CCPR/C/119/D/2253/2013
Immigration Service. The author submits that, while in Denmark, he participated in several
demonstrations against the Iranian authorities, held in front of the Iranian embassy, in
particular in 2012 and 2013, including a hunger strike in May and June 2012. He indicates
that there is publicly accessible information on YouTube and a public group Facebook
profile where he appears with posters against the Government of the Islamic Republic of
Iran. Moreover, during the hunger strike, he criticized the Iranian regime in a film that has
been shown in the Islamic Republic of Iran. While his criticism was cut from the film, and
the film has become pro-Government propaganda, the author claims that given that the
film’s director is pro-regime, it is likely that the director has provided the whole film to the
Iranian authorities, including the author’s interview in which he criticizes the Government.
2.6
On 25 November 2009, the Danish Immigration Service rejected the author’s
asylum request. The author appealed this decision to the Refugee Appeals Board. On 28
April 2010, the Board rejected the appeal. It found that the fact that the author had provided
a false date of departure from the Islamic Republic of Iran had weakened his credibility,
and noted that the author had also provided contradictory information regarding the date of
the arrest of his friend A.M. 4 In addition, it considered the author’s statement about the
illegal smuggling of goods and material from the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan not
convincing, as he should have been aware of the danger of smuggling such leaflets and yet
agreed to continue to do so, even though he had specifically indicated to the Danish
authorities that he had never been politically active. The Board also found “remarkable”
that the author had not sought to obtain more information about the situation of his friend
A.M. after his detention, including whether he had been sentenced, considering that the
arrest of A.M. was a crucial element of the author’s asylum application. Further, the Board
noted that the general situation of Kurds in the Islamic Republic of Iran could not justify in
itself an asylum request.
2.7
The author requested a reopening of his asylum proceedings in August 2010 5 and
sent further information to the Refugee Appeals Board in August 2012. 6 He indicated that
he had been unable to present his asylum case adequately, as he had been under pressure
and “mentally uncomfortable” during the interviews with the immigration authorities, due
to the events he had been exposed to in the Islamic Republic of Iran and to the threats
received from the smugglers during his trip to Denmark. As a result, he had ended up
confusing details and dates in his account. The author had also provided the Board with a
summons ordering him to appear before the sixth division of the District Court on 19
November 2008 on the occasion of his “case” before the Court. The author reiterated his
allegations regarding the risk he would be exposed to if returned to the Islamic Republic of
Iran, adding that due to his participation in a hunger strike aimed at criticizing the Iranian
regime and protesting against the situation of immigrants in Denmark, held in May 2012,
the risk for him in the Islamic Republic of Iran had increased, in particular given that
photographs of the protest had been widely circulated on Facebook. The author also
indicated that those participating in the hunger strike had been blacklisted by Iranian
authorities, and that their families had been subjected to harassment by the Iranian Ministry
of Intelligence.
2.8
On 27 March 2013, the Refugee Appeals Board rejected the author’s request to
reopen his asylum proceedings, as it considered that no new substantial information had
been submitted by the author. 7 It indicated that no evidential weight could be attached to the
summons submitted by the author, as it had been served on 10 November 2008, after his
departure from the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Board recalled that when the author was
asked by the Danish immigration authorities if the Iranian authorities had delivered any
summons to him after his departure, he had replied in the negative. In addition, he had not
explained how he had come into possession of the summons or why he had not submitted it
earlier to the State party’s authorities, taking into account that it dated from 2008. The
Board considered that the author’s allegations regarding his mental state when he was
interviewed by the Danish police could not change the assessment of his credibility, as the
4
5
6
7
See footnotes 1 and 3 above.
The author did not provide a copy of his request.
The author sent a letter to the Board about his participation in the hunger strike held in May 2012.
A copy of the decision has been provided by the State party.
3