2023 RLLR 213
Citation: 2023 RLLR 213
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 7, 2023
Panel: Ryan Krueger
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Arash Esmaili
Country: Iran
RPD Number: TC3-27421
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-01133
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: These are the reasons for decision.
INTRODUCTION
[2] This is the oral decision for the claimant who is a citizen of Iran and who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
ALLEGATIONS
[3] The specifics of this case are set out in the narrative portion of the claimant’s Basis of Claim BOC form in Exhibit 2. In short, the claimant alleges that he fears persecution at the hands of the agents of the Islamic regime in Iran due to his religious conversion from Islam to Christianity.
Decision on Interlocutory Matter
[4] The Panel allowed documents (inaudible) Exhibit 7 beyond the time limits set out by RPD rule 34 at the outset of the hearing as the Panel was satisfied that the evidence was relevant, probative, and cannot have been provided earlier.
DETERMINATION
[5] The Panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[6] The claimant has established his identity as a national of Iran on a balance of probabilities by his testimony and the supporting documentation filed, namely a copy of his Iranian passport in Exhibit 1.
Nexus
[7] The Panel finds that the claimant has established a nexus to the Convention refugee definition, as the claimant fears serious harm on account of religion. This claim will therefore be assessed pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Credibility and Subjective Fear
[8] The claimant generally testified in a straightforward manner that was predominantly consistent with all the other documents on file, including his BOC form and narrative, and he was able to answer all the Panel’s questions fully and provide all details that were requested of him. There were no relevant inconsistencies in his testimony or contradictions between his testimony and the other evidence before the Panel which have not been satisfactorily explained.
[9] As a result, the Panel has no reason to doubt the genuineness of the documents on file and assigns them full weight. The Panel also considered the claimant’s profile, including his age, education, and mental capacity in conjunction with his medical report, outlining the deterioration of his cognitive functioning in Exhibit 7 when credibility concerns arose from moments of any vague or incoherent testimony. The Panel subsequently did not draw any adverse inferences concerning the claimant’s overall credibility and accordingly finds that the claimant was a credible witness overall.
[10] The claimant gave testimony about his conversion to the Christian religious faith and the beliefs of Christianity. The claimant testified that he became motivated to convert to Christianity following an eye surgery he received while in Iran. He testified that should his eyesight improve and return, he vows to embrace the Christian faith. The claimant testified that he informed his daughter that he wished to convert to Christianity upon his arrival in Canada, and that he was approached by a gentleman that introduced him to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.
[11] He testified that he converted to Christianity in his mind when he entered Canada, and that he was later baptized and felt that his sins were forgiven. Moreover, the claimant testified about his favorite passage from the Bible regarding Communion and the Last Supper. He also testified in detail about the topic of a recent sermon he attended at church. The claimant testified that he regularly attends the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on a weekly basis, and that his Christian faith is important to him, as it was responsible for healing his eyesight.
[12] The claimant’s testimony concerning his Christian religious faith is corroborated by a surgery report, a baptism certificate, and a letter of support from the senior pastor at the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as well as a photograph of the claimant attending the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, in addition to a letter of support, and baptism certificate from an individual in Canada that introduced the claimant to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and this is all found in Exhibit 5.
[13] In consideration of the claimant’s allegations of forward-facing risk concerning what they claimant fears will happen to him if he returned to Iran, the claimant testified that he will be deemed as an apostate due to his conversion to Christianity and will be arrested and mistreated by the regime on this basis. The Panel finds that the claimant has established his allegations of risk on a balance of probabilities, and that he has established a subjective fear of persecution in Iran through his testimony and all the other documents on file.
Objective Basis
[14] The objective evidence supports the claimant’s fear of return to Iran because of their conversion from Islam to Christianity. The Panel finds that the objective evidence supports their subjective fear and establishes a serious possibility of persecution for the claimants if they are forced to return to Iran, and the Panel’s reasons are as follows. The objective evidence indicates that the law of Iran prohibits Muslim citizens from changing or renouncing their religious beliefs. Conversion from Islam may be considered apostasy under Sharia, a crime punishable by death. And that is at the National Documentation Package, NDP at Item 12.1.
[15] Furthermore, the evidence at NDP Item 12.15 indicates that the state has taken drastic measures against house churches, including arresting Christian converts in Iran. Moreover, the same evidence indicates that the Iranian state monitors its diaspora abroad, including Christian converts, and the state authorities regularly harass, and they target and use family members in Iran in order to pressure converts to return to face prosecution.
[16] Therefore based on all the evidence before it, the Panel finds that the claimant will face a serious possibility of persecution if forced to return to Iran, and his fear is indeed well-founded.
State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative, IFA
[17] Given that the state is an agent of harm, the Panel finds that adequate state protection is not available to the claimant. In consideration of the evidence, Iran will not afford the claimant the protection that we expect of the state, and therefore the claimant is consequently unable to obtain adequate protection from the country. Further, the Panel has also considered whether the claimant has IFA and has concluded that he does not.
[18] As the Iranian authorities control the entirety of the country and given the state’s capacity and laws against apostasy throughout Iran, the Panel finds that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout the country and accordingly finds there is no IFA available to him.
CONCLUSION
[19] For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act, and therefore accepts his claim.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———