Categories
All Countries Iran

2019 RLLR 17

Citation: 2019 RLLR 17
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 26, 2019
Panel: S. Benda
Counsel for the claimant(s): Adetayo G Akinyemi
Country: Iran
RPD Number: TB8-18215
Associated RPD Number: TB8-18301
ATIP Number: A-2020-01124
ATIP Pages: 000123-000127


DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: We’re back on the record and I have a couple questions I just want to double check. Did your husband ever abuse your daughter? Did your husband ever abuse your daughter?

[2]       CLAIMANT: No he hasn’t done anything with my daughter.

[3]       MEMBER: So your fears for your daughter is strictly an ultraorthodox family would raise her if she went back?

[4]       CLAIMANT: I don’t want my daughter to experience the same type of life that I experienced.

[5]       MEMBER: Counsel any comments?

[6]       COUNSEL: No.

[7]       MEMBER: If for the sake of argument I found the child not a refugee what would your options be?

[8]       COUNSEL: Well if you do do that then obviously her mother would then apply to ultimately still get there.

[9]       MEMBER: That’s right.

[10]     COUNSEL: Yeah.

[11]     MEMBER: Alright I’m going to do a decision, I’m going to do it very quickly, make it (inaudible).

[12]     Alright this is the decision for the following claimants [XXX] TB8-18215 the mother and [XXX] TB8-18301 the minor. You are claiming to be citizens of lran and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 6 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[13]     The panel finds that the claimant’s face serious possibility of persecution on the grounds of particular social group to victims of domestic abuse or gender violence or women’s discriminatory moves against women making you both Convention refugees.

ALLEGATIONS:

[14]     The principal claimant alleges that they are citizens of lran, the principal claimant alleges that if the claimant’s should return Iran they will suffer persecution by the state due to being a member of a particular social group as women fleeing gender related violence or discrimination against women.

IDENTITY:

[15]     The claimant’s personal identity and citizenships as citizens of Iran are accepted on a balance of probabilities. The finding is based on your testimony and the supporting documentation namely Exhibit 1 the passports and the national identity documents.

NEXUS:

[16]     The panel finds that there is a link between what the claimant’s fear state persecution and gender violence, gender discrimination and one of the five convention grounds namely a particular social group and therefore the group assessed the claims under Section 96.

CREDIBILITY AND FINDINGS OF FACT:

[17]     The sworn evidence of the claimant is presumed true unless there’s a valid reason to doubt the veracity of the basis of claim form. Since the claim involves allegations regarding gender related persecution the panel considered the chair person’s guidelines on women refugees fearing gender related persecution.

[18]     The guidelines assist in assessing the key evidentiary elements in determining the harm and behaviour of women facing domestic violence. The panel found the principal claimant to be a credible witness and the panel therefore believes what you have alleged in your oral testimony and in your basis of claim form.

[19]     You especially face gender related violence in an escalating amount and had no state protection and indeed later your husband accused you of adultery a stoning offence.

[20]     The claimant presented as a candid honest and forthright witness in particular in oral evidence the claimant waves her dowry(ph) rights to secure permission to leave her country.

[21]     Dowry(ph) rights are the obligations of the husband to pay to the wife a certain amount of money to ensure the quick pro quo for the waiver it was witnessed by two individuals and the exchange of promises the quick pro quo was reduced into writing and registered.

[22]     The husband about a month later changed his mind and revoked the permission to remove the child from the country, the claimant retained a lawyer and sued and the husband withdrew the objection and consequently they were both able to leave.

[23]     None of these details were in the basis of claim forms as it was not relevant but such detail and plausibility buttress the claims of their testimony. Furthermore the documentary evidence especially Exhibit 5 also supported the oral testimony.

THE FINDINGS OF FACT:

[24]     The panel finds for the following facts 1.) the principal claimant is a woman, born Muslim and now an atheist, refuses to wear a Hijab, was repeatedly beaten and raped by her husband for her religious behaviour and sexual refusals, her husband had slandered her by accusing her of adultery, adultery is an offence punishable by stoning in Iran.

[25]     In the absence of the mother the minor claimant would be handed over to the (inaudible) side of the family which is (inaudible) orthodox dismissive of women, would no doubt repeatedly remind the daughter that her mother was a whore and an apostate and raised in a society where women for cultural and religious reasons are denied full human rights and the right to choose.

[26]     The crux of the claim is the claimant’s social group namely women fearing gender related violence and lack of human rights for any women resulting in forced adherence to religious tenets and attendant punishments ecclesiastic offences such as adultery.

[27]     The panel therefore firstly finds that the claimant’s subjective fear of harm is established by her credible testimony and the panel believes what she has alleged. Your social membership as a woman in a gender, subject to gender violence without state protection will lead to your persecution and imprisonment as well as the accusation of adultery.

[28]     Secondly there’s an objective basis for the claimant’s fear based on the fact that women suffer imprisonment, lashes and death for ecclesiastic offences and domestic violence is not deemed criminal.

[29]     In support of this and the statement that Iran is an authoritarian theocracy I quote from the national data package the NDP 1.7 Home Office report, 1.9 Adultery, 1.23 Domestic violence, 5.1 Iranian women annual report, 5.3 Violence against women, 5.9 Attacks on women sexual and reproductive rights, 5.11 Women, children LGB and disabled moral crimes.

[30]     I also note that atheist is subject to the death penalty here I quote Exhibit 5 Pages 57 to 74. Consequently the panel finds that together there’s a well founded fear of persecution against both claimant’s.

STATE PROTECTION:

[31]     Both the state and the husband and his family here are the agents of harm, the state with respect to the allegations of adultery, the husband for domestic abuse. In the ladder instance there’s no protection for women suffering from domestic violence. In the former instance the state enforces religious tenets on women concerning belief, dress and punishment including capital punishment.

[32]     This is a matter of not of mere rogue agents or geographically restricted actions the persecution is throughout the state, state protection is therefore not feasible.

[33]     The NDP coupled to the evidence adduced provides clear and convincing evidence that rebuts the presumption of adequate state protection. Consequently the panel finds that there is no state protection for the claimants.

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE:

[34]     The panel has also considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for you. The claimant must face a serious possibility of persecution in all parts of the state; the state poses the threat to the claimant with respect to the adultery charges.

[35]     There is no safe location for women anywhere in Iran. Therefore there is no viable IFA.

CONCLUSION:

[36]     Based on the totality of the of the evidence the panel finds that both claimant’s face a serious possibility of persecution in Iran due to membership in a social group be it gender related violence, be it denial of human rights to women.

[37]     Consequently the panel finds that the claimant’s both the mother and child to be Convention refugees and the panel accepts your claims.

[38]     Thank you.