2024 RLLR 8
Citation: 2024 RLLR 8
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: April 30, 2024
Panel: Pamela Smith-Gander
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Gholam Reza Shahporiarani
Country: Iran
RPD Number: VC3-12833
Associated RPD Number(s): VC3-12834
ATIP Number: A-2024-01886
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: These are the reasons of the Refugee Protection Division for the decision in the joint claims of XXXX XXXX, who is the principal claimant, and XXXX XXXX, who is the associate claimant. Both 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.
ALLEGATIONS
[2] The claimants’ allegations were fully set out in their Basis of Claim form found at Exhibits 2.1, 2.2, and Exhibit 8. The following is only a brief summary.
[3] The principal claimant is a 34-year-old woman. The associate claimant is a 35-year-old man. They are a married couple. Both claimants are born into non-religious Kurdish families, however, they are considered Muslim under Iranian law. However, they all — they are each profoundly opposed to the Iranian regime’s interpretation and enforcement of Sharia law. They disagree with the manner in which Sharia law is enforced by the authoritarian theocratic regime. They believe the Iranian government violates fundamental human rights, and that is important — that it is important to take a stand against that brutality.
[4] Both claimants actively and vociferously participated in protests against the Iranian regime, with the principal claimant starting her process in around 2011, 2012 at age 22, when she was denied entry into the second semester exams at the university where she was studying in a postgraduate program, as she was deemed not to meet the strict hijab requirements. Her protests ultimately resulted in her being barred from continuing her education. She also was arrested and held for a day in custody for her participation in an anti-hijab, anti-government rally at XXXX XXXX in 2016.
[5] She has continued to participate in anti-government rallies together with the associate claimant after they married in 2018. In 2022, during a process — protest, a woman beside her was shot, and the principal claimant, along with her friends, sought refuge in nearby residence. A woman in the adjacent apartment was simply looking out her window and was shot dead by security forces.
[6] The associate claimant began participating in protests against the government in about 2009, at age 21, during widespread protests to the presidential election. He was arrested during this protest and spent XXXX hours in custody, only being released after enduring threats and being forced to sign commitments not to participate in further protests. He was arrested again for participating in the XXXX XXXX protests in 2023, and again held in custody overnight.
[7] Since coming to Canada, both of the claimants have actively participated in political protests against the Iranian regime. They have also expressed their political opposition to the regime online. Due to their social media activities, the claimants have been identified by Iranian security forces as persons who oppose the regime, and a summons was issued against the principal claimant in Iran for — to call her in for questioning.
DECISION AND NEXUS
[8] I find both claimants are refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as they face a serious possibility of persecution in Iran due to their religious beliefs and political opinions.
[9] I recognize there is another possible nexus for the female claimant, as she could face a serious possibility of persecution in Iran due to her gender. However, I find it unnecessary to assess that third potential nexus because I have accepted their claims based on religious belief and political beliefs.
Identity
[10] The claimants’ personal identities and their identity as nationals of Iran is established on a balance of probabilities by the Iranian passports at Exhibit 1, as well as their birth certificates at Exhibit 6, and the marriage certificate of the claimants at Exhibit 4. Their identities, of course, are also confirmed by their testimony today.
Credibility
[11] At the hearing, I questioned the claimants, and I found them to be credible witnesses. They answered questions in a forthright and spontaneous way, and I did not identify any material contradictions between their testimony and the documentary evidence before me.
[12] In particular, they gave compelling testimony about how they believe life is better for them in Canada because they are not compelled to abide by the Iranian regime’s strict interpretation of Sharia law. I find their oral testimony on this point supports their allegations that they profoundly disagree with the current Iranian political system, and that this belief inspired them to actively participate in anti-regime protests in both Iran and Canada.
[13] The principal claimant also explained how, in XXXX 2023, she obtained a police summons from the Kermanshah Province intelligence campaign demanding that she attend — and that she was wanted for questioning as a result of her social media activity, wherein she expressed her unwillingness to wear the mandatory veil. She was interrogated by masked individuals who threatened to chain her, blindfold her, and send her to the prosecutor and imprison her. They also made sure to mention XXXX XXXX during her detention. She was only released after she signed a commitment that she would no longer speak out about the hijab, or about individuals who had been killed for their political views.
[14] They also provided copies, in Exhibit 8, of received SMS messages from the Islamic Republic Police for various alleged violations involving their car, from having their dog in the car to hijab and dress code violations, allegations that resulted in having their car impounded for a month with threats to shut down the associate claimant’s business, and references to other judicial consequences. On a balance of probability, I accept these documents are genuine and supportive of their allegations that they are under scrutiny in Iran due to their expression of their political beliefs, and therefore assign them full weight.
[15] I have considered the documentary evidence provided at Exhibits 5, 6, and 7. In addition to the police summons, they provided screenshots of social media activity by the associate claimant that shows the profound beliefs that the Iranian government violates fundamental human rights. These documents confirm their allegations written in their balance — Basis of Claim forms. In their Basis of Claim forms, the claimants outlined in detail why they are in profound disagreement with the political regime in Iran, and describe events in their lives that influence their current beliefs.
[16] The written allegations are clear and internally consistent, and I did not find any relevant contradictions, inconsistencies, or omissions between any of their allegations and the country condition evidence, or in the other disclosure before me. To summarize, on a balance of probabilities, I have —
———-END OF AUDIO # 1———-
———-BEGINNING OF AUDIO # 2———-
[17] MEMBER: (inaudible) claimants’ allegations are true.
Risk of Harm
[18] Both of the claimants are profoundly opposed to the way in which Sharia law is interpreted and enforced by the Iranian authoritarian regime. They have expressed these beliefs by actively participating in political protests in person, and by expressing their beliefs online. Due to this profile, the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution from Iranian authorities. This persecution will take the form of arbitrary detention, prosecution, and life-threatening treatment, either in prison or through criminal prosecution. My finding is based on the following country condition evidence.
[19] My decision to find a nexus to religious beliefs, and not only political beliefs, is related to the fact that the claimants’ right to freedom of religion covers a wide range of beliefs. According to Tab 11.1 of the National Documentation Package for Iran, the UN Human Rights Committee has emphasized that the right to freedom of thought, conscious, and religion, as enshrined by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, protects theistic, non-theistic, and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right to not profess any religion or belief. Therefore, it is to be broadly construed.
[20] According to Tab 2.1 of the National Documentation Package, religion and politics are inextricably connected in Iran. This is because Iran is an authoritarian, theocratic republic with a Shia Islamic political system. Its constitution defines the country as an Islamic republic and specifies Twelver Ja’fari Shia Islam as the official state religion. All Iranian laws and regulations must be based on Islamic criteria, as it is officially interpreted by officials there. According to Tab 2.6 of the National Documentation Package, questioning Shia Islam is considered a crime of apostasy in Iran. Those guilty of apostasy are at risk of arbitrary detention, torture, or the death penalty. It is clear that those who protest against the Iranian regime are seen as religious dissidents.
[21] There is also evidence specifically on the treatment of those who protest against the Iranian regime. At Tab 4.4, this indicates that there is little to no freedom to express dissent or peacefully protest in Iran. The government reportedly does not tolerate dissent, and critical commentary can lead to prosecution under national security legislation. There is also objective evidence showing that Iranian authorities target Iranian nationals both inside and outside of Iran if they demonstrate the dissent online. According to Tab 10.5, the Iranian government’s intelligence organization will use tactics such as searching a person’s online activities for criticism of the government. Oh. They have a special cyberspace division, and they have run a campaign of transnational repression, including assassinations, renditions, detentions, unlawful deportations, Interpol abuse, digital intimidation, and spyware. These transnational repression tactics have been used against Iranians in at least nine (9) countries in North America, Europe, and the Middle East, leading to intense intimidation of the Iranian diaspora. Top 2.1 of the NDP for Iran confirms that those who are destined or prosecuted — pardon me, those who are detained or prosecuted in Iran are subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishments by the government and its agents, including life-threatening prison conditions and severe human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings, torture, and enforced disappearances.
[22] To summarize, the claimants have beliefs against the Iranian government, which are both religious and political in character, due to the connection of religion and politics in Iran. They demonstrated the profound opposition to the Iranian government and have actively expressed those beliefs both at protests and online. The objective evidence shows that they are at risk due to their activities, including their online activities. I find that they face a serious possibility of persecution from Iranian authorities in the form of arbitrary detention, prosecution, and life-threatening physical harm.
State Protection
[23] I find it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimants to seek state protection in this case, because the state is the agent of harm. The Iranian state endorses and enforces laws which are persecutory towards the claimants. There is no evidence before me to suggest that there are independent state authorities in Iran who the claimants could approach for adequate protection.
[24] Tab 2.1 of the National Documentation Package confirms that public officials are not investigated or held accountable for such serious human rights abuses as extrajudicial executions and other unlawful killings, torture, or enforced disappearance.
Internal Flight Alternative
[25] There is a presumption that, if the state is the agent of persecution or harm, and the state is in control of its entire territory, that there is no viable IFA available to the claimants. I find the claimants do not have a viable internal flight alternative because they would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Iran. Tab 1.8 of the National Documentation Package indicates Iran and state security services are centrally organized with nationwide capacity.
CONCLUSION
[26] I conclude all — I conclude that both of the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and I therefore accept their claims.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———