Category: Iran

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.

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 ———

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 ———-

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.”^viii The 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.