Jump to content
The World News Media

Would-be refugee’s gay claims ‘not credible’

Guest Nicole

By Guest Nicole
in Topics

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Guest
Guest Nicole

Guest Nicole

Posted
  • Guest
Posted

An Iranian illegal immigrant who faked a homosexual relationship and claimed he had torn up the Koran and become a Jehovah’s Witness has had his application for asylum rejected in Federal Court.

The man, known in court documents as “CVS16”, came to Australia by boat in May 2013. He was granted a bridging visa in March 2014, but the visa was revoked four months later when he was charged, and later convicted, with one count of reckless wounding.

In September 2015, Immigration Minister Peter Dutton invited the man to apply for a protection visa, and in February last year, following an earlier incomplete application and interview with a departmental dele­gate, he applied.

In a statement attached to his application, he claimed to “fear persecution on the basis of his membership of the particular social group comprising homosexuals, and his conversion in 2013 to Christianity and adherance to the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith”.

The man’s application was rejected by the department in July. Mr Dutton then referred the case to the Immigration Assessment Authority to be reviewed, as mandated under the Migration Act.

The authority comprehensively upheld the department’s decision, finding that although the man had attended some Jehovah’s Witnesses services and participated in some Bible study groups, they did not accept he had converted to Christianity or had a “genuine interest” in the religion.

They also “did not accept to be credible” the man’s claim to be homosexual, nor his claim he “had set up a homosexual relationship and tore up the Koran”.

The authority ultimately rejected the applicant’s claims “to fear serious harm for being a failed asylum-seeker or for having departed Iran unlawfully”, and rejected his visa application.

The man made a final appeal to the Federal Court, arguing the Immigration Assessment Authority had not adequately considered extra documentation sup­plied. Judge Rolf Driver rejected the appeal on Friday, saying the man had “failed to establish” the authority’s decision had been affected by jurisdictional error.

The man is in Western Australia’s Yongah Hill centre.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/wouldbe-refugees-gay-claims-not-credible/news-story/ee7fe3d67e7d8d7578f5119142571e6e

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Views 739
  • Replies 0
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Popular Days

Popular Days

 Share
Go to topic listing



  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Pudgy
      A Proclamation on Transgender Day of Visibility, 2024

      By Pudgy · Posted

      … and donchew forget now … the GB now allows Sisters to come to meetings and go out in field service in slacks or Mumus.  Or slacks AND Mumus, if poundage appropriate. Did I ever mention I once dated a Sister that made Mumus out of parachutes? She was an Opera singer, and had a UN diplomatic passport. She was on “speed”, couldn’t blink, and typed 600 words a minute with 100% errors. Occasionally she would get lipstick in her eyebrows.  
    • Mic Drop
      The Ethereum Cryptocurrency Scam

      By Mic Drop · Posted

    • George88
      Can secular chronology be trusted?

      By George88 · Posted

      In my perspective, when the Smithsonian Magazine covers a topic, I am inclined to trust their expertise. As for the shadows here, I see no benefit in entertaining irrational ideas from others. Let them hold onto their own beliefs. We shouldn't further enable their self-deception and misleading of the public.  
    • BTK59
      Can secular chronology be trusted?

      By BTK59 · Posted

      Hey Self! 🤣I came across this interesting conspiracy theory. There are scholars who firmly believe in the authenticity of those artifacts. I value having conversations with myself. The suggestion of a mentally ill person has led to the most obscure manifestation of a group of sorrowful individuals. 😁
    • George88
      Can secular chronology be trusted?

      By George88 · Posted

      I have considered all of their arguments. Some even apply VAT 4956 to their scenarios, which is acceptable. Anyone can use secular evidence if they genuinely seek understanding. Nonetheless, whether drawing from scripture or secular history, 607 is a plausible timeframe to believe in. People often misuse words like "destruction", "devastation", and "desolation" in an inconsistent manner, similar to words like "besiege", "destroy", and "sack". When these terms are misapplied to man-made events, they lose their true meaning. This is why with past historians, the have labeled it as follows: First Capture of Jerusalem 606 BC Second Capture of Jerusalem 598 BC Third Capture of Jerusalem 587 BC Without taking into account anything else.  Regarding the second account, if we solely rely on secular chronology, the ancient scribes made military adaptations to align with the events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. However, the question arises: Can we consider this adaptation as accurate?  Scribes sought to include military components in their stories rather than focusing solely on biblical aspects. Similarly, astronomers, who were also scholars, made their observations at the king's request to divine omens, rather than to understand the plight of the Jewish people. Regarding the third capture, we can only speculate because there are no definitive tablets like the Babylonian chronicles that state 598. It is possible that before the great tribulation, Satan will have influenced someone to forge more Babylonian chronicles in order to discredit the truth and present false evidence from the British Museum, claiming that the secular view was right all along. This could include documents supposedly translated after being found in 1935, while others were found in the 1800s. The Jewish antiquities authorities have acknowledged the discovery of forged items, while the British Museum has not made similar acknowledgments. It is evident that the British Museum has been compelled to confess to having looted or stolen artifacts which they are unwilling to return. Consequently, I find it difficult to place my trust in the hands of those who engage in such activities. One of the most notable instances of deception concerning Jewish antiquities was the widely known case of the ossuary belonging to James, the brother of Jesus. I was astonished by the judge's inexplicable justification for acquittal, as it was evident that his primary concern was preserving the reputation of the Jewish nation, rather than unearthing the truth behind the fraudulent artifact. The judge before even acknowledged it. "In his decision, the judge was careful to say his acquittal of Golan did not mean the artifacts were necessarily genuine, only that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Golan had faked them." The burden of proof is essential. This individual not only forged the "Jehoash Tablet," but also cannot be retried for his deceit. Why are they so insistent on its authenticity? To support their narrative about the first temple of Jerusalem. Anything to appease the public, and deceive God. But then again, after the Exodus, when did they truly please God? So, when it comes to secular history, it's like a game of cat and mouse.  

  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.4k

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,679
    • Most Online
      1,592
    Techredirector
    Newest Member
    Techredirector
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.