The hearing was for granting asylum to an
Iranian Bahai couple by UK state Department. The case was heard at Bradford on
27 April 2006 Before SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE Mr. LANE , Mr.ROBERTS and Mr.
MACDONALD
The Iranian Bahai couple was the appellant and the secretary of State Home
department (UK) was the respondent.
The case is an eyeopener against Bahai
propaganda on alleged atrocities in Iran. The learnt judge have demolished all
appeals of the Bahai couple against the government of Iran. The comments of the
learned judges would be guidance to other judiciaries, in times to come, for
realizing the truth.
The Case
The
appellant, a citizen of Iran born on 29 August 1953, entered the United Kingdom
on 23 April 2005 using a twelve-month visitor’s multi-visa, which was valid
from 14 February 2005 to 14 February 2006. He was accompanied by his wife. On
10 October 2005, the appellant claimed asylum. On 16 November 2005 the
respondent decided (i) to vary the appellant's leave to enter the United Kingdom,
so as to terminate that leave, and (ii) that the appellant should be removed to
Iran by way of directions. The appellant appealed against that decision on the
grounds that his removal from the United Kingdom in consequence of it would
breach the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Refugee Convention and would
be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 as being incompatible
with the appellant's rights under the ECHR.
A. Iranian Bahai Claim: Baha’is in Iran face
substantial discrimination, which extends beyond the purely religious field to
such matters as education, work, ownership of property and access to justice.
Tribunal's assessment:
The evidence does not, however, show that the nature and prevalence of this
discrimination is of such intensity and generality as to amount to persecution
for the purposes of the Refugee Convention. It is significant that none of the
outside observers who have had cause to consider the situation of Baha’is has
formed the conclusion that a person is at real risk of persecution in Iran
merely by reason of being a Baha’i. That includes Baha’is who practise their
faith. Whilst the use of such language by the couple is understandable, it does
not compel a conclusion on the part of this Tribunal that any Iranian Baha’i,
practising or not, who makes his or her way to the United Kingdom, should
without more investigation be accorded international protection.
B. Iranian Bahai Claim
The appellant Doctor by profession claims to fear persecution in Iran on account
of their being Bahais.. The appellant was arrested in 1983 on charges relating
to his activities as a Baha’i, and sentenced to ten years imprisonment by the
Revolutionary Court. He was released in 1989, having served some five years
eight months of his sentence.
In 1998 the appellant was (again) arrested in connection with his activities as
a lecturer at the Baha’i Institute of Higher Education. The appellant was
sentenced to ten years imprisonment by the Revolutionary Court. After fourteen
months and fourteen days, the appellant was released by the Court of Appeal,
which the appellant ascribed in part, to international pressure on Iran to
improve the treatment of Baha’is.
In July 2004 the appellant was arrested at home whilst hosting a devotional
meeting involving a form of Baha’i teaching developed by an organisation known
as the Ruhi Institute. Ruhi teaching enables non-Baha’i people to become
familiar with the Baha’i faith. One of those present at the devotional meeting
was a Muslim who had informally converted to the Baha’i faith. The appellant's
wife was also arrested and accused of converting Muslims to that faith. The
appellant was released on bail after two nights in detention.
Tribunal's assessment :
Putting
that matter aside, both the appellant and his wife were able to study and
become doctors and, albeit with difficulty, practice their profession in a
variety of places in Iran. The confiscation of their home was, we find, most
likely to have been an aspect of the authorities’ adverse attention towards the
appellant as a result for what they perceived to be his teaching and community
activities. The appellants were able to travel abroad and return without
significant difficulties. We say so, bearing in mind what the appellant and his
wife described as an unpleasant incident at the airport when they returned to
Iran in 2001.
C. Iranian Bahai Claim. Bahais are being harassed in
Iran, in particular, under the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was
elected in June 2005 and who, it is clear from the evidence, pursued a more
conservative and uncompromising set of policies than those of his predecessor.
Tribunal's assessment
The fact is, nevertheless, that according to the latest reports, relatively few
Baha’is are being arrested and imprisoned, considering the overall size
(300-350,000) of the Baha’i community in Iran. As we have already noted, even
Human Rights Watch, in its 2006 report, goes no further than to opine that
Iran’s ethnic and religious minorities ‘are subject to discrimination and, in
some cases, persecution’. The express reference to the Baha’is, which follows
this quotation, refers to the community continuing ‘to be denied permission to
worship or engage in communal affairs in a public manner’. That Baha’is are
able to pursue their religious observances in domestic settings is clear. It is
many years since they were last permitted in general to worship in public halls
and the like. The evidence before us does not show such a flagrant denial of a
Baha’i’s freedom of religion as to amount to an effective denial for that right
D. Iranian Bahai Claim : Baha’is are on occasion deprived
of their rights to property,
Tribunal's assessment:
1-The evidence before us does not show that any Baha’i, regardless of his or
her circumstances, is at real risk of being deprived of his or her home or
business. The evidence before us as to the Iranian state’s attitude towards the
recognition of Baha’i marriages is, we have to say, somewhat unclear. On the
appellant's own account, and that of his wife, official attitudes appear to
fluctuate. Overall, the Tribunal does not find that the evidence discloses such
a state of affairs as, when combined with the other matters to which we have
referred, can properly lead to the conclusion that a Baha’i is entitled to
protection under the Refugee Convention or the ECHR should he or she make such
a claim to the authorities in this country.
2- As a consequence of these findings, the Tribunal has considered whether the
evidence shows that a particular description or category of Baha’i in Iran is
currently at real risk of persecution or other serious ill-treatment or whether
the undoubted persecution that certain Baha’is suffer, such as those imprisoned
for their faith, is merely random or otherwise so unpredictable as to prevent
any particular Baha’i being identified in advance as being at real risk. At the
hearing, Mr. De Mello, Mr Leith and Mr Wheatley (all Bahais) sought to
emphasize the importance of the information contained at paragraph 25 of Mr.
Leith’s statement - There are believed to be 300,000-350,000 Baha'is in Iran.
We clearly do not expect the Iranian authorities to prosecute all of them.
E.Iranian Bahai Claim: While interrogating one of the
Baha'is arrested 2005, an intelligence agent stated: ‘We have learned how to
confront (the Baha'is). We no longer pursue ordinary (Baha'is); we will
paralyze your inner core.’ The comment seems to define the current strategy of
the Iranian authorities in their latest attempt to undermine the long-term
viability of the Baha’i community. The new policy is characterized by
identifying and targeting a group of Baha'is who play an ad hoc but vital role
in providing communal activity and leadership for the wider community’.
Tribunal's assessment
1- Taking the appellant's account at face value for the moment, he told us that
he ceased to work on behalf of the Institute, at their suggestion, after he had
been released from his second sentence of imprisonment. His evidence was,
however, to the effect that he had nevertheless pursued the promotion of the
Baha’i faith by means of the teaching system produced by the Ruhy Institute.
2- The Tribunal has adopted a cautious approach to what is said to have been
the comments of the Iranian intelligence agent, as set out in paragraph 25 of
Mr. Leith’s report. Although he possesses undoubted considerable knowledge of
the position of Baha’is in Iran, Mr. Leith is not (and no doubt would not claim
to be) an impartial observer. His job is to foster the interests of his
co-religionists in Iran. Furthermore, the comments of the intelligence agent
are unsourced. Both Mr. Leith and Mr. Wheatley told us that they were received
as part of the ongoing system of contacts and information-gathering operated by
the external affairs office of the National Spiritual Assembly for the Baha’is
in the United Kingdom.(Unquote - this could imply high level of espionage that
faith members indulge)
3- The Tribunal has no reason to doubt that Mr. Leith has, at paragraph 25 of
his report, accurately described what he has been told was said to a Baha’i by
someone operating within the intelligence community within Iran. The real
question is whether the comments are reasonably likely to represent present
Iranian government policy or, given the complex nature of the Iranian state
security apparatus, the policy of some form of organization that is sponsored
or at least condoned by those in power and which is able to act against those
Baha’is which are regarded as ‘inner core’.
4- For these reasons the Tribunal is able to place some weight on the comment
recorded in paragraph 25 of Mr. Leith’s statement. The fact remains, however,
that as matters stand it is only a single comment, from an unnamed individual,
whose alleged words have, it seems, not been passed directly to Mr. Leith by
the person to whom they were spoken. It would accordingly be going too far to
use the statement as the basis of a conclusion that all Baha’is, who comprise,
or are regarded by the Iranian state security apparatus as comprising, an “inner
core” are as such at current real risk of persecution. On the other hand, we do
not consider that the totality of the evidence in this appeal does no more than
show that some Baha’is are randomly persecuted and the appellant is a person
who happens to have been so persecuted. The appellant has been an active
teacher and has suffered previous sentences of imprisonment for what were
plainly religious reasons. That is essentially accepted by the respondent. The
credibility of the appellant’s claim to be in current well-founded fear was
challenged by the respondent at the hearing on the basis that the alleged
telephone conversation and other evidence of renewed adverse interest in the
appellant by the authorities since he last left Iran were not believable. Whilst
not accepting that there is evidence of a concerted policy to take out the
inner core of the Baha’i community in Iran, we nevertheless find that, having
regard to the current political situation, the background evidence and the
evidence of Messrs Leith and Wheatley, shorn of its more rhetorical aspects,
provide support for the appellant in assessing the credibility of that part of
his claim which was challenged by Mrs. Petterson.
The Tribunal's conclusions may be summarized as
follows:-
(a) an Iranian Baha’i is not, as such, at real risk of persecution in Iran;
(b) such a person will, however, be able to demonstrate a well-founded fear if,
on the particular facts of the case, he or she is reasonably likely to be
targeted by the Iranian authorities (or their agents) for religious reasons.
Evidence of past persecution will be of particular relevance in this regard. It
is doubtful if a person who has not previously come to the serious adverse
attention of the authorities, by reason of his or her teaching or particular
organizational or other activities on behalf of the Baja’s community in Iran,
will be able, even in the current climate, to show that he or she will be at
real risk on return.
Date: 24 April 2006
