CAT/C/37/D/277/2005
Page 4
complainant was no longer of any interest to the Iranian authorities as he had been released
from prison and did not belong to any of the categories of participants in the 2002
demonstrations in Yazd considered to be of interest by the authorities. The Migration Board
concluded he had substantially exaggerated the risk of torture and inhuman treatment if
deported to Iran and that as a result, he could not be considered a refugee, while his physical
condition did not warrant a residence permit on humanitarian grounds.
2.6 The complainant appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board. In his appeal, he provided an
additional document, a transcript of his criminal record which stated: that he had been
imprisoned for 28 months; that he had been released after he had signed an undertaking not to
oppose the regime; that he had participated in new actions against the government; that he is
wanted by the police and will be subjected to legal proceedings and punishment when he is
found. On 17 December 2004, he requested that the Aliens Appeals Board conduct a
complete torture investigation and an oral hearing; the request was denied on 23 December
2004. On 31 March 2005, he was requested to make a statement regarding the translation of
his criminal record. As he considered that the document had been translated correctly he did
not make supplementary observations. On 15 April 2005, the complainant once again
requested a complete torture investigation and that the Aliens Board conduct and oral hearing;
this request was denied on 26 April 2005. On 20 May 2005, the Aliens Appeals Board
rejected the complainant’s application. The Board concluded that the complainant was not
credible. According to the Board’s translation of his criminal record, he had been imprisoned
from 9 April 1988 to 11 August 1990. There was therefore an unexplained 10 years
difference between the dates recorded in the document and the dates of his detention
according to his statements. The Appeals Board upheld the Migration Board’s findings and
concluded that he had not proved that it was probable that he was either a refugee or in need
of protection under the Aliens Act. With the application rejected, his expulsion order became
effective and was returned to the Migration Board for enforcement.
2.7 On 31 May 2005, the complainant lodged a new application for a residence permit with
the Aliens Appeals Board, arguing that all his statements had been correct and that he had
had no knowledge of the inaccuracy of the criminal record before the decision of the Aliens
Appeals Board. After the Aliens Appeals Board decision of 20 May 2004, the complainant’s
brother had contacted the Iranian authorities, who confirmed the inaccuracy and corrected the
data. According to the authorities there had been a mix up of two figures in the criminal
record and the imprisonment had begun on 1376 and not on 1367. The corrected version was
sent to the complainant by his brother. Counsel expressed regret at the oversight and
criticized the Appeals Board for its failure to investigate the matter in a satisfactory manner,
pointing out that the complainant had not been notified that it questioned the transcript. The
Appeals Board rejected the application on 7 June 2005, considering there were no new facts
that made it necessary to reconsider its earlier decision.
2.8 On 20 June 2005, the complainant lodged another application for a residence permit, in
which he appended the original corrected document from the Iranian authorities proving that
the first transcript of his criminal record had been incorrect. The Aliens Appeals Board
rejected his application on 30 June 2005. The Board observed that many fake documents
were in circulation and that it could attach no evidentiary value to the ones presented for the
complainant. As a result, it held that there were no grounds for a reappraisal of the
complainant’s case.