Categories
All Countries Iran

2020 RLLR 78

Citation: 2020 RLLR 78
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 14, 2020
Panel: Deborah Coyne
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Mohsen Masoori
Country: Iran
RPD Number: TB9-05347
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-05418, TB9-05439
ATIP Number: A-2021-00800
ATIP Pages: 000124-000127

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: This is the decision in the claim for refugee protection of [XXX] principal claimant, [XXX] associate claimant and [XXX] the minor claimant, 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. The allegations are fully set out in the Basis of Claim form, principal claimant alleges a fear of persecution at the hands of the Iranian government because of his political opinion and anti-regime activities. The associate claimant and minor claimant also have a fear of persecution because of their imputed political opinion and association with the principal claimant, they have also been directly threatened by Iranian authorities.

DETERMINATION

[2]       The Panel finds that the principal claimant has established a serious possibility of persecution because of his political opinion and his anti-regime activity and that therefore he is a Convention refugee pursuant to Section 96 of IRPA. The associate claimant and minor claimant also face a serious possibility of persecution on a-, because of their imputed political opinion and they have been threatened Iranian authorities as well. So, they are also Convention refugees pursuant to Section 96 of IRPA.

IDENTITY

[3]       On a balance of probabilities, the claimants’ established that they are citizens of Iran based on certified true copies of their passports.

CREDIBILITY

[4]       On a balance of probabilities, the Panel finds the following facts to be true or following allegations to be true. The principal claimant worked in a [XXX] or [XXX] that had been taken over to be run by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. Worker’s wages were not paid over an extended period of time and the principal claimant joined in protests, without any income he managed with family resources and support during this period.

[5]       Specifically, on [XXX] 2017, he joined a large gathering on Labour Day, the principal claimant was detained and released after signing something said he would not protest again. In [XXX] 2017, however he did join a nationwide protest against inflation, unemployment, injustice and so forth. There were undercover police hitting protestors with batons, principal claimant was hit but he evaded detention at that time.

[6]       In [XXX] 2018, the principal claimant and his wife went to Turkey to get fingerprinted at the Canadian Embassy in order to get a temporary resident visa to go and visit the principal claimant’s brother here in Canada. At that time, he had no intention yet of leaving permanently. Upon their return from Turkey they were contacted by their town’s local intelligence services, so town of [XXX]. And they were taken into interrogation from 9 AM to 9 PM, when they were asked about why they went to Turkey and basically accused of being in Turkey to assist opposition to the Iranian regime.  They did not say anything about getting their TRV’s, if they had they might have had exit interdiction slapped on them.

[7]       When they were released, they were told that they would be contacted by the intelligent services of Ramadan which is the capital city. Both were very concerned. On [XXX] 2018 the claimant was taken into custody, he was mistreated and tortured. Panel finds his testimony very compelling and authentic. He was told that his wife and child were hurt, fortunately this was not true and he was released on [XXX] 2018. Panel notes that the associate panel-, associate claimant’s testimony in this, in this regard was also very compelling about trying to figure out where he was in the period, during his period in detention and so forth. At that point, the family decided they had to leave Canada and use the TRV’s and came here in [XXX] 2018. The claimants claimed refugee protection about four months later, once they had satisfied themselves that there was no hope of being safe if they returned.

[8]       The Panel accepts on a balance of probabilities that the principal and associate claimants have provided credible evidence to support their subjective fear of persecution by Iranian authorities and of detention and a risk to their lives as a result of the principal’s claimant’s political activities should they return to Iran. Overall, the Panels finds the claimants’ evidence was consistent, plausible, and not contradicted by documentary evidence on country conditions in Iran. The allegations were supported by personal documents that were credible, there were no contradictions or omissions that go to the core of the claim. The Panel, therefore, accepts the evidence as establishing the claimants’ subjective fear of persecution because of political opinion or imputed political opinion.

[9]       On just a few words on an objective basis. The objective basis for the claim and documentary evidence, the Panel finds that the claimants’ subjective fear is based on the document-, objective documentary evidence before the panel and is therefore well-founded. So, just looking for example at the US Department of State report for 2018, which is in the National Documentation Package for Iran. It notes that the Iranian regime engages in politically motiva-, motivated violence and repression to suppress dissenting political opinions, subjecting people to arbitrary arrest and detention, as well as unfair judicial processes.

[10]     The government’s human rights record remains extremely poor and worsened in several key areas, it goes on to give some examples. I also note that Pa-, that counsel submitted some articles that are specifically focused on persons that were detained after protesting labour protests in Iran around the same time that the claimant was on the streets as well. Panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the objective country documentary evidence supports the claimants’ allegations. And the claimants have a well-founded fear of detention and risk to their lives and torture in Iran by reason of political opinion and anti-regime activities.

STATE PROTECTION

[11]     As the agent of persecution is the government of Iran, in this case, the Panel finds it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimants the seek the protection of the Iranian State. Panel finds the claimants have rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence.

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE

[12]     The Panel finds that the objective country evidence establishes the authorities operate similarly throughout Iran and the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Iran because of their political opinion, or imputed political opinion. Therefore, a viable internal flight alternatives are not available to the claimants.

CONCLUSION

[13]     Based on the foregoing analysis, the Panel concludes that the claimants are Convention refugees and their claims are accepted.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-