KEY POINTS:
The Refugee Status Appeals Authority was absolutely clear on what it thought of Iranian hunger-striker Ali Panah when it twice dismissed his appeals to stay in New Zealand.
The independent tribunal clearly felt it was being fed a pack of lies by the would-be refugee.
The authority's written decisions are littered with phrases such as "not credible", "obvious implausibility", "changed his evidence", "false evidence" and "rejected as fabricated".
Mr Panah weaved a heart-rending tale of his leaving Iran for South Korea, converting to Christianity, fearing being executed as a convert if he returned to his Islamic fundamentalist homeland, coming to New Zealand, being sentenced to death by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Court, and, to top it all off, being told his cousins intended to kill him if the state did not.
The authority instead uncovered a sorry tale of false passports, conflicting stories and fabricated evidence to the point where it doubted things which Mr Panah claimed had happened to him had actually occurred. Such was Mr Panah's credibility that in its decision on his 2004 appeal against the Immigration Service's refusal to grant him refugee status, the authority rejected his evidence in its entirety.
No doubt Immigration Minister David Cunliffe wishes he could shout all this from the rooftops. But immigration and privacy laws bar him from breaching confidentiality in such cases.
Moreover, having the final say on applications for refugee status, he may yet have to rule on the Panah case and cannot be seen to be pre-judging it.
It is worth noting that the authority is the very same body which declared Ahmed Zaoui to be a genuine refugee.
The last thing Mr Cunliffe wants to do is create another martyr for those on the left who argue Mr Panah is the victim of a heartless Government. But neither does Mr Cunliffe wish to leave himself open to the charge from his right that Labour has issued an open invitation to anyone trying to gain refugee status to go on a hunger strike.
The relative silence from most other political parties and the absence of any questions in Parliament yesterday on his handling of the Panah case suggests he has got the balance pretty right.
It was smart to allow Mr Panah to be bailed, while placing strict conditions on his release from jail, especially requiring the Anglican Church to assume responsibility for him being housed, fed and cared for rather than the burden falling on the taxpayer.
Rather than watch Mr Panah's health deteriorate and the stand-off escalate, Mr Cunliffe's concession offers both him and Mr Panah's supporters breathing space to find a solution, such as an acceptable third country taking Mr Panah, but without revoking his deportation order.
Mr Cunliffe also threw down a challenge to the Anglican Church, John Minto's Global Peace & Justice Auckland, the Greens and other sympathisers of Mr Panah to tell the full story about him.
Mr Cunliffe will not be holding his breath for that to happen. But his challenge is a pretty big hint to the public that the facts are not quite what others seem to infer.
Mr Panah's supporters are already trying to shift the debate away from how he manipulated himself into his current predicament to whether, as a convert to Christianity, he will be safe if he is sent home.
Unless Mr Cunliffe can find a third country option, that will be a more difficult argument for the Immigration Minister to win as he can never totally guarantee something will not happen to Mr Panah. In that respect for the Government - and only in that respect - the Panah case could yet be Zaoui revisited.
