2023 RLLR 179

Citation: 2023 RLLR 179
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 21, 2023
Panel: Olukunle Ojeleye
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A
Country: Iran
RPD Number: VC3-06652
Associated RPD Number(s): VC3-06653, VC3-06654
ATIP Number: A-2024-00894
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1] MEMBER:  These are the reasons for the decision in the refugee claims of XXXX XXXX, the principal claimant, XXXX XXXX, the associate claimant, and XXXX XXXX, the minor claimant who alleges to be citizens of Iran and are seeking protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.  Today’s date is December 21, 2023.  The RPD have these claims jointly pursuant to Rule 55 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules

[2] XXXX XXXX has been designated as representative for the minor child included in the claim, being XXXX XXXX, pursuant to subsection 167(2) of the IRPA and Rule 20 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules.  

[3] The Panel has considered the testimony and the other evidence in this case and is ready to render the decision orally.

[4] In reaching his decisions in the claims of the principal and minor claimants, the Panel took into consideration and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Gender Considerations in Proceedings Before the Immigration and Refugee Board.  

Allegations

[5] The claimants allegations are contained in the Basis of Claim forms and the attached Narratives.  In summary, the claimants fear persecution in Iran on the basis of the principal claimant’s imputed and actual opposition to the policies and actions of the Iranian Government.  The principal claimant is denounced by profession.  During the protests that erupted after the death of Mahsa Amini, she attempted to ‑‑ she attended to injured protesters in defiance of orders not to do so.  As a result, she was arrested, interrogated and detained for XXXX XXXX in XXXX 2022.  She was released after her mother raised money to pay for her bail.  

[6] During her detention, she and her husband, the associate claimant, were accused of not attending the mandatory celebration of the Revolution, and the associate claimant was further accused of participation in the strike by XXXX XXXX before he left the country.  The principal claimant was subsequently expelled from the job she had had for 19 years.  She has been accused of having connection with a protected stance who the government blamed for killing a member of the security agencies.  

[7] Furthermore, she has received phone calls and messages from a suspected member of the Basij, one of the security arms of the Iranian Government’s security agencies, who threatened to rape and (inaudible) her.  The principal claimant believes the same man once attacked her on the street with his face covered.

[8] The principal claimant and the minor claimant arrived in Canada and XXXX 2023 to join the associate claimant, who had been here since XXXX 2022 on a study permit.  Two (2) weeks after the principal claimant’s arrival in Canada, she was told that security officers had been to her home, as well as her mother’s home looking for her.  Fearful of harm if she ‑‑ they were to return to Iran, the claimants decided to make an application for protection in Canada.  

[9] The Panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Act.

Identity

[10] With respect to the issue of identity, the claimants’ personal identities are identities as nationals of Iran have been established by the sworn statement in their Basis of Claim forms, narratives and a certified copy of their Iranian passports on file.  

Nexus

[11] To satisfy the definition of a Conventional refugee found in section 96 of the IRPA, the claimant must established that they face a serious possibility of persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion in their country of nationality.  

[12] The principal claimant has alleged persecution in Iran on the grounds of being seen as opposed to the Iranian government because of her professional service as a XXXX and support to Iranian protesters in 2022.  The Panel finds that this has the nexus to the Convention grounds of imputed and actual political opinion.  

[13] The associate and minor claimant’s allegations have a nexus to the Convention ground of membership of a particular social group as the family members of the principal claimant.  The principal claimant, as well as the minor claimant, have also alleged persecution on gender basis, which the Panel finds to have the nexus to the Convention ground of membership in a particular social group as females in Iran.  

[14] The Panel therefore assess the claims pursuant to section 96 of the Act, with primary focus on the ground of imputed and actual political opinion.

Credibility

[15] When the claimant swears to the truth of allegations, this creates a presumption that those allegations are true unless there is a valid reason to doubt their truthfulness.  However, this presumption does not extend to inferences, which are conclusions from facts or speculations, which are allegations without any evidentiary basis.  

[16] The principal and associate claimants testified in a straightforward manner.  There were no relevant inconsistencies in their testimonies or contradictions between their testimonies and the other evidence before the Panel that were not satisfactorily explained.  The associate claimants satisfactorily explained why he changed his first name from XXXX to XXXX. 

[17] In support of the claims, the claimants provided corroborating documents, which include educational documents as well as a copy of the Notification of Employment for the principal claimant, which establishes her profile as a XXXX.  A copy of the Notice dated XXXX XXXX, 2022, she issued to the principal claimant by the Iranian police, which required her to appear at the police station by 9:00 AM on XXXX XXXX, 2022.  This corroborates the claimant’s allegation of being sought by Iranian Security Services, who have accused her of acts against the Government.  A copy of the letter issued on XXXX XXXX, 2023, that dismissed the principal claimant from her employment as a XXXX.  

[18] This document establishes the principal claimant’s allegation of being expelled from employment as a result of her fulfilling what she considered her XXXX duties as a XXXX.

[19] Extracts of phone messages from an unknown number that was tracking conversations with the principal claimant, which corroborates her allegation of being threatened with sexual assault by someone she suspects to be (inaudible) and Basij member.  Upon a review of these documents, the Panel finds no valid reason to doubt their authenticity.  The Panel assigns them significant weight as having probative values in substantiating the claimants’ allegations.

[20] Based on the presumption of truthfulness and the corroborating evidence, the Panel finds on a balance of probabilities that the claimants’ allegations are credible.  

[21] Given there are no serious credibility issues with respect to the claimants’ allegations, coupled with the documentary evidence set out below, the Panel finds that the claimants have established that they face more than a serious possibility of persecution if they return to Iran based on the principal claimant’s imputed and actual political opinions.  

Objective Basis

[22] The claimants’ fear of returning to Iran is underscored by objective evidence.  The principal claimant has been accused of defying instructions not to treat wounded protesters and obstructing the work of the security agencies.  

[23] NDP 2.1 reports that the challenges to the exercise of responsibilities by government officials can easily be construed as a political offence punishable with detention, or (inaudible) or acts perceived as challenging the domestic or foreign policies of the Iranian regime are regarded as national security crimes aimed at damaging the foundations of the regime.  

[24] The principal claimant further testified that she has been accused of waging war against God and that she would be executed, executed publicly as a warning to others.  The associate claimant testified that he’s likely to be executed as a foreign spy if he returns to Iran.  

[25] NDP 2.1 further notes that political dissidents and those perceived to be opposed to the theocracy of the Iranian regime are regarded as “waging war against God, struggling against the precepts of Islam, working to undermine the establishment,” and working for foreign agents or entities.  It is reported that those perceived as working to undermine the establishment, as the principal and associate claimants have been accused, face potential executions for crimes not meeting the international legal standard of “most serious crimes” and without fair trial.  

[26] NDP 1.7 indicates that significant human rights abuses in Iran include unlawful and arbitrary executions for crimes that do not meet international legal standard of most serious crimes.  There are unfair trials of individuals including juvenile offenders, torture by government agents and forced disappearances, harsh and life threatening prison conditions, as well as the systematic use of imprisonment and arbitrary detentions.  

[27] NDP 9.1 states that the use of torture in Iran has become widespread, with many Iranians fleeing the country to find sanctuary outside its borders.  

[28] Based on the totality of the evidence, the Panel fears that the claimants have demonstrated an objective basis for their subjective fear of persecution.  

[29] The Panel finds that the principal claimant is a person with actual and imputed political opinion seen as opposing the Islamic theocratic Government of Iran faces a forward facing serious possibility of being arrest, torture, arbitrary detention and imprisonment, and even death should she return to Iran.  The Panel also finds that the associate are minor claimants as family members of the principal claimant do face a serious possibility of persecution if they were to return to Iran.  

State Protection

[30] The Panel finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that the state is unable to provide the claimant with adequate protection in these claims, given the evidence that the state, this government of Iran, is the agent of persecution.  The Panel finds that the presumption of state protection is rebutted and that adequate operationally effective state protection is not available to the claimants in their circumstances.  

Internal Flight Alternative

[31] The Panel also considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimants.  As the Iranian Government is the agent of persecution and is an effective control of its territory, the Panel finds that the claimants would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Iran.  The Panel therefore finds that there is no viable internal flight alternative for the claimants within their country.  

CONCLUSION

[32] Consequently, for the reasons given, and upon consideration of the whole of the evidence, the Refugee Protection Division determines that XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX are Convention refuges under section 96 of Act.

[33] Accordingly, the Panel accepts their claims.  

——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———