to a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason.

Overall, on the evidence before me I am not satisfied that any harm the applicant or her children have faced in the past because they are Zoroastrian is so serious that it can be characterised as a persecution. I accept that as Zoroastrians the applicant and her children face some discrimination in Iran. However, given the independent evidence concerning Zoroastrians, I cannot be satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant or her children will be persecuted for reasons of their religion in the reasonably foreseeable future.

The applicant has also made claims in relation to matters affecting her as a woman - specifically the Islamic dress code ("hejab") and not being able to watch her male children play sport. In relation to the dress code, the Islamic dress code is enforced in Iran. (See DFAT Country Profile for Use in Refugee Determination: Islamic Republic of Iran March 1996 para 1.12.3). It applies to all women, be they Muslim, non-Muslim, Iranian nationals and residents or foreign women visiting Iran. I accept that complying with hejab requirements may be inconvenient and uncomfortable. However, I am not satisfied that the discomfort engendered by wearing hejab a detriment serious enough to constitute persecution. I am not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason arising out of the Islamic dress code enforced in Iran.

I accept that the applicant and her female children have not been allowed to see their male children compete in sporting events. In relation to this, women's and men's sporting activities are segregated in Iran. (See, for example, Elaine Sciolino Persian Mirrors: The Elusive Face of Iran Free Press 2000 p 119 ff). This segregation means that fathers and husbands are also unable to watch their wives and daughters compete in sporting events. It is a restriction which applies to everyone in Iran. I accept that the applicant finds this restriction difficult to cope with. However, I am not satisfied that the fact that the applicant cannot watch her male children compete in sport is discriminatory, that it amounts to harm serious enough to be characterised as persecution, or that it is for a Convention reason.

I accept that the applicant finds other aspects of life in Iran oppressive. However, the matters referred to by the applicant (such as censorship, restrictions on alcohol consumption and the segregation of girls and boys) apply generally in Iran. They are not rules which are particularly directed at Zoroastrians or other minority groups. Nor are they rules which are selectively applied for a Convention reason. I am not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason arising out of her objection to such aspects of life in Iran.

The applicant has provided a document from someone asserting that the applicant is a political activist. At the hearing the applicant indicated that she had given her Zoroastrian friends monarchist material sent to other Zoroastrians. There was nothing in the applicant's evidence to suggest that the Iranian authorities ever suspected her of handing out such material. In my view, even if the applicant returned to Iran and continued to hand this material to her Zoroastrian friends, the chance that the Iranian authorities would discover that she was doing so is remote. I am not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason arising out of her distribution of monarchist material.

The applicant's adviser submitted that the applicant faces persecution because she has applied for refugee status in Australia. In relation to this, both the Department and the Tribunal treat protection visa applications with confidentiality. There is no evidence before me which could lead me to conclude that the Iranian authorities are or might become aware that the applicant has applied for refugee status in Australia. Even if they were aware of this, the independent evidence before me does not suggest that the Iranian authorities impute an adverse political opinion to people who have applied for refugee status abroad. (See DFAT Country Profile for Use in Refugee Determination: Islamic Republic of Iran March 1996 para 1.7.6.2).

I have considered the applicant's claims both individually and cumulatively. Although I accept that the applicant has faced difficulties in Iran in the past and faces some discrimination in that country in the future, I cannot be satisfied that she has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason.

I accept that the applicant has been very distressed about her life in Iran and remains very distressed at the thought of returning to that country. It is not surprising that someone such as the applicant would feel oppressed in Iran. I accept that the applicant's level of distress over her life in Iran has led her to feel suicidal. I accept that the applicant feels free in Australia and wants to remain in this country for her own sake and that of her children. There may be humanitarian considerations which operate in this case. However, this is not something which I can take into account in making a decision concerning the application for review.

CONCLUSION

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

No specific Convention claims were made by or on behalf of the applicant children beyond the matters that I have already dealt with and there is no basis on which I can be satisfied that they are refugees. The fate of their application therefore depends on the outcome of the first named applicant's application. As I have found that the first named applicant does not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, it follows that the applicant children cannot be granted a protection visa.

DECISION

The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant protection visas.