Category: Iran

2022 RLLR 14

Citation: 2022 RLLR 14
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 4, 2022
Panel: Isis Marianne van Loon
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Farhad Khorsandgolchin
Country: Iran
RPD Number: VC1-06223
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is a decision in the Refugee Protection Division in the claim of XXXX XXXX who is a citizen of Iran who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

DETERMINATION

[2] I find that you are a Convention refugee as you have established a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground.

ANALYSIS

IDENTITY

[3] I find that your identity as a national of Iran is established by your testimony and the supporting documentation on file which includes a certified true copy of your passport in Exhibit 1.

ALLEGATIONS, CREDIBILITY, AND FACT FINDING

[4] Your allegations are set out in your Basis of Claim form and in your testimony. The following is a brief summary. You never agreed with the sexism and the lack of freedom under Islam in Iran. Your family sent you to Canada to study and you converted to Christianity here in Canada. You fear persecution on the basis of your conversion if you return.

[5] The presumption before me is that your testimony is true; however, this can be rebutted in appropriate circumstances such as inconsistencies, contradictions, omissions or undetailed testimony. The presumption does not apply to inferences or speculation for which there is no evidentiary basis. You have provided several credible documents to support your claim in Exhibit 4.1. There is a letter from lead pastor XXXX XXXX of the XXXX XXXX XXXX confirming your participation from XXXX 2020 and stating that as of XXXX XXXX, 2021, you were taking the 12-week baptism course and the pastor supplied his contact information and invited me to contact him if he can be of further assistance.

[5] In Exhibit 4.2, you were baptized on XXXX XXXX, 2022. There is a certificate to this effect. This was at the XXXX XXXX XXXX. A second letter from Pastor XXXX XXXX dated XXXX XXXX of 2022 confirms that you completed the baptism course and were baptized as well as your participation in church classes, activities, and Sunday worship services. Pastor XXXX XXXX states “I believe he is sincere in his new faith.”

[6] Your testimony was consistent and compelling. You were straightforward and forthcoming. You did not appear to embellish your description of events or actions, and I find you to be a credible witness and therefore believe what you have alleged in support of your claim. Your narrative and your testimony corresponds to the ample objective evidence about conditions in Iran pertaining to those who disavow Islam and convert to Christianity. Accordingly, I have no reason to doubt the central elements underpinning your claim for protection. I accepted that you have converted from Islam to Christianity and given the foregoing, I accept that you subjectively fear persecution in Iran.

NEXUS

[7] I find the persecution you face has a nexus to the Geneva Convention, that of religion, due to your disavowal of Islam and your conversion to Christianity and therefore, I have assessed your claim under Section 96. I also note that you make some statements showing you hold a political opinion in opposition to that of the Iranian regime; however, I have found the previously mentioned nexus to be sufficient to determine your claim.

WELL-FOUNDED FEAR

[8] In order to be considered a Convention refugee, you have to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. This includes both a subjective fear which you have already established, and an objective basis for that fear and it must be forward looking.

[9] Based on your testimony, supporting, documents, and the Country Condition documents, I find you have a well-founded fear of persecution for the following reasons: In testimony, you described the difficulties you had growing up. You wanted to listen to music but it wasn’t allowed because it didn’t conform to the Islamic requirements, you wanted to get together in mixed groups; once again, that wasn’t allowed, you had to hide your own feelings, you weren’t allowed to express yourself, your opinions, or your beliefs. You came to Canada to go to school and you found a degree of freedom that you hadn’t experienced before; however, you ran into a time of difficulty. There were family members who died in Iran, you weren’t able to return, you were alone here unable to work at home, and you spent a very difficult time of your life questioning the meaning of life. Then you told me that you had some acquaintance already with Christianity and its teachings and what happened was you found another meaning for your life and you found this through Christianity. You found the new meaning and tranquility and your life changed and you found that you could be happier and as you believed in your heart, everything improved in your life, you found peace of mind, a job, discipline in your life, and you attribute this all to Jesus Christ.

[10] The country documentation is consistent with your allegations of the treatment of converts such as ourself in Iran. The law prohibits Muslim citizens from changing or renouncing their religious beliefs, Under Iranian law, a Muslim who leaves his or her faith or converts to another religion can be charged with apostacy and apostacy from Islam is a crime that can be punished by death.

[11] Amnesty International stated the following in their June 2019 report entitled Iran Failing on all Fronts. Freedom of religion and beliefs continues to be systematically violated. The authorities impose, on people of all faiths as well as atheists, codes of conduct written in a strict interpretation of Shia Islam. The right to change or renounce religious beliefs continues to be violated with those converting from Islam at risk of arbitrary detention, torture, and the death penalty. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade assesses that those accused of religiously based charges are also likely to face charges related to national security and they are unlikely to have adequate legal defence and they are likely to be convicted. So, I’m satisfied that regardless of whether a convert faces the death penalty or imprisonment, the conditions and treatment are such that both amount to persecution. Accordingly, I find your fear of persecution in Iran is well-founded.

STATE PROTECTION AND INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE

[12] Except in situations where a state is in complete breakdown, states are presumed capable of protecting their citizens. To rebut this presumption, you have to establish on a balance of probabilities with clear and convincing evidence that your state’s protection is inadequate. In this case, the agents of persecution is the states. The persecution you would face if you return to Iran is at the hands of the authorities. Accordingly, I find there is no state protection available to you. The presumption of state protection is rebutted. The states are in control of its territories and therefore, I find there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Iran for you and there is no viable Internal Flight Alternative where you could safely relocate given your circumstances.

CONCLUSION

[13] Based on the totality of the evidence, I have concluded that you are a Convention refugee. Accordingly, I am accepting your claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———

[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “principal claimant”) and her spouse, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “associate claimant”). The Claimants are citizens of Honduras and are seeking refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

ALLEGATIONS

[2] The details of the Claimants’ allegations are fully set out in their Basis of Claim (BOC) forms and were supplemented by their oral testimony.[1] In summary, the Claimants fear they will be killed by the Mara 13, also known as the MS13, in Honduras because they stopped paying the ‘war tax” that the Mara 13 had extorted from them weekly and because the Claimants filed a report against the Mara 13 with the Honduran police.

DETERMINATION

[3] I find on a balance of probabilities that the Claimants would be subjected personally to a risk to their lives or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, at the hands of the Mara 13 should they return to Honduras, for the following reasons.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[4] The Claimants’ identities as nationals of Honduras are established by the sworn statements in their BOC forms and the certified copies of their Honduran passports contained in evidence.[2]

Nexus

[5] For a claimant to be considered a Convention refugee, the well-founded fear of persecution must be by reason of one or more of the five grounds enumerated under s.96 of IRPA: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. Victims or potential victims of crime, corruption or personal vendettas generally cannot establish a link between fear of persecution and Convention reasons.[3]

[6] The Claimants submit that there is a nexus in their case to the Convention ground of political opinion and allege they face persecution due to their imputed political opinion.

[7] I find that there is nothing particular about this case which takes it outside the general principles as set out in Kang. I find the Claimants were victims of crime and their lives are at risk because they face retribution for ceasing to obey the Mara 13. As victims of crime who fear future criminality, I find that the Claimants have not established a nexus to one of the Convention grounds. I will therefore assess their claims under section 97(1) of IRPA.

Credibility

[8] The Federal Court has held in Maldonado that when a claimant swears to the truth of certain allegations, it creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there is a reason to doubt their truthfulness.[4] The presumption of truthfulness does not apply to inferences or speculation.

[9] In this case, I have found no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the Claimants. The principal claimant testified in a straightforward and convincing manner and was able to answer questions spontaneously and in detail about the extortion and the fear she felt on a daily basis. The Claimants provided corroborating evidence, found in Exhibit 5, to support their allegations including their business licence, photographs of the Claimants in their business, and a copy of the police report filed on XXXX XXXX, 2021.

[10] I find that the following facts have been established on a balance of probabilities:

a) The Claimants owned an operated a XXXX XXXX, or “XXXX”, in Honduras. The XXXX was a profitable business and had a large clientele.

b) In XXXX 2021, a masked man who identified himself as Mara 13 and who had XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX attended the XXXX and demanded the Claimants pay a “war tax” of 5000 lempiras on a weekly basis. The man stated that he knew everything about the Claimants’ family and their business and stated the Claimants would be killed if they did not pay the money.

c) Based on the man’s self identification as a member of the Mara 13 and because of his XXXX XXXX, I accept that the individual who extorted the Claimants was a member of the Mara 13 on a balance of probabilities.

d) Between XXXX 2021 and XXXX 2021, the amount the Claimants were extorted to pay rose from 5000 lempira weekly to 30,000 lempira weekly. The Claimants used profits from the business, their savings, and ultimately sold their cars and some personal belongings in order to make the payments.

e) The Claimants made one payment of 30,000 lempira on XXXX XXXX, 2021. The Claimants abandoned their home and business on XXXX XXXX, 2021, the day before the next payment of 30,000 lempira was due.

f) The Claimants made a police complaint against the Mara 13 on XXXX XXXX, 2021 at a police station in a different town. The Claimants spent the night of XXXX XXXX, 2021 at the airport awaiting their flight out of Honduras on XXXX XXXX, 2021.

Risk of Harm

[11] In order to establish they are persons in need of protection under section 97(1)(b), the Claimants must show they would be subjected personally, on a balance of probabilities, to a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment which is not faced generally by others in Honduras.

[12] When I consider the objective country evidence in relation to the Claimants’ profile as small business owners who have been previously extorted by the Mara 13, I find that the Claimants have established on a balance of probabilities that they face a risk to their life at the hands of the Mara 13 if they returned to Honduras.

[13] The National Documentation Package contains several articles and reports on the Mara 13. A report by Insight Crime, states that:

The Mara Salvatrucha (MS13) is one of the world’s largest and arguably most violent street gangs. After relatively humble beginnings in Los Angeles in the 1980s, it has spread to more than a half-dozen countries and become a central focus of law enforcement in two hemispheres. In spite of these efforts, the MS13 remains a persistent threat and shows signs of expanding its criminal portfolio. The MS13 has between 50,000 and 70,000 members who are concentrated in mostly urban areas in Central America or locations outside the region where there is a large Central American diaspora. In Honduras and Guatemala, the gang is still largely urban. Violence is at the heart of the MS13 and is what has made it a target of law enforcement in the United States, Central America and beyond. It is central to the MS13’s ethos, its modus operandi, and its evaluation and discipline of its own members. Violence also builds cohesion and comradery within the gang’s cliques. This use of violence has enhanced the MS13’s brand name, allowing it to expand in size and geographic reach, but it has undermined its ability to enter more sophisticated, money-making criminal economies.[5]

[14] The US Department of State Travel Advisory for Honduras states:

Hondurans continue to be affected by MS-13 (Mara Salvatrucha) and Calle 18 gang activity in cities such as Tegucigalpa, Choloma, La Ceiba, Tela, and San Pedro Sula. Most crime victims are members of rival gangs, small business owners who resist gang extortion, passengers on public transportation, or those involved in land disputes. The MS-13 and Calle 18 gangs are the most active and powerful gangs present in Honduras. Gangs are not reluctant to use violence, and specialize in murder-for-hire, carjacking, extortion, and other violent street crime…[6]

[15] In addition, the objective evidence indicates organized crime groups, including the Mara 13, use extortion as one of their primary sources of income.[7] One clique of the MS 13 murdered approximately 40 people between 2016 and 2019 “for not paying extortions, or on suspicion that [the victims] were informants for authorities”.[8]

[16] Furthermore,

Clique leaders keep a close eye and strict control over who gets targeted for extortion, how much money is collected and how often. New targets can be proposed and accepted during meetings. Gang leaders may also discuss issues with collection during those meetings, including whether or not to discipline a target for not paying, not paying on time or absconding.[9]

[17] One recent example of retribution against a pulperia owner occurred in October 2021. As reported in a Honduran newspaper, a pulperia owner refused to pay the extortion demands and was shot and killed on the street, presumably by gang members.[10]

[18] The objective evidence discussed above establishes that MS13 is a prominent and highly violent gang operating throughout Honduras, which uses the extortion of small business owners as a primary source of income.

[19] Given the Claimants have already been targeted by the Mara 13 and subsequently stopped making their regular extortion payments, I find, on a balance of probabilities, the Mara 13 are motivated to harm or kill the Claimants in retaliation for ceasing to pay them money, for reporting them to the police, and as a warning to others who refuse the Mara 13’s demands.

State Protection

[20] I find that there is no adequate state protection for the Claimants in Honduras.

[21] The principal claimant testified that when she and her husband filed the complaint with the police, the police told the Claimants that they would not be able to protect them as the police were understaffed and underfunded.

[22] The objective evidence supports the principal claimant’s testimony. As cited above, the Mara 13 has not been suppressed by state authorities; rather, the Mara 13 has been growing in both size and geographical reach. Objective evidence shows that police response to crime is unsatisfactory and undermined by lack of training and resources:

The government lacks resources to investigate and prosecute cases; police often lack vehicles/fuel to respond to calls for assistance. Police may take hours to arrive at the scene of a violent crime or may not respond at all.[11]

[23] Therefore, based on the evidence discussed above and the Claimant’s own experience in seeking protection from the police in Honduras, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Claimants will not be able to access adequate state protection in Honduras, and that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.

Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)

[24] I find that there is no viable IFA for the Claimants in Honduras. The agent of harm is motivated to pursue the Claimants for refusing to comply with their demands and for reporting them to the police. As stated above, the Mara 13 uses violence to ensure compliance with their demands of extortion. The Mara 13 is a widespread criminal organization with significant resources and have the means and presence throughout the country to pursue the Claimants anywhere in Honduras. As already discussed, the objective evidence shows targets are disciplined by the Mara 13 for not making their payments and for absconding, both of which the Claimants have done. Therefore, I find that the Claimants will not be able to live safely anywhere in Honduras and they do not have a viable IFA.

CONCLUSION

[25] When I consider the Claimants’ personal circumstances, the objective country evidence, the lack of state protection and lack of viable IFA, I find that the Claimants have established on a balance of probabilities that they face a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment at the hands of the Mara 13 if they were to return to Honduras. I therefore find that the Claimants are persons in need of protection pursuant to section 97 of IRPA and accept their claim.

(signed) Alannah Hatch

January 18, 2022

[1] Exhibits 2.1 and 2.2.

[2] Exhibits 1 and 5.

[3] Kang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1128at para. 10).

[4] Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302.

[5] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), Honduras, November 30, 2021, tab 7.2 : MS13 in the Americas: How the World’s Most Notorious Gang Defies Logic, Resists Destruction. Insight Crime; Center for Latin American and Latino Studies. Steven Dudley, Héctor Silva Ávalos. 16 February 2018.

[6] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), Honduras, November 30, 2021, tab 7.14: OSAC Country Security Report, September 13, 2021.

[7] Exhibit 5, “Extortion Drives Displacement of Victims and Perpetrators Alike in Honduras”, Insight Crime, Aug. 2, 2018. See also, “The MS13’s Vital Fuel: Extortion”, Insight Crime, April 26, 2019.

[8] Exhibit 5, “Inside an MS13 Clique’s Campaign of Terror at the Honduras-El Salvador Border”, Insight Crime, June 5, 2020.

[9] Supra, Exhibit 3, Tab 7.2.

[10] Exhibit 5, “Pulperia owner killed due to extortion”, La Prensa¸ October 11, 2021.

[11] Supra, Exhibit 3, Tab 7.14.

All Countries Iran

2022 RLLR 4

Citation: 2022 RLLR 4
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 8, 2022
Panel: Vanessa Fairey
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ramin Joubin
Country: Iran
RPD Number: VC1-06888
Associated RPD Number(s): VC1-06913
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: So, this is the decision.

INTRODUCTION

[2] These are the reasons for the decision in the claim for XXXX XXXX, who is the principal claimant, and her stepson XXXX XXXX, the associate claimant, who are citizens of Iran and who are seeking refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I have heard these claims jointly pursuant to rule 55 of the RPD Rules.

ALLEGATIONS

[3] The full allegations are set out in the claimants’ Basis of Claim forms found at Exhibit 2. However, I will summarize the allegations briefly. The principal claimant is a 52-year-old woman who has converted to Christianity. She was born into a Muslim family in Tehran. Her father was strict with Islam and imposed many of the rules on her. However, her mother was more liberal. The principal claimant was injured in a car accident when she was about 30 and was in a coma. An elderly Christian neighbour who is friends with her mother provided prayer and spiritual support for the principal claimant’s recovery. Once she had recovered from the coma, she began to think of Christianity as benevolent. Unfortunately, her neighbour passed away.

[4] The principal claimant then came to Canada in XXXX 2019 with her stepson, the associate claimant, where she continued to explore the Christian faith. She began to attend XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and gained knowledge from the church leaders. She states that she has formally converted in XXXX 2020. She also has a sister in Canada, who accidentally advised another Muslim sister in Iran of the principal claimant’s conversion. Her sister in Iran then informed her work, and she was fired. The principal claimant alleges that her conversion to Christianity places her at risk of persecution in Iran from both the state and her family. She believes that she is in danger if she returns to Iran.

[5] The associate claimant is a 19-year-old man and the stepson of the principal claimant. He came to Canada in order to study. He feels that Shia Islam is superstitious and restrictive. He disagrees with practices that he feels are outdated and has been exploring Christianity also. At the time of his initial claim, he did not yet consider himself to identify as a Christian but stated that his beliefs and lifestyle are un-Islamic and that he has renounced Islam. In addition to being considered an apostate, he also fears an imputed religious conversion, as his stepmother has converted formally to Christianity. Moreover, his allegations note that he fears conscription to the military in Iran.

DECISION

[6] I find that the claimants are Convention refugees in accordance with section 96 of the Act.

Identity

[7] I find that the claimants’ national identities as nationals of Iran is established through their testimony and the supporting documentation filed, including their passports found at Exhibit 1.

Nexus

[8] I find that the persecution feared by the principal claimant has a nexus to the Convention by reason of religion, as she has converted to Christianity. For the associate claimant, I also find there is a nexus to the Convention by way of religion, as his renunciation of Islam is considered apostasy.

ANALYSIS

Credibility

[9] The determinative issue in this claim is the credibility of the allegations. Pursuant to the Maldonado principle, it is presumed that sworn testimony is true, unless there is sufficient reason to doubt its truthfulness. In these cases, I find there to be no such reasons. Overall, the principal and associate claimants testified with authenticity and without embellishment at the hearing, and I find them both to be credible. Further, there was sufficient corroborative documents provided which supported the testimony and which I will discuss. I therefore accept what they have alleged in support of their claims. And specifically, I accept that the principal claimant is a Christian convert who subjectively fears persecution in Iran and that the associate claimant has also renounced Islam and is in the process of converting to Christianity and therefore subjectively fears persecution, as he is considered apostate.

[10] The principal claimant was asked about her conversion to Christianity and baptism. She stated that she attended classes for about 10 months in addition to regular services before being baptized. Her family in Canada also attended her baptism ceremony. And she testified that after, when her sister in Canada sent photos of another family birthday event, she also accidentally attached the baptism photos. This caused an issue with the principal claimant’s family in Iran, and they have not had positive relations since then. On the other hand, both she and the associate claimant testified that her husband and the father of the associate claimant, while remaining Muslim, does not take issue with her conversion. Additionally, her job had allowed her leave of absence, but once the year was up, they contacted her family in Iran to inquire about her return and were told she would not return and that she had converted to Christianity. She was then fired. She also spoke briefly about being interested in Christianity while in Iran but not having the option to attend church there, as it was not allowed. She articulated that she chose Christianity because she wanted peace of mind and tranquility, and due to the interpretation of Islam in Iran that women are not considered equal to men. She stated that she tried different churches, but that her church has Farsi interpretation available, and therefore, she is able to understand the content.

[11] The associate claimant also expressed that since coming to Canada and attending church with his stepmother, he now identifies as Christian, and he has plans to be baptized in the next few weeks. He testified that he is attending classes on Tuesdays to learn about Christianity and that he also attends services on Sundays. He was able to demonstrate knowledge of Christianity beyond a basic understanding, speaking about the mechanics of a service in particular. The associate claimant was asked to expand on what he disagrees with in Islam, and he stated that he does not like the constant bloodshed and war that he feels exists in the religion. He noted that there is a lot of sadness and limitations in the Islamic traditions in Iran.

[12] There is persuasive documentary evidence submitted in the claims, which are found at Exhibits 4 and 5. Regarding her conversion to Christianity, the principal claimant submits both confirmation and baptism certificates from Holy Trinity Catholic Church in North Vancouver. She also has a support letter on file from the priest of the church, and copies of text and email communications between herself and other church leaders and attendees, as well as a copy of her dismissal letter from her employer in Iran. There is also some limited documentary evidence regarding the associate claimant. He is also named in the support letter from the church, and there is some evidence of email communication between the church and himself.

[13] Overall, I find that both claimants are credible and have established a subjective fear of persecution in Iran.

Well-Founded Fear

[14] To establish one’s status as a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, claimants must show that there is a serious possibility that they would be persecuted or, on a balance of probabilities, be subjected to a risk to life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or a danger of torture, if removed to their country of origin, in these claims, Iran. I find that the claimants have met that burden. The risk that the claimants allege is corroborated by the objective country conditions evidence provided in the National Documentation Package before me at Exhibit 3. Several documents speak to this. Found at 2.1 is the US Department of State report, which describes Iran as an authoritarian, theocratic republic with a governmental human rights record that is extremely poor. Islam is the official state religion. The law prohibits Muslim citizens from changing or renouncing their religion. The country conditions evidence found in Exhibit 3 at Tabs 12.11, 12.14, and 12.15 clearly indicates that religious freedom is virtually nonexistent in Iran, with the government engaged in systematic and ongoing egregious violations of religious freedom, including prolonged detention, torture, and execution. Regarding their religious beliefs or absence of belief, their rejection of Islam may be understood as both a religious and, by extension, even political opinion that is against the theocratic regime in Iran.

[15] The principal claimant has fully converted to Christianity, which puts her at risk of persecution as apostate from Islam. The associate claimant has been involved with the church in Canada, and given his relationship to his stepmother, who has now fully converted, a perception that he is a convert to Christianity could also be imputed to him. Either way, he rejects Islam, which is considered apostasy and subject to grievous punishment in Iran. I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimants have established a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran with a nexus to the Convention ground of religion. They fear the state and the principal claimant’s family, both. Apostasy is punishable by death, according to Iranian law.

State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative, IFA

[16] In these claims, the claimants’ religion as converts to Christianity, or in the process of converting to Christianity, and rejection of Islam is grounds of persecution. There is more than a mere possibility of persecution for both the claimants if they were to return to Iran. I find that it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimants to seek the protection of the state. As the state is feared as an agent of persecution, the claimants would not be able to avail themselves of the protection of the authorities of Iran, and the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.

[17] Furthermore, as the claimants fear persecution at the hands of the state, they would not be able to relocate to escape the risks that they face, and there is no viable internal flight alternative. I find there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout the entire country of Iran.

CONCLUSION

[18] Based on the totality of the evidence, I find that the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Accordingly, I accept their claims.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———

All Countries Iran

2021 RLLR 102

Citation: 2021 RLLR 102
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 31, 2021
Panel: Deborah Coyne
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A
Country: Iran
RPD Number: TC1-13525
Associated RPD Number(s): TC1-13539 / TC1-13540
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: These are the reasons for the decision in the claims of XXXX XXXX, the principal claimant, her daughter XXXX XXXX XXXX the associate claimant and her son XXXX XXXX, the associate claimant. They claim to be citizens of Iran and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

ALLEGATIONS

[2] The allegations are fully set out in the claimants Basis of Claim forms as amended. The claimants allege they face a serious possibility of persecution because of their imputed political opinion, as opponents of the regime and their refusal to comply with certain directives enforced by the Iranian authorities.

DECISION

[3] The Panel finds that the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution because of their anti-regime activities and their imputed political opinion as opponents of the Iranian regime. They are, therefore, Convention refugees under Section 96 of IRPA.

Identity

[4] On a balance of probabilities, the claimants have established they are citizens of Iran based on copies of the passports in Exhibit 1.

[5] Based on the testimony today and the documents on the file, including the three (3) claimants’ Basis of Claim narrative, the Panel has noted no serious credibility issues. On a balance of probabilities, the Panel finds the following allegations to be true. The principal claimant is an accomplished XXXX XXXX in Iran. As an educated professional woman, she has endured many conflicts with the conservative theocratic regime. She has defended women’s rights in many ways and has been harassed by Islamic authorities in her office and at the university where she was an associate professor. Among other things, her and her husband have also had to defend their two (2) children from the morality police, who have harassed and threatened them over the years, whenever they refused to comply with strict Islamic rules and regulations such as those concerning the dress code.

[6] In or about May 2019, in particular, the principal claimant was detained, interrogated for hours, insulted and threatened and accused of encouraging women of being anti-regime and against Islam. And there was also another episode where she was helping out some protesters in 2019, during the anti-gas protest, or anti-regime protest relating to arising gas prices.

[7] The principal claimant and her husband had sent both the associate claimants to Canada to study, to ensure their freedom from the deportations of the Iranian authorities. After the principal claimant’s ordeal, they decided to visit the children in Canada. The principal claimant stay from XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX2019, and then returned. After Iranian security shot down innocent civilians in a Ukrainian flight from Tehran in January 2020, in the wake of serious public protest, the children in Canada lost communication with their parents and were very concerned. The principal claimant feared even more for her security as sh continued to assist women in her office. And when she was denied a raise to which she was entitled at the university because of her activism and perceived anti-regime position, she decided it was no longer safe for her to stay in Iran. She returned to Canada in XXXX 2020 and stayed. Her husband returned to Tehran—he came back as well with her—and then returned to Tehran in XXXX 2020, without her and informed her after that the Iranian authorities raided her office and have issues two (2) summons (inaudible) appear in court and they continue to seek her out.

[8] Both associate claimants submitted separate narratives outlining the dangers that they and their mother face if they return to Iran and continue to oppose the subjugation of women and the violation of their rights by the authorities. All three (3) claimants decided that their lives are now at risk should they return to Iran and submitted their claims for refugee protection in August 2020.

[9] The Panel finds that the evidence with respect to the claimants’ imputed anti-regime opinion was internally consistent and plausible. There were no contradictions or omissions that go to the core of the claim. The allegations were supported by personal documents in Exhibit 5 and that the Panel finds credible. In addition to education and employment documents for the principal claimant, Exhibit 5 includes a support letter from the principal claimant’s husband, explaining in detail the reason why it is no longer safe for his wife and children to return to Iran. The Panel accepts the evidence as establishing, on a balance of probabilities, the claimants’ subjective fear of persecution because of their imputed anti-regime political opinion.

[10] Okay, so now, the Panel is going to turn to the objective basis and the situation in Iran. The Panel examined the objective country specific documents in the April 16, 2021, National Documentation Package for Iran. The objective evidence supports the claimants’ subjective fear of persecution because of their imputed anti-regime political opinion. The US Department of State 2020 Human Rights Report, that is item 2.1, notes that the Iranian regime engages in political motivated violence and repression to suppress dissent in political opinions, subject people to arbitrary arrest and detention as well as unfair judicial processes.

[11] And then, just paraphrasing—Significant human rights issues include executions for crimes not meeting the international legal standard of most serious crimes and without fair trials of individuals, including juvenile offenders, numerous reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings, forced disappearance and torture by government agents, as well as a systematic use of arbitrary detention and imprisonment, harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, hundreds of political prisoners, unlawful interference with privacy, significant problems with the indigence of the judiciary, particularly the revolutionary courts, severe restrictions on free expression, the press and the internet, including violence, threats of violence and unjustified arrest and prosecutions against journalists, censorship, etcetera, etcetera. And this is all just a quote from Item 2.1 of the NDP.

[12] Okay, in other parts of Item 2.1, it gives more details about how the authorities commonly use arbitrary arrest to impede anti-regime activities, including by conducting mass arrest of people in the vicinity of any government activities, etcetera. This is found at page 15. Authorities held some detainees at times incommunicado, for prolonged periods without charge or trial and frequently denied them contact with family or to any access to legal representation. There is lots to say in Item 2.1 about political prisoners and detainees. Impunity remained a problem within all security forces. Human rights groups frequently accuse regular and paramilitary security forces such as the Basij, in committing numerous human rights abuses, including acts of violence against protesters and participants in public demonstrations. I think that is—The Panel thinks that is a good enough summary of the dangers which the claimants have already experienced in opposing the regime in Iran.

[13] Okay, the Panel finds that the objective country documentation for Iran establishes that the claimants’ subjective fear of persecution because of their imputed anti-regime activity, is well-founded.

Briefly, Turning to State Protection

[14] As the agent of persecution in the government of Iran, the Panel finds it objectively unreasonable for the claimants to seek the protection of the Iranian state and the Panel finds that claimants have rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence.

Internal Flight Alternative

[15] The Panel also finds that the objective evidence establishes that the authorities in Iran operate similarly throughout Iran, and therefore there is no viable internal flight alternative available to the claimants.

IN CONCLUSION

[16] The Panel finds that the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution because of their anti-regime activities and imputed political opinion as opponents of the Iranian regime. They are therefore, Convention refugees under Section 96 of the IRPA, and their claims are accepted.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Iran

2021 RLLR 84

Citation: 2021 RLLR 84
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: April 6, 2021
Panel: Chelsea Peterdy
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ardeshir H Zarezadeh
Country: Iran
RPD Number: TB9-31929
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is the decision in the claim for refugee protection of XXXX XXXX, file number is TB9-31929. I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case, and I am ready to render my decision orally. You are claiming to be a citizen of Iran and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97.(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Determination:

[2] I find that you are a Convention refugee on the grounds of your religion for the following reasons.

Allegations:

[3] Your allegations are set out in your Basis of Claim form, which is found in Exhibit 2. In summary, you allege that you are a citizen of Iran who was born Muslim but converted to Christianity after coming to Canada in XXXX 2019. You alleged that you faced a number of problems with the Iranian regime that began during your university years in the late ‘70s. You alleged that you were opposed to the regime after the revolution and that you had become politically active.

[4] You were detained for one week in 1981 and questioned about your activities and your friends’ activities. You also allege that you had difficulties as a woman and struggled to find employment due to your political activities and gender. Furthermore, in March 2019, you allege you were arrested and detained for one night for violating the dress code.

[5] Your husband posted your bail the next day to have you released. He testified that you struggled a lot and experienced intense inner turmoil. In or around 2014, 2015, you began attending a yoga class. In this class, you met other Christians who would talk to you about Christianity and Jesus Christ. The yoga instructor also provided you a book on peace that included quotes from the Bible and Jesus Christ.

[6] You became interested in Christianity but could not explore further in Iran. You came to Canada in XXXX 2019 to visit your sister and started attending a Christian church here. Since May 2020, you have been attending a church online that has Bible studies in Farsi. You wish to be baptized, but because of the COVID-19 pandemic, you have unable to. You fear that if you return to Iran, you would be arrested and killed for converting to Christianity.

Identity:

[7] Your identity as a national of Iran has been established on a balance of probabilities by your testimony and the supporting documents filed in Exhibits 1 and 5, such as your passport.

Credibility:

[8] In terms of your general credibility, I find that you are a credible witness and therefore, believe what you have alleged. You were straightforward and forthright in your oral testimony. While you could not remember the name of the church, you were able to tell me your pastor’s name. You testified that you attend church twice a week online and that you were introduced to this church through a friend named XXXX (ph).

[9] You were able to tell me about the service, your favourite passage from the Bible and what it means to you, how you celebrated Easter and the meaning of the holiday, as well as what it means to you to be a Christian and the peace and calm you have found since converting. I have also considered the documentation you filed, including the assessment from the psychotherapist where you talked about the difficulties you faced in Iran and its impact that it has had on your mental state.

[10] You have been diagnosed with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and I have considered the report in assessing your credibility today. You also provided a letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX (ph) who confirms that you have been attending his church online since May 2020 and describes you as an enthusiastic member of the Farsi speaking Bible study which meets weekly.

[11] You provided an email from a friend in Iran who describes your political activities in university and how you have talked to him about Christianity for the past few years. You also provided the bail receipt confirming your husband posted your bail on March 26, 2019 after you had been arrested for dress code violations in Iran. Therefore, based on your credible testimony and the documentary evidence provided, I find on a balance of probabilities that you have converted to Christianity and that you have established a subjective fear of persecution.

Objective Evidence:

[12] The objective documentation supports your allegations and the risks you face on return to Iran as a Christian convert. The objective evidence in the National Documentation Package talks about the persecutory treatments of Christians and in particular, Muslims who have converted to Christianity.

[13] Items 12.1 and 12.15 of the National Documentation Package state that Iran is an Islamic Republic and Islam is the official state religion. The law prohibits Muslim citizens from changing or renouncing their religious beliefs and the only recognized conversions are from another religion to Islam. Apostasy from Islam is a crime punishable by death and Christin converts face harassment, interrogation, and arrest from the government and are forced to practice in secret. Additionally, I have considered the evidence in the National Documentation Package on the human rights situation for women in Iran.

[14] Item 2.1 says that amongst a significant human rights abuses in Iran, there is a harsh governmental restriction on the rights of women.

[15] Item 2.5 states that women face discrimination and personal status matters and talks about the dress code in Iran and harsh sentences for women who protest compulsory hijab laws.

[16] I find this evidence regarding the treatment of women also heightens the risk you faced in Iran, not only as a Christian convert, but as a woman. Therefore, based on this documentary evidence, I find that you have an objectively well-founded fear of persecution due to your religion that is only exacerbated by your gender.

State Protection:

[17] I find that state protection would not be available to you were you to seek it in Iran. There is a presumption that absent to complete (inaudible) are capable of protection their citizens, however, there are agents of the state themselves are sources of persecution presumptuous of state protection may be rebutted without exhausting all avenues or recourse in the country.

[18] In this case, the agent of persecution is the state that bans conversion to Christianity and restricts freedom of religion. Therefore, I find that you have rebutted the presumption of state protection and that adequate state protection would not be available to you in Iran.

Internal Flight Alternative:

[19] I have also considered whether a viable Internal Flight Alternative exists for you, however, given that Iran is in control of all of its territories and the persecution of Christians is state wide, I find that you face a serious possibility persecution throughout Iran and there is no viable Internal Flight Alternative for you.

Conclusion:

[20] Based on the totality of the evidence, I find that you are a Convention refugee and your claim is therefore accepted.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Iran

2021 RLLR 78

Citation: 2021 RLLR 78
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 10, 2021
Panel: A. Green
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Matthew Moyal
Country: Iran
RPD Number: TB9-28949
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: I have considered the evidence before me and I am now ready to render a decision orally. The claimant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX seeks refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2] The allegations on which the claimant relies can be found in his Basis of Claim form, Exhibit 2. I will not repeat all of the allegations here however the claimant is a 21-year-old man who was born in Iran on XXXX XXXX 2000. During his third year of high school the claimant met a girl of the Baha’i faith with whom he became friends. The claimant later learned that this girl had problems within her family, specifically her mother was deceased and her father was in prison and that she faced eviction because of her Baha’i faith. The claimant spoke to their local (inaudible) trying to find a resolution however he was accused of being impure and told that his relationship with this individual would cause problems for him.

[3] The claimant subsequently spoke to his father who gave him permission for the girl to move into the family’s home in the basement or cellar. This caused immense problems for the claimant and his father. Amongst those problems his father was taken and arrested in 2018. The claimant was also taken and interrogated on more than one occasion. Both the claimant and his father received bail however they continued to have problems.

[4] On XXXX XXXX 2018, the claimant traveled to Canada for studies but his family continued to have problems in Iran. After returning to Iran to support his father during his court case, the claimant was again taken by the intelligence service. He was interrogated and physically assaulted. He was asked about his time in Canada, his association with Baha’i and accused of spying. The claimant like his father was subsequently charged by the authorities with supporting and collaborating with the Baha’i cult with a view to promoting non-Islamic religion in the Islamic republic of Iran.

[5] The claimant subsequently fled to Canada again on XXXX XXXX 2019 and since his return to Canada he has received a 20-year sentence in (inaudible). His father’s case is ongoing due to delays in that court case.

[6] On the basis of your imputed political opinion I find that you face a serious possibility of persecution for a Convention ground pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. In terms of your identity I find that you are a national of Iran. This is established by your sworn testimony and the identity documents on file, in particular your passport.

[7] I found the claimant to be a credible witness. His claim is well supported by numerous documents including the bail documents for him and his father, the summons for him and his father, the court order that he received with the 20-year sentence, and the letter from the lawyer who represented the claimant and his father in Iran. I have no reason to doubt the genuineness or trustworthiness of these documents. I find that the claimant has a subjective fear. He returned to Canada immediately after realizing that his life was at risk in Iran.

[8] In terms of the objective basis for the claimant’s fear, item 2.1 of the National Documentation Package for Iran, Exhibit 3, indicates that the governments human rights record remained extremely poor and worsened in several key areas. There were reports of forced confessions often extracted through torture. There were significant human rights abuses otherwise. The government often charged citizens with vague crimes such as anti-revolutionary behaviour, corruption on earth, waging war against God and crimes against Islam. The law in Iran provides for prosecution of persons accused of instigating crimes against the state or national security or insulting Islam, and that is the situation in which the claimant found himself.

[9] In terms of the situation of Baha’i, this is also well documented.

[10] Item 2.1 indicates that such individuals were charged with spreading propaganda against the regime through the Baha’i faith. Persons of Baha’i origin face discrimination and persecution in that country. The Baha’i faith is not a recognized religion. The authorities believe that it contradicted the tenets of Islam and this explains the problem which the people of the Baha’i faith continue to face in that country.

[11] Taken together I find that the claimant’s allegations that were put forth are objectively supported and I find that he does in fact face a serious possibility of persecution should he return to that country. In terms of whether he would have adequate state protection, given that the agent of persecution is the state, I find that adequate state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming. Therefore the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection.

[12] In terms of whether or not he would have a viable Internal Flight Alternative, item 1.7 of Exhibit 3 indicates that there is nationwide capacity of the centrally organized state security services which would make it difficult or unlikely for someone facing official attention to internally locate. So I find that you do not have a viable Internal Flight Alternative.

[13] In conclusion then I find that you will face as I state, a serious possibility of persecution in Iran for which you do not have adequate state protection or a viable Internal Flight Alternative. I therefore declare you to be a Convention refugee and accept your claim.———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Iran

2021 RLLR 73

Citation: 2021 RLLR 73
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 20, 2021
Panel: Isis Marianne van Loon
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Juliette Ukpabi
Country: Iran
RPD Number: VC1-02405
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01594
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is the decision in the Refugee Protection Division in the claim of XXXX XXXX as a citizen of Iran who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to Section 96 and Subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. In rendering my reasons, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s guidelines on women refugee claimants fearing gender related persecution as well as the Chairperson’s guidelines on proceedings before the IRB involving sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.

[2] Your allegations are set out in your Basis of Claim form and by your testimony, the following is a very brief summary. You are a lesbian and you fear persecution in Iran as a result.

DETERMINATION

[3] I find you are a Convention refugee as you have established a well-founded fear of persecution based on a Convention ground.

IDENTITY

[4] Your identity as a national of Iran is established by your testimony and the supporting documentation on file including a certified true copy of your passport in Exhibit 1.

CREDIBILITY

[5] The presumption before me is that your testimony is true; however, this could be rebutted in appropriate circumstances if there were inconsistencies or contradictions, omissions or undetailed testimony and the Presumption does not apply to inferences or speculation for which there is no evidentiary basis. You provided in Exhibit 4 credible documentation in support of your claim.

[6] There are text exchanges between you and your father where you are asserting your right to make your own decisions and he is stating that you don’t have that right and that you need to return and get married. Your father states in these exchanges that in awhile you’re going to run out of money and you’ll come begging and he threatens to kill you if you don’t return. You reply that he should stop threatening you and said that you would rather die in a corner of a street than have your father or someone else that he has chosen for you control your freedom, your life, and your right to decided.

[7] There are also exchanges between your uncle XXXX and your father. Your father accuses XXXX of using black magic on you to make you turn against him and XXXX tells your father that you are able to decide for yourself. Your friend XXXX writes from Iran and states that you came out as a lesbian when you were about 13. She further describe a situation that you would face in Iran where you would have to marry and would risk persecution if your sexual orientation were ever exposed and XXXX included a copy of her passport.

[8] There is a letter from the Centre for Newcomers which confirms your attendance at various LGBTQ+ events and workshops and you provide copies of certificates of completion for some of these workshops. Your uncle XXXX letter confirms that he sponsored you to Canada as he was aware of the daily abuse that you were enduring and your lack of safety in Iran. He found a school and a place for you to live and he was able to convince your father to let you come to study.

[9] At the time, your uncle was unaware of your sexuality but you came out to him after your father began to pressure you to return to marry a man of your father’s choosing. Your uncle actually – threat, was threatened by your father and your uncle describes the religious intolerance of your family in Iran and states that as a lesbian woman, you have no place in Iran and you would be persecuted and he provided a copy of his photo ID. I found these documents were relevant and they corroborate your allegation that you are a lesbian.

[10] Furthermore, your testimony was straightforward and forthcoming. You spoke without hesitation and in detail. There were no inconsistencies between your testimony or contradiction between your testimony or the other evidence before me. I found you to be a credible witness and therefore I believe what you have alleged in support of your claim. I find that the persecution that you face has a nexus to one of the five convention grounds, that of your membership in a particular social group as a lesbian, a member of the LGBTQ+ community. Therefore, I have assessed your claim under Section 96.

[11] I could equally have analyzed your claim on the basis of your gender alone as a woman from Iran, but it wasn’t necessary to do so given the former. In order to be considered a Convention refugee, you have to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. This includes both a subjective basis, an objective basis, and it has to be forward looking. Based on your testimony, supporting documents, and the country condition documents, I find you have a well-founded fear of persecution for the following reasons: You told me how you had to hide yourself when you were in Iran. You could never speak about your sexuality with anyone but that one friend, the one person in Iran who knows about your sexuality. You tried your best to act appropriately, you said you did everything right so that no one would suspect you, you tried to conform to what a girl should be and act like, you never disobeyed, you never did anything rebellious because you were scared to death. You said from the moment that you discovered your sexual orientation and in light of the view of Iranian people about LGBTQ people, you hid yourself and until this day, no one in Iran but that one friend and your uncle who lives here in Canada knows about your sexual orientation because you were too frightened to tell them.

[12] Two months before you finished high school in Canada, your father called and told you that he had found you someone to marry. You refused and he insisted. You explained to me that if you don’t go back and marry this man in Iran, your father perceives it as ruining his reputation in the community and inaudible honour as a man. You said that when he first told you you had to return, you tried to drag it out, you said you couldn’t get a flight, the pandemic and so on, but you hadn’t even actually checked. You just said it to put him off. You dragged it out until June when you were supposed to graduate but in the meantime, you had searched online for help and you applied for asylum and continued to refuse your father’s demands and you eventually blocked him from contacting you.

[13] For a while you heard nothing but then you received e-mails in October 20. They were basically death threats. Your father told you you were going to run out of money and that your uncle would stop supporting you and then you were going to have to come back to Iran. So I find that you have induced sufficient credible evidence to establish a subjective fear of persecution if you were to return to Iran. You told me that your father and in fact the whole Islamic Republic believes that a father owns his children, especially when you are talking about his girl, his female children. You have no say and no choice in Iran, you cannot make a decision of your own because based on Islamic beliefs, women are only half that of men.

[14] You described to me your first job at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, how happy you were to have this job because you had not even been allowed to go to the grocery to shop on your own in Iran, and you had never been allowed to work. When you were informed that you had got the job, you were so excited that you said you were walking on clouds, it was one of the happiest moments of your life and you have been there now since XXXX 2020 and you’re now being promoted and how hard you worked to get that promotion. You also spoke about how happy you were simply to have a savings account as you had never been allowed to have one in Iran. You told me about coming out to your uncle. You said you gathered all of your courage and it was extremely hard, you were unable to look in his eyes and you felt like what you were saying was wrong and sometimes you said you still feel wrong for being like this referring to your sexuality but you said your uncle is an amazing man and he accepted you, He said “It’s okay, I don’t care who you are going to love as long as you’re happy” and you said that is what you had wanted to hear your entire life. I asked you what would need to change in Iran for you to live there safely, and you had no shortage of things that needed to change. You said the whole government needs to go, it’s under the Islamic Republic, and it’s run by religious leaders. You said that Islam is really involved with the law, everything is based on Islam and Sharia law. For you to be able to live freely as a lesbian in Iran, they would have to separate religion from the law so that they wouldn’t judge and punish people based on religion.

[15] You said LGBTQ+ people are criminals based on Sharia law, you don’t have an identity of your own, and it is considered a form of sickness. If you are perceived or exposed as homosexual, you need to go in front of a judge and defend yourself and convince them that you are not, and if you can’t do that, you will be punished and the punishments range from flogging to the death penalty. You said because of the way the country is run, the people have developed the same ideas and opinions as the religious leaders about the LGBTQ community and socially LGBTQ people are not accepted in Iran and the country documentation is consistent with your testimony on this. The U.S. Department of State confirms human rights abuses including crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex persons, and the criminalization of LGBTI status or conduct. The law criminalizes consensual same sex activity punishable by death, flogging, or a lesser punishment. The UK home office reports that the Islamic penal code criminalizes same sex sexual relationships and it confirms punishments ranging from lashes to the death penalty.

[16] LBGTI persons face a variety of abuse by government authorities including beatings, verbal assaults, rape, sexual assault, and torture. Furthermore, not only are LGBTI persons who openly express their sexual orientation and/or gender identity or expression likely to face mistreatment and persecution from state actors, they will also face discrimination and ill treatment from societal actors which by its nature and repetition is likely to amount to persecution. According to the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, in present day Iran, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals suffer from human rights violations and are denied the basic freedom of being who they are. Abuses are perpetrated by the Iranian government, the judiciary, and by non-state actors such as schools, communities, and families. No one is held accountable for these serious violations of basic rights. So I find the treatment of LGBTI people in Iran amounts to persecution and accordingly, I conclude that your fear of persecution in Iran is well-founded.

STATE PROTECTION AND INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE

[17] States are presumed to be able to protect their citizens; however, in this case, the agent of persecution is the state and the persecution would face is at the hands of the authorities so accordingly I find there is no state protection available to you and the presumption of state protection is rebutted. The state is in control of all of its territories and therefore I find there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Iran and there is no viable Internal Flight Alternative where you could safely relocate in the country available to you in your particular circumstances.

CONCLUSION

[18] Based on the totality of the evidence, I conclude that you are a Convention refugee. Accordingly, I have accepted your claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Iran

2021 RLLR 60

Citation: 2021 RLLR 60
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: April 6, 2021
Panel: Carolyn Adolph
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Charlotte Suzanne Cass
Country: Iran
RPD Number: TC0-00698
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01594
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is the decision for XXXX XXXX. You are claiming to be a citizen of Iran and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2] Your claim is accepted. I find that you are a Convention refugee on the grounds of being a member of a particular social group, homosexual men in Iran. Here are my reasons.

[3] You alleged the following.

[4] You are a citizen of Iran. You say that since you were young, you have understood that you are a homosexual, attracted to men and not to women. You say that because of this difference and because of the social taboo against your homosexual identity, you feared what would happen to you if you were conscripted into the military. You feared rape and other forms of violence if you fellow conscripts understood that you were homosexual. For this reason, you sought and obtained exemption from military service. You said you feared that the military would share information about your sexual identity with the state and you alleged that the state did indeed become involved in a process in evaluating your sexual orientation. You say that you fear persecution at the hands of the state for homosexuality, which can include imprisonment and execution.

[5] You alleged that it is not safe for you to return to Iran and that there is no state protection for you or an internal flight alternative for you in Iran.

[6] Your personal identity as a citizen of Iran has been established by your testimony and the supporting documents filed in the exhibits, namely a certified true copy of your Iranian passport. I find that, on the balance of probabilities, you are who you say you are, and the country of reference is Iran.

[7] I find that there is a link between what you fear and Convention grounds, membership in a particular social group, namely homosexuals in Iran. And, therefore, I have only assessed the claim under section 96.

[8] I find you to be a credible witness and I therefore believe what you have alleged in your oral testimony and in your Basis of Claim form. You testified in a straightforward manner, spontaneously and at lengths, answering all questions put to you without hesitation or embellishment.

[9] You told me you had known from a young age that you were different, but you did not know until you were 17 or 18 that there were other men like you. You told me that you had had one serious intimate relationship, and that in the year you were together with that lover, you were only able to really be together for two (2) months. You convincingly described those months. You described eating in restaurants with him and lowering your voice for certain parts of your conversation. You described walking with him holding hands and seeing the contemptuous way people around you reacted. You also explained that initially, when your psychologist warned you to try to get out of Iran because you are homosexual, you were initially not worried because you thought you could keep it hidden.

[10] And you explained how being conscripted into the military changed your appreciation of that threat. You explained that the military in Iran is full of machoism and other forms of toxic masculinity, and that was why you took the decision to risk telling the military authorities about your sexual identity.

[11] I find this to be credible testimony and I find it establishes your identity as a homosexual man who fears exposure and persecution.

[12] You provided documents to support your claim. The notice from the military that said that you were exempted from service and the application that requested this exemption because of “perversions that are contrary to social and military decencies”. There was a letter from your sister who described what it was like for her to assist you in proving your sexual identity to the authorities. She corroborates your testimony about an important moment in that process. Her letter made it clear to me that she understood and accepted that you are a homosexual.

[13] You also provided photographs with your lover as well as proof of your activities together. It is clear from those images and that correspondence that you shared that there was a real connection between you two. You showed that you had travelled together to Kish Island, including the air tickets. You also showed evidence of your involvement in LGBTQ rights in Canada and you showed that you were looking for male partners in Canada, using apps like Grindr.

[14] Based on all of the above, I believe, on balance of probabilities, that you are homosexual. I believe that you are fearful to return to Iran, because you may be imprisoned or killed due to your identity. I therefore find that your subjective fear is established by both your credible testimony and the corroborating documents, and I believed what you have alleged on a balance of probabilities.

[15] I also find that there is objective evidence for what you fear. The Iranian penal code criminalizes all sexual relations outside of traditional marriage, including heterosexual relations. In the national documentation package for Iran, it is noted that chapter 2 of the penal code explicitly criminalizes same-sex relations. Men engaged in homosexual acts can be executed on the first conviction involving penetration and non-penetrative homosexual acts, such as kissing or touching, are punishable by flogging. Additionally, there is a strong societal taboo against homosexuality and many young gay men face harassment and abuse from family members, religious figures, school leaders, community leaders and authorities. Some have been expelled from university for alleged same-sex relations. It is also known that high-level officials within the regime have continued to make derogatory statements about homosexuality.

[16] I have considered whether there is a viable internal flight alternative for you, but since the state is the agent of persecution and the state exercise control over all of Iran, I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative. And similarly, I have considered whether the state should be protecting you, but since the state is the agent of the persecution, then there is no way that we can expect that the state will do the job of protecting you.

[17] Based on the totality of the evidence, I find you to be a Convention refugee because you face a serious possibility of persecution, because you are a member of a particular social group, homosexual men in Iran.

[18] I accept your claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Iran

2021 RLLR 55

Citation: 2021 RLLR 55
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: August 23, 2021
Panel: Ted Bethune
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Adetayo G Akinyemi
Country: Iran
RPD Number: TB9-08875
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01594
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is the decision for XXXX XXXX XXXX, file number TB9-08875.

[2] I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case and I am ready to render my decision orally. I have also considered and applied the guidelines relating to gender expression and sexual orientation.

[3] You claim to be a citizen of Iran and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I find that you are a Convention refugee for the following reasons.

[4] The allegations of your claim in your Basis of Claim form. In short, you allege persecution as a bisexual man. You allege that you realized your sexual orientation throughout high school. And when you were in second year, you felt a strong sexual attraction to another boy in your school, and that you struggled with this due to the attitude of your community towards same-sex attraction. You allege that, in your final year of high school, you became involved in a romantic relationship with that same boy. You allege this relationship continued on — until 2012, when he dropped out of the university you both attended, and that you had lost contact by November of 2013.

[5] You allege that you eventually reconnected in March 2018 when he contacted you and asked for a lot of money, which you gave. However, after you realized he had a drug addiction, you declined to give him further loans. You allege that he continued to ask for money and eventually turned hostile. In November 2018, you allege he threatened to expose your sexual orientation to your wife if you did not give him further money. You allege that you then disclosed your prior same-sex relationship to your wife to prevent him from blackmailing you and then continued to refuse to give money to your former partner.

[6] You allege that, subsequently, you came to Canada in XXXX of 2019, and that while in Canada, you found out that your former same-sex partner had been arrested and had given your name as one of his same-sex partners, leading the police in Iran to begin searching for you. You allege that, in Iran, you would face imprisonment and torture, as well as possible execution by the Iranian government due to your sexual orientation. You allege there is no state protection for you or an internal flight alternative anywhere in Iran.

[7] Your personal identity as a citizen of Iran has been established by your testimony and the supporting documents filed in Exhibit. Specifically, your valid Iranian passport and Canadian visa. I, therefore, find on a balance of probabilities that your identity and country of reference have been established.

[8] I find that there is a link between what you fear and one of the five Convention grounds because of your membership in a particular social group as a bisexual man. I find on a balance of probabilities, based on your testimony and the supporting documents filed, that there is a serious possibility of persecution from the Iranian government based on your sexual orientation. Sworn testimony is presumed to be credible unless there is a valid reason to doubt it. I am cognizant of the difficulties faced by individuals in establishing their claims, including cultural factors, testifying to an interpreter, and the milieu of the hearing room.

[9] Overall, I have found you to be credible. I found your testimony flowed naturally and unprompted and was generally consistent with the evidence in your narrative. You were able to explain in significant detail about the beginning of your relationship with your same-sex partner, including that you had seen him in previous at high school, and on the first day of your last year of high school, you had an interaction with him where you lent him your only pen due to your attraction to him. You then testified as to how your friendship grew and gave examples of the small flirtatious gestures you made to one another as you tested to see if the other person was also interested in a romantic relationship, including how you both interpreted things such as inadvertent touching while walking to be romantic attraction because neither of you would shy away from such contact. You were able to candidly testify in detail about that night of your first romantic encounter, where you had the spent the Iranian New Year at his house, and he suggested you stay over, and when laying in bed together, he touched your hand and began a romantic encounter.

[10] You testified honestly and in significant detail about your same-sex partner and specific events throughout the relationship, including examples of his interest in volleyball and how that sparked your own interest in volleyball, examples of fights you had with him over his cellphone use during dinner, and the plans you made for your second anniversary to spend it together, since you had not been able to spend your first anniversary together, which had left you heartbroken.

[11] I found your description of how you lost touch, ending your relationship, to be honest, including your description of your emotions at the time and the efforts that you had made to attempt to regain contact. Also found that your description of your emotions when you reconnected with him to be candid and honest, including your emotional reaction when he asked for money and when he eventually started threatening to reveal your prior relationship in an attempt to extort more money from you.

[12] I also considered your delay in leaving Iran from when you first realized your sexual orientation in high school until you left in XXXX of 2019. You testified that your same-sex attraction was not discovered by the Iranian authorities until after you had arrived in Canada, and that you had managed to keep your sexual orientation a secret until then. I consider that explanation reasonable, and I draw no negative credibility inference.

[13] I have also considered your departure from Iran to other countries prior to coming to Canada, namely to Russia in 2007, China in 2018, and Turkey in 2018, and that you did not claim refugee status in any of those countries, but instead returned to Iran. You testified that your same-sex attraction was not discovered by the Iranian authorities until after you had arrived in Canada, and that having managed to keep it a secret, there was no threat to you and that you liked living in Iran. I consider that explanation reasonable, and I draw no negative credibility inference.

[14] I’ve also considered your delay in claiming refugee protection from when you arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2019, until you signed your Basis of Claim form on March 29th, 2019. You testified that you did not know your sexual orientation had been discovered by the Iranian authorities until March 10th, 2019, but you had a valid visitor visa for a full month after you arrived in Canada, and I note that your Basis of Claim form was signed less than three weeks after you found out your sexual orientation had been disclosed to the Iranian government. I consider that explanation reasonable, and I draw no negative credibility inference.

[15] I, therefore, find on a balance of probabilities that you have established your sexual orientation as a bisexual man. I am, therefore, satisfied that there is a serious possibility that you would face persecution at the hands of either the Iranian government or your community should you return to Iran. I find that you have established your subjective fear.

[16] I further find on a balance of probabilities that you have an objective basis for your fear because of the documented conditions for Iran, as per the evidence in Exhibit 3, the National Documentation Package for Iran.

[17] Item 2 point reads, “The law criminalizes consensual same-sex sexual activity, which is punishable by death, flogging, or a lesser punishment. The law does not distinguish between consensual and non-consensual same-sex intercourse, and NGOs reported this lack of clarity led to both the victim and the perpetrator being held criminally liable under the law in cases of assault. The law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. While few details were available for specific cases, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex activists expressed concern that the government executed LGBTI individuals under the pretext of more severe, and possibly specious, criminal charges such as rape. In June 2019, the foreign minister appeared to defend executions of LGBTI persons for their status or conduct.”

[18] Item 6.6 reads, “A number of interviews with persons accused of homosexual behaviour seem to show that the authorities use harsh measures during arrests and interrogations. Intimidation, blackmailing, incommunicado detention, rape, torture, coercion to sign, false confessions, and extrajudicial punishments such as flogging are widely practiced during detention and interrogation. In most cases, authorities try to press the detainee to make a confession of homosexual conduct and/or to reveal the identity of other homosexual persons. As various special procedures mandate holders have recognized, the criminalization of private consensual homosexual acts increases stigmatization and make people with diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, including minors, more vulnerable to community violence. Research carried out by the Iranian Lesbian and Transgender Networks shows that LGBT adolescents tend to experience homophobic taunts, insults, and threats on a constant basis, and this is in fact so common that many of them decide to isolate themselves in order to avoid being harassed or assaulted by members of the public.”

[19] I find on a balance of probabilities that your subjective fear has an objective basis. Therefore, I find you to have a well-founded fear of persecution due to your sexual orientation.

[20] As same-sex sexual activity is criminalized by the government in Iran, I find that there is clear and convincing evidence that state protection would not be available to you. Likewise, as your persecution is at the hands of the state, and the state applies its persecution throughout the country, I find that there is nowhere in Iran where you would not face a serious possibility of persecution based on your membership in a particular social group as a bisexual man. As the test for an internal flight alternative fails on the first prong, I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative for you.

[21] Based on the totality of the evidence, I find you to have a serious possibility of persecution in Iran due to your membership in a particular social group as a bisexual man, and therefore, to be a Convention refugee. Your claim is, therefore, accepted.

[22] CLAIMANT: Thank you very much, sir. Thank you.

[23] COUNSEL: Thank you.

[24] INTERPRETER: (Speaking foreign language).

[25] CLAIMANT: Thank you so much.

[26] MEMBER: Thank you very much. This hearing is now concluded. I wish you well.

——————–REASONS CONCLUDED ——————–

All Countries Iran

2020 RLLR 190

Citation: 2020 RLLR 190
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 25, 2020
Panel: M. Moc
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Peter R. Neill
Country: Iran
RPD Number: TB8-29619
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00859
ATIP Pages: 003619-003623

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of Mr. XXXX XXXX who claims to be a citizen of Iran and is seeking refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).ⁱ

DETERMINATION

[2] The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA for the following reasons.

ALLEGATIONS

[3] To summarize the allegations in the Basis of Claim (BOC)ⁱⁱ dated November 7, 2018, the claimant fears harm at the hands of the Iranian authorities as a convert from Islam to Christianity. With relatives in Canada, the claimant made two previous trips before seeking refugee protection during his third family visit. In Iran, the claimant had been studying the Bible in secret with a friend until the friend left for the United Kingdom to flee religious persecution a few years ago. Shortly after arriving in Canada in XXXX 2018, the claimant embraced the freedom to explore Christianity and began attending church. Despite attending various church services and Bible classes, in both Farsi and English, for several months, the claimant felt that should be “searching and learning more” before being fully ready to answer the call of Jesus Christ and be baptized.

[4] The claimant fears persecution in Iran on the basis of religion as a convert from Islam to Christianity. He also alleges that he would not be able to practise his religion safely and openly, fearing arrest by state officials, if he were to return to Iran.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[5] The claimant’s identity as a national of Iran has been established by his testimony, and by a valid Islamic Republic of Iran passport that was seized by IRCC (formerly CIC).ⁱⁱⁱ

Credibility

[6] The panel found the claimant to be a credible witness overall. When confronted with the panel’s concerns regarding his reavailment from Canada to Iran in 2015 and 2016, the claimant responded that he had not realized the seriousness of the risk he might face in Iran. It was only when his Christian friend fled to the U.K after arrest and interrogation by the Iranian authorities that the claimant knew he would have to stop his religious activities. The panel accepts this explanation for the claimant’s reavailment to Iran as satisfactory.

[7] The claimant was questioned on his religious practice in Iran and in Canada, including his initial motivation and gradual acceptance of Christianity as his own faith; his testimony was consistent with the Basis of Claim allegations, refugee intake forms, and corroborated by the personal documents^iv produced as part of the claim.

[8] In support of his religious identity and church involvement in Canada, the claimant submitted three letters: from his friend now residing in the U.K.; from his Farsi-speaking pastor; and from Pastor XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, confirming the claimant’s church membership, Bible study, and fellowship participation.

[9] On XXXX XXXX, 2020, counsel submitted post-hearing documents in the form of a baptism certificate, dated XXXX XXXX, 2020, from the pastor of The Living Room Church, the disclosure and acceptance by the RPD had been significantly delayed until XXXX 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 business shutdown.^v

[10] Considering the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that there is credible and trustworthy evidence before it that the claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, his profile as a practising Christian.

[11] As religion forms a basis for refugee claims, as per section 96 of IRPA, the test is whether there is a serious possibility of persecution should the claimant return to Iran. The panel finds, based on the evidence before it, that he has met that test.

State protection

[12] The panel has before it the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Iran,^vi which contains a substantial amount of objective documentary evidence on religious persecution in that country.

[13] The U.K. Home Office report, in particular, indicates that

Christians who have converted from Islam are considered apostates – a criminal offence in Iran. Sharia law does not allow for conversion from Islam to another religion, and it is not possible for a person to change their religious affiliation on personal documentation. There are reports of some Christian converts (and sometimes their family members) facing physical attacks, harassment, threats, surveillance, arrest, detention, as well as torture and ill-treatment in detention.^vii

[14] Christians attending house churches in Iran may also be arrested for “being a threat to national security … This goes both for low profile cases, and if you are a house church leader.”^viiiThe panel has before it a report on several “Christian converts from Islam who have been imprisoned in XXXX, Iran on account of their faith” and who are currently serving sentences, or facing charges, for “‘action against national security’ and ‘propaganda against the order of the system’.”^ix

[15] The panel finds that the objective documentary evidence cited above on the persecution of Christians—and especially converts to Protestant forms of Christianity, as is the case with the claimant’s established membership in a Protestant church in Canada—supports the claimant’s allegations, and that he has rebutted the presumption of state protection as a Christian convert should he return to Iran.

[16] The panel also finds that there is no viable internal flight alternative available to the claimant anywhere in Iran, as he would be prevented from practising his religion safely and openly by agents of the state throughout the country.

CONCLUSION

[17] Based on the above findings, the panel determines that the claimant has established that there is a serious possibility of persecution if he were to return to Iran.

[18] The panel therefore concludes that the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA and accepts the claim.

(signed) M. Moc

September 25, 2020

i Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, sections 96 and subsection 97(1).

ii Exhibit 2.

iii Exhibit 1, package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC.

iv Exhibit 6, personal documents.

v Post-hearing documents.

vi Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Iran, 31 March 2020.

vii Ibid., item 12.5.

viii Ibid., item 12.10.

ix Ibid.

All Countries Iran

2020 RLLR 171

Citation: 2020 RLLR 171
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 23, 2020
Panel: Bjorn Einarson
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Frances Mahon
Country: Iran
RPD Number: VB9-08349
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-00978
ATIP Pages: 000173-000178

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX, who claims to be a citizen of Iran, and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).¹

[2] This claim has been decided without a hearing, according to the Immigration and Refugee Board’s Chairperson’s Instructions Governing the Streaming of Less Complex Claims at the Refugee Protection Division (RPD)² and paragraph 170(f) of the Act.

[3] The claimant identifies as a transgender man and prefers “he/him” pronouns as well as the male name “XXXX” rather than his legal first name “XXXX”. Although his identity documentation reflects his birth as a female, his preferred pronouns will be used in this decision

ALLEGATIONS

[4] The specifics of the claim are set out in the narrative of the Basis of Claim form.³

[5] The claimant alleges that he is a transgender man who has been in a seven-year relationship with a woman named XXXX XXXX who still lives in Iran.

[6] Although he is a transgender man, the claimant alleges he is perceived to be female in Iran. As such, his relationship with XXXX is perceived as a lesbian relationship and the claimant is therefore perceived by Iranian society and the state as a lesbian.

[7] The claimant alleges that he faces a forward-looking risk of harm because he is perceived to be a lesbian.

DECISION

[8] I find that the claimant is a refugee, pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA, as there exists a serious possibility of persecution, should he return to Iran, on account of his membership in a particular social group, specifically as a transgender man who would be perceived as a lesbian in Iran.

Identity

[9] I find that the claimant’s identity as a national of Iran is established by the documents provided, namely his passport.⁴

Credibility

[10] Based on the documents in the file, I have noted no serious credibility issues. In particular, the evidence establishes the allegations as set out above on a balance of probabilities: that the claimant is a transgender man who would be perceived to a lesbian in Iran.

[11] After reviewing the documents, I have no reason to doubt their authenticity.

[12] Specific documentary evidence provided in Exhibit 4 – namely a) a letter of support from the claimant’ s partner, b) letters of support from other members of the LGBT community in Iran, c) correspondence between the claimant and his partner, and d) photographs of the claimant and his partner⁵ – establish, on a balance of probabilities, the credibility of the claimant’s risk profile. I find that these documents – to which I assign full weight – with the evidence adduced from the basis of claim narrative, is sufficient to establish on a balance of probabilities that the claimant is a transgender man who would be perceived as a lesbian in Iran.

Nature of the harm

[13] I have examined this claim under section 96 of the IRPA, as I conclude that the risk the claimant faces constitutes persecution based on at least one of the grounds prescribed in the Refugee Convention, specifically his membership in a particular social group, specifically as a transgender man who would be perceived as a lesbian in Iran.

Objective basis

[14] Given that there are no serious credibility issues with respect to the claimant’s central allegations, coupled with the documentary evidence set out below, I find that the claimant has established a prospective risk of being subjected to the following harm were he to return to Iran: that he would be subject to detention, imprisonment, or other judicial action for charges related to his perceived sexual orientation.

[15] The allegation of risk is corroborated by the following document in the National Documentation Package (NDP).⁶

[16] I have found that, on a balance of probabilities, the claimant would be perceived as a lesbian if he returned to Iran. As such, the objective basis of Iranian law regarding lesbian sexuality is essential to consider. Article 238 to 240 of the Iranian Penal Code are cited in NDP 6.2:

Article 238. Musaheqeh: Musaheqeh is defined as where a female person puts her sex organ on the sex organ of another person of the same sex.
Article 239. The hadd punishment for musaheqeh shall be one hundred lashes.
Article 240. Regarding the hadd punishment for musaheqeh, there is no difference between the active or passive parties or between Muslims and non-Muslims, or between a person that meets the conditions for ihsan and a person who does not, and also whether or not [the offender] has resorted to coercion.⁷

[17] On this basis, I find that there is a serious possibility that the claimant would charged under these provisions of the Iranian Penal Code, if he were to return to Iran, continue his long term relationship with XXXX, and live his life fully without recourse to repression or secrecy. Because these legal prescriptions constitute prosecution of the claimant’s exercise of his natural rights and punish that exercise with corporal punishment, I find that they constitute persecution. As such, I find there is a serious possibility of persecution should the claimant be returned to Iran. Moreover, I therefore find that the claimant has established on a balance of probabilities a subjective fear of persecution in Iran due to their membership in a particular social group, namely as a transgender man who would be perceived as a lesbian in Iran.

State Protection

[18] Whereas the agent of persecution is the state, I find that adequate state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming in this particular case.

Internal flight alternative

[19] I have considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimant. On the evidence before me and given that the agent of persecution is the state, and the state has effective control over the entire country, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Iran.

CONCLUSION

[20] In light of the preceding, I conclude that the claimant is a Convention refugee, pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA. Accordingly, I accept this claim.

(signed) Bjorn Einarson

October 23, 2020

1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.

2 Instructions governing the streaming of less complex claims at the Refugee Protection Division, Dated January 29, 2019.

3 Exhibit 2.

4 Exhibit 1.

5 Exhibit 4.

⁶ Exhibit 3

7 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Iran, 31 March 2020, tab 6.2: Iran. State-Sponsored Homophobia 2019. International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. Lucas Ramón Mendos. March 2019. p. 2.

Upcoming Events

Humanitarian extractivism: The digital transformation of aid