Citation: 2022 RLLR 56
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: July 12, 2022
Panel: Gregory Israelstam
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Adam Wawrzkiewicz
Country: Iran
RPD Number: TC2-05212
Associated RPD Number(s): TC2-05215, TC2-05217
ATIP Number: A-2022-01960
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX seek protection pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[2] All three (3) claimants are citizens of Iran.
[3] XXXX and XXXX are married to each other, and their son is XXXX.
[4] All three (3) claimants are citizens of Iran. All three (3) claims were heard jointly pursuant to Rule 55 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules.
[5] At the time of the hearing, XXXX was a minor child and XXXX acted as XXXX designated representative.
[6] The allegations of the claim can be found in the claimants’ Basis of Claim forms and in the testimony of the claimants.
[7] The claimants allege a fear of persecution on the basis of their imputed political opinion. In particular, the claimants allege that, should they return to Iran, they would be subject to arrest, detention, and possible prosecution by agents of the State, because the State imputes to them the political opinion of opposing the Iranian government.
[8] The claimants have established, in my view, a serious possibility of persecution on the Convention ground of political opinion, should they return to Iran, pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[9] As such, all three (3) claimants are Convention refugees.
[10] At the outset of the hearing, I identified credibility as the primary matter for the hearing to focus on. In particular, an assessment of credibility was required to determine whether the claimants were, as alleged, fearful of persecution in Iran, because of their political opinion.
[11] With respect to identity.
[12] On file, at Exhibit 1, is a certified copy of each of the claimants’ passports from Iran. Other identification documents can be found at Exhibit 5, submitted by the claimants.
[13] Through these documents and their testimony, the claimants have established their personal identities and their citizenship of Iran.
[14] With respect to credibility.
[15] XXXX and XXXX testified at the hearing.
[16] Claimants testifying under oath or affirmation are presumed to be telling the truth, unless there are valid reasons to disbelieve the testimony.
[17] In this case, I find no valid reasons to reject either XXXX or XXXX testimony, with regard to the fear they have of persecution in Iran.
[18] Both claimants who testified were straightforward in their testimony. Both claimants testified spontaneously and in a forthright manner. There were no major material inconsistencies or contradictions in their testimony. Their testimony was consistent with the narrative found in their Basis of Claim forms, consistent with each other’s testimony, and was supported by a number of documents, submitted as part of Exhibit 5, including letters of support from people who witnessed some of the events that led the claimants to leave Iran.
[19] XXXX testified that she was first challenged about a political opinion of hers while XXXX in 2008. The result was that she was dismissed from her XXXX XXXX.
[20] She travelled to Sweden to do a master’s degree and testified that, on her return to Iran, she was questioned at length by custom and immigration officers about her trips outside Iran and her history of making anti-government comments.
[21] She testified that she was required to sign an undertaking not to make such comments again and she testified that, after this, she found it difficult to get a state-approved job.
[22] XXXX testified that he made comments while XXXX an XXXX XXXX, regarding the Muslim takeover of Constantinople. He testified that he was summoned to the Herasat Office and informed that he was being fired for making unislamic (ph) comments.
[23] Both claimants testified about attending a party in XXXX 2020, one (1) where alcohol was served. This party was raided by police and the claimants were arrested, then separated. XXXX was released after a day, upon payment of a fine. XXXX, however, was not released for five (5) days and was mistreated during her detention, including being sexually assaulted.
[24] Both claimants testified that, after they were released, they felt like they were being monitored and followed. At one (1) point, an anonymous caller telephoned their home to threaten their son and to repeat recent conversations the claimants had had amongst themselves privately, suggesting that their place of residence was being bugged.
[25] The claimants decided it was no longer safe for them to stay in Iran and left shortly after this.
[26] As noted, I find the claimants to be credible.
[27] Taking into account the supporting evidence, I’m satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that both the adult claimants came to the attention of the Iranian government, because of comments they made while XXXX, which could have been viewed as criticism of the Iranian government or its policies.
[28] I’m satisfied that both adult claimants have been arrested and are now the subject of increased governmental scrutiny.
[29] I’m satisfied that the claimants have suffered persecution in the past and that they have a fear that such persecution will continue in the future.
[30] Having found the claimants to have a subjective fear of persecution, I turn to the question of whether this fear has an objective basis.
[31] As noted above, the claimants have credibly described events and incidents that support the allegation that the Government of Iran believes them to be opposed to the Iranian government.
[32] Country condition reports in the Immigration and Refugee Board’s National Documentation Package for Iran, dated April 29th, 2022, support the claimants’ allegations that having been publicly branded as being anti-regime, they are now at heightened risk of increased scrutiny. People who have been subject to government scrutiny may have difficulty getting officially sanctioned appointment in the future.
[33] Item 4.4 of the National Documentation Package for Iran highlights that those who are thought to be anti-government activists may be subject to harassment, arrest, and prosecution in Revolutionary Courts, where the level of procedural fairness is typically lower than at other criminal tribunals in Iran.
[34] I conclude that all three (3) claimants have an objective basis for their fear of persecution.
[35] Accordingly, all three (3) claimants have established a well-founded fear of persecution.
[36] With respect to state protection and internal flight alternative.
[37] As the State is the agent of persecution, the claimants have no reasonable internal flight alternative within Iran.
[38] For the same reason, as the State is the agent of persecution, there is clear and convincing evidence that the State is unable or unwilling to protect the claimants against persecution.
[39] This is my conclusion.
[40] Based on the evidence before me and the testimony of the two (2) adult claimants, I conclude that all three (3) claimants have established a serious possibility of persecution on the Convention ground of political opinion, if they were to return to Iran.
[41] All three (3) claimants are, therefore, Convention refugees as described in section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[42] All three (3) claims for protection are accepted.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———