2023 RLLR 153

Citation: 2023 RLLR 153
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 21, 2023
Panel: Lusine Unanyan
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Helen S Kim
Country: Iran
RPD Number: TC2-24563
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-00894
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER:  This is a decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim of XXXX XXXX, who is a citizen of Iran and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.  In deciding this claim, I have considered and applied Chairperson’s guideline 4 on gender considerations in proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board.

[2] The specifics of this case are noted in the claimant’s Basis of Claim form and the attached narrative.  You alleged that you fear persecution from the Iranian state and Iranian society, as well as your father on the basis of your gender and religion.  I find that you are a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of IRPA for the following reasons.

Identity

[3] I find that your personal and national identity as a citizen of Iran have been established on a balance of probabilities by the copy of your passport as well as your testimony.

Countries of Reference

[4] There was a question about countries of reference in your claim as you had initially indicated in your Basis of Claim that your father has citizenship in Denmark.  There was, therefore, a question whether you would be entitled to citizenship in Denmark.  You testified that you do not actually know if your father has citizenship there and explained that you thought he might because he travelled there and had relatives there when you were a child.  You provided a letter from your mother stating the same and that she does not actually know that he is a citizen of Denmark.  You testified that you have not sought clarification from your father on this issue, given that you are estranged from him and that you fear him based on his treatment of you and your mother.  Counsel has provided documentary evidence at Exhibit 5, which explains that, according to the Danish law, if a child is born to a Danish citizen who was born abroad and has never been a resident in Denmark, then they would lose their Danish nationality when they reach the age of 22.  You are today 23 years old and you testified that you have never been to Denmark.  I find that the evidence establishes on a balance of probabilities that Denmark is not a country of reference for you and that Iran is the only country of reference in this claim.

Nexus

[5] I find that your allegations have a nexus to Convention grounds of religion as someone who converted to Christianity as well as membership in a particular social group of women.  This claim is, therefore, assessed under section 96 of IRPA.

Credibility

[6] Pursuant to the Maldonado principle, when a claimant swears to the truth of certain allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there is reason to doubt their truthfulness.  In your testimony, there were no material inconsistencies, omissions or contradictions and there were no such issues between your testimony and your Basis of Claim and the other documents on file.  You testified about your reasons for converting to Christianity.  You testified that you did not follow Islam, which is the religion that you were born into in Iran.  You did not abide by the norms enforced in Iran as it pertains to women such as wearing the hijab or dress expectations for women.  In Canada, you have lived a lifestyle that would not be acceptable in Iran such as having a partner outside of marriage and not wearing a hijab.  You have provided documentary evidence in the form of photographs of you on social media, which depict that you were not wearing a hijab among other things.

[7] You further testified about your conversion to Christianity.  You testified that you were brought into the religion by a friend of a friend whom you met in XXXX 2022.  You attended their church and felt compelled to continue attending church and learning about the religion.  You were baptised in XXXX 2022.  You have submitted evidence in the form of a baptism certificate, photos from your baptism, and a letter from a friend who introduced you to the church.  You testified about your religious practice including attending online classes, which you were able to describe and testified about the content of these classes and other experiences at church.  In considering the totality of your evidence, I find that you have sufficiently established that you have converted to and are a follower of the Christian faith on a balance of probabilities.

[8] There was a question about possible delay in claiming for refugee protection.  According to the evidence on file, your student visa expired in XXXX 2020.  There was somewhat confusing testimony on your part about whether or not you submitted requests for extensions.  You initially testified that you are unclear about what was submitted and when, stating that you had Counsel that was doing this work on your behalf.  In response to Counsel’s questions, you testified that your initial study permit was valid for a year, and then a request to extend was submitted, but denied in XXXX 2023.  You also alleged that the first time you sought to extend your stay in Canada, your lawyer forgot to submit the application on your behalf.  When asked, you testified you never made any complaints about your lawyer’s failure to do so.

[9] I note that no documents have been disclosed showing that you had status in Canada past XXXX 2020 as indicated in your student visa stamped into your passport.  In any case, even if there is a delay in claiming refugee protection, it would not be a determinative issue in and of itself.  Therefore, I find that it is insufficient to outweigh the remaining evidence that establishes your core allegations on a balance of probabilities, and accordingly, I find that the totality of your evidence is sufficient to establish your core allegations that you have converted to Christianity, and therefore, your subjective fear of persecution in Iran is established on a balance of probabilities.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

[10] I find that you have established a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran based on the following reasons.  Item 12.15 of the NDP states that a child born to a Muslim family is considered a Muslim by the Iranian government and Muslim citizens do not have the right to choose, change, or renounce their religious beliefs.  Conversion from Islam is deemed apostasy, which is punishable by death.  12.1 of the NDP states that converts face physical attacks, harassment, threats, surveillance, arrest, detention, and a number of other persecutory actions.  12.14 in the NDP states that the authorities require Iranians to declare their faith in one (1) of the four (4) officially recognised religions in order to access rights and states that those who do not are at risk of a persecution including arrest, imprisonment, and possible execution.  Item 2.9 states that, on the question of whether individuals are free to practice and express their religious faith or nonbelief in public and private, Freedom House gives Iran a rating of zero (0) out of four (4).

[11] 12.1 states that the Iranian government only recognised the Christianity of citizens who are Armenian or a Syrian Christians, as the presence of these groups in the country predates Islam or the Christianity of those who can prove their families were Christian prior to the 1979 revolution.  12.22 of the NDP states that representatives of Amnesty International have said that no one (1) can live openly as a convert in Iran.  12.15 is a UK Home Office report that likewise indicates that converts face physical attack, harassment, threats, surveillance, arrest, detention, and other problems of persecutory nature.  Based on the above, I find that your conversion to Christianity would put you at risk of persecution in Iran, and therefore, I find that you have established well-founded fear of persecution in Iran on the basis of your religious beliefs.

State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative

[12] The Iranian state is the agent of persecution in this case, and therefore, I find that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted.  Given that the state’s authority and control over the entire territory of Iran and its consistent persecution of apostates throughout the country, I find that you would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout the whole of Iran.  Therefore, I find that you do not have a viable Internal Flight Alternative.

CONCLUSION

[13] For the above noted reasons, I find that you are a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of IRPA and your claim is, therefore, accepted.

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———