Advance unedited version CCPR/C/133/D/2623/2015
The complaint
3.1
The author claims that the State party authorities had ordered his removal to Iran
without having conducted a risk assessment as to his claims in violation of his rights under
article 2 (3) of the Covenant. He claims that his conversion to Christianity would put him at
risk of being executed in Iran and of being subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment. He further claims that he would be unable to practice his
faith if deported to Iran.
3.2
The author also argues that as he does not have a valid Iranian passport he would be
issued Canadian travel documents and Iranian authorities would therefore be aware that he
is being returned as a failed asylum seeker, which would put him at further risk. He notes that
Iranians returned to Iran without valid exit visas in their passports are subject to mandatory
arrest and that the punishment for leaving the country illegally is one to three years
imprisonment, or a fine. He claims that he would risk being subjected to ill-treatment while
in detention and that he would not be able to practice his faith, in violation of his rights under
article 18 of the Covenant.
3.3
The author claims a violation of articles 10 and 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant because he
was subjected to threats and intimidation by Canadian immigration officials while in
detention and told that he would be transferred to jail unless he complied with the deportation
order. He further claims that he was denied access to his counsel.
State party's observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 4 July 2018, the State party submitted its observation on the admissibility and
merits of the communication. It submits that the communication is inadmissible as manifestly
unfounded and for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The State party submits that the
author has failed to exhaust domestic remedies by failing to: i) appear at his refugee
determination hearing and the hearing into the abandonment of his claim; ii) seek judicial
review of the finding that he was inadmissible due to criminality; and iii) apply for permanent
residence based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations. In the alternative, should
the Committee find the communication to be admissible, the State party submits that it is
without merit.
4.2
The State party notes that the author initiated his claim for refugee protection in
Canada in November 2013, but he was turned away and told to obtain his refugee documents
from Norway and Denmark. On 17 January 2014, the author submitted an application for
refugee protection, and his claim was referred to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of
the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) on 23 January 2014. The author described a series
of events that allegedly took place in Iran in his 30 September 2013 Basis of Claim form;
however, he did not disclose the fact that he had not been living in Iran during the period
from 2005 to 2012, and that therefore many of the incidents described in the form could not
have occurred. The author subsequently revised his narrative and completed a second Basis
of Claim form in January 2014.
4.3
The State party argues that the author failed to appear for numerous scheduled refugee
claim hearings. The author and his counsel did not appear at the RPD hearing scheduled for
11 October 2014. The author and his counsel were also informed of a special hearing dated
6 November 2014 to give him an opportunity to explain why the RPD should not determine
that the claim had been abandoned. The author did not appear at that hearing either. On 18
November 2014 the RPD determined that the claim was abandoned. The State party notes
that the author alleges that he did not attend the scheduled refugee hearing at the RPD in
October 2014 because he was experiencing pain from a car accident that had occurred in May
2014. It argues that the author does not provide an explanation as to why he did not attend a
special hearing on 6 November 2014 to give him an opportunity to explain why the RPD
should not determine that his claim has been abandoned. The author’s application for the case
to be re-opened was dismissed by the RPD on 22 June 2015. The author sought judicial
review of the RPD’s decision, which was dismissed by the Federal Court on 12 November
2015. The author also failed to appear for a pre-removal interview on 17 December 2014,
and a warrant was issued for his arrest on 2 March 2015. The author was found and arrested
on 28 April 2015.
3