Citation: 2020 RLLR 113
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 16, 2020
Panel: Liyusew Kidane
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Bahman Azimi
Country: Iran
RPD Number: TB9-31677
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-31742
ATIP Number: A-2021-00945
ATIP Pages: 000188-000191
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: This is a decision for [XXX], file number TB9-31677, and [XXX] file number TB9-31742. I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in this case and I am ready to render my decision orally.
[2] The principal claimant, [XXX], and the minor claimant, [XXX], claims to be citizens of Iran and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97 sub – Subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[3] INTERPRETER: Sorry, can you keep the sentences short please so I can? I got this one but still.
[4] MEMBER: I – I was wondering, is it possible for you to translate simultaneously so that I can read the decision for the record and the claimant will also receive the decision in writing. Do you know how?
[5] INTERPRETER: It’s going to be a little hard. No. I can’t do that.
[6] MEMBER: Okay, umm. Okay, I’ll read it in parts then.
[7] INTERPRETER: Thank you, sir.
[8] MEMBER: The principal claimant, [XXX], and the minor claimant, [XXX], claims to be citizens of Iran and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and Subsection 97(1) of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The principal claimant was appointed as the designated representative of the minor claimant. In considering this matter, I have considered Chairperson’s Guideline on women refugee claimants and child refugee claimants.
[9] INTERPRETER: I didn’t get that, sorry. Can you please speak a little louder?
[10] MEMBER: Okay, umm. Counsel, this decision will be sent in writing. Would you – is it possible for you to translate to them when in your office when you receive it? Or, they…
[11] COUNSEL: Yes. Is it the (inaudible)? As long—I mean at the end of the day I think they want to know whether the decision is positive, I think today.
[12] MEMBER: It is positive.
[13] COUNSEL: It’s positive?
[14] MEMBER: Yes.
[15] COUNSEL: Okay.
[16] MEMBER: Okay.
[17] CLAIMANT: Thank you. Thank you.
[18] COUNSEL: . Okay, so I will read it to them in (inaudible) because of the mask and all these little logistics, it’s difficult to hear you (inaudible).
[19] MEMBER: Yes. I appreciate that. I appreciate that, counsel.
[20] CLAIMANT: Thank you so much.
[21] MEMBER: Determination.
[22] CLAIMANT: Thank you.
[23] MEMBER:
Determination
[24] I find you are both refugee Conventions for – Convention refugees for the following reasons:
[25] I find that the claimants have established a serious possibility of persecution on the grounds of their membership to a particular social group, namely women facing gender-based violence due to their position to discrimination of women in Iran. Particularly, Iran’s dressing code. In light of this finding, the Panel has not assessed whether the claimants were victims of domestic abuse in Iran.
[26] The allegations of the claims are found in the Basis of Claim form. In summary, the principal claimant allege that she fears harm in Iran at the hands of her husband. And you alleged you are your husb – you – you allege that your husband was abusive, and you fear this abuse will continue if you were to return to Iran. The minor claimant also fears abuse at the hands of her father.
[27] The principal claimant testified that the claimants do oppose the Iran – Iran’s laws that compel women to wear hijab.
Identity
[28] Your identities as citizens of Iran have been established on a balance of probabilities through your testimony and the certified true copy of your passport found in Exhibit 1.
Credibility
[29] Overall, I found you, the principal claimant, to be a credible witness on a balance of probabilities. Your testimony was straightforward and spontaneous. There was no material inconsistency in your testimony. Also, I note that you did not embellish your testimony.
[30] You have testified that women in Iran do not generally have a place. That means they don’t have equal status or treatment in society. It is defined woman has no right to divorce and are forced to marry. You testified that your marriage was arranged through your family and you really didn’t have a choice to refuse. You were pressured into marrying your husband. You also testified that the minor claimant was harassed and bullied in school due to her preference to cut her hair short, wear boy’s jacket and t-shirts. You testified that women are not given value, their freedom of speech is limited, and they don’t have freedom of choice.
[31] In contrast, you testified that you and the minor claimant have no – have not been wearing hijabs since you came to Canada. You testified that you are more comfortable without hijab. I note that the claimants appear before the Panel without hijab. Therefore, I find that on balance of probabilities the claimants oppose the Iran’s dressing code that restricts women’s freedom of choice. I therefore find that you are credible and I acc – I accept your allegations as credible in that you have established your – your and the minor claimant’s subjective fear.
Objective Basis
[32] I find that your subjective fear has an objective basis based on the objective evidence before me. In the National Documentation Package for Iran, which is attached to Exhibit 3, Item 2.1 indicates that the law provides that a woman who appears in public without appropriate attire, such as the cloth scarf veil over head and a long jacket, or a large full-length cloth covering legs cloth covering, may be sentenced to flogging and fined.
[33] Item 5.4, in the NDP, states that there’s no legal definition of what constitutes appropriate hijab. Generally, girls as young as seven years old are required to wear proper hijab. This document further states the policing of women bodies is not confined to the State. Iran veiling laws have enabled thugs and vigilantes who feel they have the duty and the right to enforce Islamic Republic values to harass and assault women in public. As a result, on a daily basis, women and girls face random encounters with strangers who beat and pepper-spray them, call them whores and make them pull their headscarves down to completely cover their hair.
[34] The Panel therefore finds an objective and subjective basis to the claimants’ fear regarding the compulsory hijab on the balance of probability.
State Protection
[35] State protection would not be reasonably forthcoming as authorities themselves are the agents of persecution.
Internal Flight Alternative
[36] Given that the State is the agent of persecution, there is no internal flight alternative in the claimants’ circumstances.
CONCLUSION
[37] Based on a totality of evidence, I find the claimants are Convention refugees. I therefore accept their claims.
[38] Thank you and good luck.
———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-