Categories
All Countries Iran

2019 RLLR 31

Citation: 2019 RLLR 31
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 21, 2019
Panel: M. Hayes
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Olha Senyshyn
Country: Iran
RPD Number: TB9-11210
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-11276, TB9-11290, TB9-11291
ATIP Number: A-2021-01124
ATIP Pages: 000179-000182


REASONS FOR DECISION

On November 21, 2019, the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) heard the claims of [XXX] who claim refugee protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). On that same day, the panel rendered its oral positive decision and Reasons for decision. This is the written version of the oral decision and Reasons that have been edited for clarity, spelling, grammar and syntax with added references to the documentary evidence and relevant case law where appropriate.

INTRODUCTION

[1]       I have considered your testimony, and the other evidence in the case, and I am ready to render my decision orally.

[2]       These are the reasons for the decision in the claims of [XXX] (the Principal Claimant or PC), [XXX] (the male claimant), [XXX] and [XXX], who 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

[3]       The allegations of your claims are fully set out in your Basis of Claim (BOC) forms. In short, you allege that you, the PC, practiced Christianity in secret in Iran, and your home was raided by intelligence officers who searched the house and arrested and detained you overnight. You were released on bail and called to court later that month. You, the male claimant, were suspended from your job as a [XXX] and [XXX] as a result of the charges of apostasy against your wife. Fearing further detention and mistreatment at the hands of the Iranian authorities because of the PC’s conversion from Islam to Christianity, you fled to Canada to make refugee claims.

DETERMINATION

[4]       I find that you are Convention refugees as you have established a serious possibility of persecution.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[5]       I find that your identities as nationals of Iran are established by the documents provided, including certified true copies of your Iranian passports, and the testimony of the PC.

Nexus

[6]       I find that you have established a nexus to section 96 by reason of your religion.

Credibility

[7]       I found you, the PC, to be a credible witness. There were no material inconsistencies between your testimony and your BOC, and other documents before me. Your testimony about your Christian faith appeared to be heartfelt. Based on your testimony, the documents you have provided, and the information in your BOC forms and narrative, I note no serious credibility issues. You submitted two letters from the Pastor of your church in Toronto that corroborate that the four claimants attend church regularly and have done so for the past eight months, and the three adult claimants are on a waiting list to be baptized. You also submitted the court summons that you received by mail in Iran, the letter suspending the male claimant from work, as well as a support letter from a friend who is a Pastor at an Iranian Christian Church in California. I have no reasons to doubt the authenticity of the evidence, and accept, on a balance of probabilities, that you are practicing Christians, and that the PC was accused of apostasy in Iran.

Well Founded Fear of Persecution

[8]       Your subjective fear of persecution as Christian converts is objectively well founded. Based on the country condition evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Iran, March 2019, the country condition documents submitted by you, and your credible allegations, I find that you have a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran by reason of your conversion to Christianity.

[9]       The preponderance of the documentary evidence corroborates that one of the most significant human rights problems in Iran is the severe restriction on civil liberties such as freedom of religion.1 Iranian law prohibits citizens from converting from Islam to another religion and Christian converts are not recognized as Christian under the law. Christians who convert from Islam experience arrest, detention, and high levels of harassment and surveillance. Many Christian converts are forced to practice their religion in secret.2 Severe human rights violations targeting religious minorities, especially Christian converts, continue.3

Nature of the harm

[10]     The harm you would face upon return to Iran, detention and mistreatment by the authorities, clearly amounts to persecution.

State protection

[11]     Since the state is the agent of persecution in your case, I find that it would be objectively unreasonable for you to seek the protection of the state and, therefore, you have rebutted the presumption of state protection.

Internal flight alternative

[12]     I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Iran, given the documentary evidence that the authorities operate similarly throughout the country. Therefore, I find there is no viable internal flight alternative.

CONCLUSION

[13]     Based on the analysis above, I conclude that you are Convention refugees and accept your claims.

1 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Iran (March 29, 2019), Item 2.1.
2 Ibid., Item 12.1.
3 Ibid., Item 12.2.

Categories
All Countries Iran

2019 RLLR 22

Citation: 2019 RLLR 22
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: August 7, 2019
Panel: J. Bousfield
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ardeshir H. Zarezadeh
Country: Iran
RPD Number: TB8-24144
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-24188, TB8-24203, TB8-24203, TB8-24204
ATIP Number: A-2021-01124
ATIP Pages: 000145-000147


DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: I’ve considered the testimony and evidence in this case and I’m rendering an oral decision. Written reasons will be provided.

[2]       This is the decision in the claims for refugee protection of [XXX], [XXX], [XXX], and [XXX]. They claim to be citizens of Iran from Tehran. They’re claiming refugee protection under Section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3]       The principal claimant was designated representative for the minor claimants.

[4]       I’m satisfied that the claimants are citizens of Iran and as to their personal identity based on their passports which can be found in Exhibit 1.

[5]       The details of the allegations appear in the answers to the principal claimant’s Basis of Claim Form which is Exhibit 2.1 and were elaborated upon by him in oral testimony during the hearing this morning. The central allegations of a much longer narrative are the following.

[6]       The principal claimant made police complaints in regard to a business dispute with a well connected landlord. The landlord retaliated by using connections in the police and the courts to have the complaints dismissed. He then had the principal claimant arrested, detained, and accused of insulting the Iranian regime. The principal claimant therefore fled to Turkey in [XXX] 2017.

[7]       Iranian authorities harassed and threatened the female claimant after the principal claimant went to Turkey. The claimants therefore fled to Canada on temporary residence visas in July 2018 and initiated these inland refugee protection claims a few weeks after their arrival.

[8]       The claimants have been politically active against the Iranian regime while they’ve been in Canada. They fear political persecution if they return to Iran.

[9]       For the following reasons I find that the claimants are Convention refugees.

[10]     The affirmed testimony of refugee claimants is presumed to be true, unless it is internally inconsistent, inherently implausible, or contradicted by documentary evidence on country conditions. In this regard I am relying on the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Maldonado.

[11]     For the most part there was no such fault with the principal claimant’s testimony. Furthermore, the allegations in the case are corroborated by a number of personal documents that I do not have sufficient to discount including probative photographs, a court order, a lease, and a statement from the principal claimant’s former business partner. These documents can be found in Exhibits 4 and 5.

[12]     For all these reasons I find that the principal claimant is a credible witness and that the central allegations in this case are all true, on a balance of probabilities.

[13]     The country documentary evidence before me indicates that peaceful political opposition to the Iranian Government and its policies and perceived opposition in this regard will attract a serious possibility of persecution by the government in Iran.  The country documents in this regard can be found in Sections I, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 12 of Exhibit 3 which is the National Documentation Package for Iran for March 29, 2019.

[14]     Therefore, based on this country documentary evidence and the credible allegations, I find that the claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran by reason of their perceived anti¬≠government political opinion and/or their family relationship to the principal claimant.

[15]     As the Government of Iran is an agent of persecution, I find that adequate State protection and viable internal flight alternatives are not available to the claimants.

[16]     I therefore conclude that they’re Convention refugees. The … these claims are therefore accepted. This decision is concluded. Thank you for corning. Good morning.

[17]     Thank you, Madam Interpreter.

[18]     INTERPRETER: Thank you.

[19]     CLAIMANT: Thank you.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED —

Categories
All Countries Iran

2019 RLLR 119

Citation: 2019 RLLR 119
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 16, 2019
Panel: I. Singh
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Brian Ibrahim Cintosun
Country: Iran
RPD Number: TB9-01998
ATIP Number: A-2021-00256
ATIP Pages: 000001-000003


[1]       MEMBER: I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case, and I am ready to render my decision orally. I would like to add that written reasons will be issued, and the written form of these reasons may be edited for spelling, syntax, and grammar, and references to the applicable case law and documentary evidence may also be included.

[2]       You, the Claimant, [XXX] you claim to be a male citizen of Iran, and you are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3]       Determination: I find that you are a Convention refugee for the following reasons:

[4]       I find that you have established a serious possibility of persecution based upon the Convention ground of membership in a particular social group based on your sexual orientation as a gay man.

[5]       Allegations: Your allegations are contained in your Basis of Claim form, and I won’t repeat them all here, but in summary, you allege the following:

[6]       You fear returning to Iran because you identify as a gay man, which is illegal in Iran.

[7]       Analysis/Identity: Your identity as a national of Iran is established by your testimony and a certified true copy of your Iranian passport found in Exhibit 1.

[8]       Credibility: Although I had some minor credibility concerns with your testimony, overall, I have found you to be a credible witness on a balance of probabilities and therefore believe what you have alleged in support of your claim. You testified in a straightforward manner without embellishment and there were no relevant inconsistencies in your testimony or contradictions between your testimony and the other evidence before me that were not satisfactorily explained.

[9]       Well-founded fear, state protection, and internal flight alternative: As it relates to the well-foundedness of your fear of persecution, I find that your subjective fear has an objective basis based on the objective documentary evidence before me. In the National Documentation Package, which is Exhibit 3, it confirms that same sex acts are criminalized in Iran, and gay men who are arrested are reported to suffer a range of human rights violations in detention, which range from harassment to physical torture. The test in assessing your risk of harm is forward-looking. You testified credibly about your fears regarding returning to Iran and the treatment you would receive. Your testimony was consistent with the country conditions in Iran, as reported in the documentary evidence. Thus, there is an objective basis to support your fears based upon your sexual orientation.

[10]     So having considered all this evidence before me, and your testimony which I believe to be credible on a balance of probabilities, I find that your fear of persecution is well-founded and you face a serious possibility of persecution in Iran due to your sexual orientation. Given that it’s the Iranian Government and authorities that you fear, I find it would be objectively unreasonable for you to seek the protection of the Iranian Government in light of your particular circumstances. I also find that you face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Iran, given that the documentary evidence shows the state authorities operate similarly throughout Iran. Therefore, I do not find that you have a viable internal flight alternative within Iran.

[11]     Conclusion: I conclude that you are a Convention refugee, and I therefore accept your claim.

[12]     And that concludes the decision and the hearing.

— DECISION CONCLUDED

Categories
All Countries Iran

2019 RLLR 17

Citation: 2019 RLLR 17
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 26, 2019
Panel: S. Benda
Counsel for the claimant(s): Adetayo G Akinyemi
Country: Iran
RPD Number: TB8-18215
Associated RPD Number: TB8-18301
ATIP Number: A-2020-01124
ATIP Pages: 000123-000127


DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: We’re back on the record and I have a couple questions I just want to double check. Did your husband ever abuse your daughter? Did your husband ever abuse your daughter?

[2]       CLAIMANT: No he hasn’t done anything with my daughter.

[3]       MEMBER: So your fears for your daughter is strictly an ultraorthodox family would raise her if she went back?

[4]       CLAIMANT: I don’t want my daughter to experience the same type of life that I experienced.

[5]       MEMBER: Counsel any comments?

[6]       COUNSEL: No.

[7]       MEMBER: If for the sake of argument I found the child not a refugee what would your options be?

[8]       COUNSEL: Well if you do do that then obviously her mother would then apply to ultimately still get there.

[9]       MEMBER: That’s right.

[10]     COUNSEL: Yeah.

[11]     MEMBER: Alright I’m going to do a decision, I’m going to do it very quickly, make it (inaudible).

[12]     Alright this is the decision for the following claimants [XXX] TBS-18215 the mother and [XXX] TBS-18301 the minor. You are claiming to be citizens of lran and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 6 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[13]     The panel finds that the claimant’s face serious possibility of persecution on the grounds of particular social group to victims of domestic abuse or gender violence or women’s discriminatory moves against women making you both Convention refugees.

ALLEGATIONS:

[14]     The principal claimant alleges that they are citizens of lran, the principal claimant alleges that if the claimant’s should return Iran they will suffer persecution by the state due to being a member of a particular social group as women fleeing gender related violence or discrimination against women.

IDENTITY:

[15]     The claimant’s personal identity and citizenships as citizens of Iran are accepted on a balance of probabilities. The finding is based on your testimony and the supporting documentation namely Exhibit 1 the passports and the national identity documents.

NEXUS:

[16]     The panel finds that there is a link between what the claimant’s fear state persecution and gender violence, gender discrimination and one of the five convention grounds namely a particular social group and therefore the group assessed the claims under Section 96.

CREDIBILITY AND FINDINGS OF FACT:

[17]     The sworn evidence of the claimant is presumed true unless there’s a valid reason to doubt the veracity of the basis of claim form. Since the claim involves allegations regarding gender related persecution the panel considered the chair person’s guidelines on women refugees fearing gender related persecution.

[18]     The guidelines assist in assessing the key evidentiary elements in determining the harm and behaviour of women facing domestic violence. The panel found the principal claimant to be a credible witness and the panel therefore believes what you have alleged in your oral testimony and in your basis of claim form.

[19]     You especially face gender related violence in an escalating amount and had no state protection and indeed later your husband accused you of adultery a stoning offence.

[20]     The claimant presented as a candid honest and forthright witness in particular in oral evidence the claimant waves her dowry(ph) rights to secure permission to leave her country.

[21]     Dowry(ph) rights are the obligations of the husband to pay to the wife a certain amount of money to ensure the quick pro quo for the waiver it was witnessed by two individuals and the exchange of promises the quick pro quo was reduced into writing and registered.

[22]     The husband about a month later changed his mind and revoked the permission to remove the child from the country, the claimant retained a lawyer and sued and the husband withdrew the objection and consequently they were both able to leave.

[23]     None of these details were in the basis of claim forms as it was not relevant but such detail and plausibility buttress the claims of their testimony. Furthermore the documentary evidence especially Exhibit 5 also supported the oral testimony.

THE FINDINGS OF FACT:

[24]     The panel finds for the following facts 1.) the principal claimant is a woman, born Muslim and now an atheist, refuses to wear a Hijab, was repeatedly beaten and raped by her husband for her religious behaviour and sexual refusals, her husband had slandered her by accusing her of adultery, adultery is an offence punishable by stoning in Iran.

[25]     In the absence of the mother the minor claimant would be handed over to the (inaudible) side of the family which is (inaudible) orthodox dismissive of women, would no doubt repeatedly remind the daughter that her mother was a whore and an apostate and raised in a society where women for cultural and religious reasons are denied full human rights and the right to choose.

[26]     The crux of the claim is the claimant’s social group namely women fearing gender related violence and lack of human rights for any women resulting in forced adherence to religious tenets and attendant punishments ecclesiastic offences such as adultery.

[27]     The panel therefore firstly finds that the claimant’s subjective fear of harm is established by her credible testimony and the panel believes what she has alleged. Your social membership as a woman in a gender, subject to gender violence without state protection will lead to your persecution and imprisonment as well as the accusation of adultery.

[28]     Secondly there’s an objective basis for the claimant’s fear based on the fact that women suffer imprisonment, lashes and death for ecclesiastic offences and domestic violence is not deemed criminal.

[29]     In support of this and the statement that Iran is an authoritarian theocracy I quote from the national data package the NDP 1.7 Home Office report, 1.9 Adultery, 1.23 Domestic violence, 5.1 Iranian women annual report, 5.3 Violence against women, 5.9 Attacks on women sexual and reproductive rights, 5.11 Women, children LGB and disabled moral crimes.

[30]     I also note that atheist is subject to the death penalty here I quote Exhibit 5 Pages 57 to 74. Consequently the panel finds that together there’s a well founded fear of persecution against both claimant’s.

STATE PROTECTION:

[31]     Both the state and the husband and his family here are the agents of harm, the state with respect to the allegations of adultery, the husband for domestic abuse. In the ladder instance there’s no protection for women suffering from domestic violence. In the former instance the state enforces religious tenets on women concerning belief, dress and punishment including capital punishment.

[32]     This is a matter of not of mere rogue agents or geographically restricted actions the persecution is throughout the state, state protection is therefore not feasible.

[33]     The NDP coupled to the evidence adduced provides clear and convincing evidence that rebuts the presumption of adequate state protection. Consequently the panel finds that there is no state protection for the claimants.

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE:

[34]     The panel has also considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for you. The claimant must face a serious possibility of persecution in all parts of the state; the state poses the threat to the claimant with respect to the adultery charges.

[35]     There is no safe location for women anywhere in Iran. Therefore there is no viable IFA.

CONCLUSION:

[36]     Based on the totality of the of the evidence the panel finds that both claimant’s face a serious possibility of persecution in Iran due to membership in a social group be it gender related violence, be it denial of human rights to women.

[37]     Consequently the panel finds that the claimant’s both the mother and child to be Convention refugees and the panel accepts your claims.

[38]     Thank you.

Categories
All Countries Iran

2019 RLLR 7

Citation: 2019 RLLR 7
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: April 10, 2019
Panel: R. Bafaro
Counsel for the claimant(s): Nahid Rahini
Country: Iran
RPD Number: TB9-00256
Associated RPD Numbers: TB9-00268
ATIP Number: A-2020-01124
ATIP Pages: 000053-000057


DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: We are back on the record. During the break I had an opportunity to review, consider and weigh all of the evidence which is before me. I find that there is sufficient, credible and trustworthy evidence before me upon which to come to a decision in these refugee claims. I am going to accept these refugee claims.

[2]       MEMBER: Madame Interpreter could you do simultaneous translation please?

[3]       INTERPRETER; Yes I will.

[4]       MEMBER; Thank you very much.

[5]       The claimants [XXX] and [XXX] claim to be citizens of Iran and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[6]       I have considered the chairperson’s sexual orientation guidelines in the conduct of this hearing. I find that the claim I find that the claimants are Convention refugees for the following reasons;

[7]       I find that the claimants have established a serious possibility of persecution based upon the Convention ground of a particular social group that is the sexual orientation of [XXX] as a lesbian woman and [XXX] as a gay man.

[8]       The allegations that form the basis for these refugee claims are set in the claimant’s basis of claim forms which are in evidence before me at Exhibits 2 and 3.

[9]       The central event which precipitated the flight of the claimants from Iran and their request for refugee protection in Canada was a gay, lesbian party which they attended in Iran before they left the country on [XXX] 2018.

[10]     Gay and Lesbian people were present at the party with other people as well their friends. The party was raided by the revolutionary guard when the claimants heard commotion, noise, screams. They were able to escape through the back door of the house where the party was being held. People were listening to music and people were drinking at this party. The claimant subsequently found out from the friends that people at this party were arrested, the male claimants partner was arrested at this party are some. The female claimant and her brother were able to escape through the back door and return to their parent’s home. They learned from their friends subsequently that people at the party had been arrested and charged by the authorities with drinking alcohol, with homosexuality and consuming drugs. So that is a summary of the core elements of these refugee claims.

[11]     The Identities of the claimants as citizens and nationals of Iran have been established by the certified true copies of their Iranian passports which are in evidence before me at Exhibit 1.

[12]     The main issue that I had to decide is the credibility of the claimants as it relates to their sexual orientation. Overall I’ve found that the claimants were credible witnesses on a balance of probabilities.

[13]     With regards to the core of their refugee claims that being members of the LGBT community on the basis of their sexual orientation. I therefore believe that what the claimants have alleged in support of their claim.

[14]     Both claimants testified here this morning they testified in a straightforward manner and I find that there are no major inconsistencies and their testimony or contradictions between their testimony and other evidence before me.

[15]     I find that their testimony with regards to their experiences as a lesbian woman and gay man were spontaneous and detailed and also I also find that the manner in which they expressed their experiences as a gay man and lesbian woman were clearly heartfelt.

[16]     Now um… although the claimants did not provide supporting documents to corroborate their sexual identity I don’t draw any adverse credibility inferences on that basis. The reason being that in Iran which is a very strict Islamic regime and a fundamentalist regime um… members of the LGBT community cannot express their sexual orientation openly in public. They are only able to express their sexual identities in private. It is also against the law in Iran for men and women to engage in sexual relations with the same sex.

[17]     The female claimant I find did have a reasonable explanation as to why she did not provide any documentation from her partner who has fled the country who was also at the party and is now presently in Turkey. Well first of all there’s a difficult, she’s having difficulty contacting her because the last time she spoke to her which was several months ago this is, she spoke to [XXX] (ph). [XXX] had actually contacted her by using a public phone, the female claimant doesn’t have a telephone number where she can reach the claimant. She also explained that because of [XXX] situation at the present time in Turkey which is rather unstable and because she finds herself in a poor condition that she didn’t think of asking her partner for a letter to corroborate her relationship with her.

[18]     I find that is a reasonable explanation for why we don’t have documentation to substantiate or corroborate the female claimant’s sexual orientation.

[19]     She also had another explanation for why she doesn’t have any documentation to substantiate her sexual identity. She said that when she was at this party she did have a purse and she had a phone and there were photographs on that phone of her partner, unfortunately all of those items were left behind at the party because , because of the raid which took place in which the revolutionary guard stormed the private residence and made arrests obviously the claimant, the female claimant wouldn’t have been in a position to be able to retrieve her purse, her personal effects, her belongings, her phone likewise the same situation applies to her brother who also had his purse there and who, which was also left behind.

[20]     So the other thing I wanted to mention about the credibility of the male claimant and the female claimant is that in Canadian refugee law there’s a presumption claimants are presumed to be telling the truth unless there’s persuasive evidence to the contrary. I find that in this instance there was no persuasive evidence to the contrary.

[21]     The Federal court has also talked about whether or not there is a requirement in Canadian refugee law for external corroboration in order to find a claimant to be credible and there was a case that went to the  Federal  court and  it’s very  recent, it’s a decision  of the  Federal  Court of Canada  [XXX] from a Mr [XXX] and in paragraph 28 of that judgement he said and I quote There’s no general requirement for corroboration and a panel errs if it makes an adverse credibility finding on the basis of the absence of corroborative evidence alone.” If there are valid reasons to question a claimant’s truthfulness the panel may also consider the claimants failure to provide corroborative evidence, that only where the claimant could not give a reasonable explanation for the absence of such evidence”.

[22]     Now in the case before me I find that because the claimants were generally credible there is no requirement that they provide corroboration and on that basis I do not make any adverse credibility findings based on the failure of the claimants to provide documentary corroboration as it relates to their sexual orientation.

[23]     In terms of the well foundedness of their fear of persecution in Iran I find that the claimants, I find that the claimants subjective here has a objective basis, based on the objective country documentation before me.

[24]     The documentary evidence before me on country conditions indicates that in Iran sorry that Iran is a seriously dangerous place for a lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans or queer person. These documents can be found at Sections 1 to 6.10 of Exhibit 4, which is the national documentation package for Iran.

[25]     Country conditions indicate that Iran is a deeply homophobic society that has severe anti homosexual statues and that it suffers from serious levels of ongoing anti-homosexual violence and persecution. Same document indicates that the Iranian authorities do not provide adequate protection to LCBTQ persons suffering serious human rights abuses of whatever nature in Iran, because the Iranian government and police tend to share and support the deep seeded homophobia found in Iranian society as a whole and those documents indicate that rather than protect Iranian police and authorities persecute LGBTQ persons.

[26]     The test in assessing your risk of harm is forward looking. You testified credibly about your fears regarding returning to Iran as a gay man or homosexual man and a lesbian woman and the treatment you would receive.

[27]     Your testimony was consistent with country conditions in Iran as reported in the documentary evidence. Thus I find there is a objective basis to support your fears based upon your membership in a particular social group of that being members of the LGBTQ community in Iran.

[28]     Having considered all this evidence in your testimony which I believe is credible I find your fear of persecution is well founded and you face a serious possibility of persecution in Iran due to your sexual orientation.

[29]     Given that it’s the Iranian government and authorities that you fear I find it would be objectively unreasonable for you to seek protection of the Iranian government in light of your particular circumstances. I also find that you face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Iran given that the documentary evidence shows that state authorities operate similarly throughout Iran, therefore I do not find that you have viable internal flight alternatives within Iran.

[30]     For all those reasons I can conclude that you are a Convention refugees and I accept your claims. This brings our hearing to a conclusion.

[31]     Thank you Madame Interpreter for your assistance.

[32]     Thank you everybody for your participation.

REASONS CONCLUDED