Alleged procedural deficiencies in asylum proceedings of an Irani refugee

Facts

The author of the communication is Y, a national of Iran. He is married to W, an Iraqi national residing in Denmark. When their child was born in Denmark, the author applied for family reunification. Under Danish law, family reunification may be granted if both spouses are at least 24 years of age. Since W was only 20, Y asked for a waiver of the age requirement, on the ground that the couple feared residing in Iran because of threats that W and her mother had received from some of their relatives. The Immigration Service took the view that the existence of the threats had not been established and rejected the application. Y then applied for asylum, claiming that he was wanted by the Iranian authorities and had published pro-Christian content on social media. When the asylum application was rejected, Y appealed the decision, requesting the authorities to also consider his allegations of a fear of persecution based on threats received from W’s relatives. Although the appeal was granted, the Immigration Service again rejected the author’s asylum application. Y filed an appeal to the Refugee Appeals Board, and asked the Board to allow W to provide an oral statement. The Board rejected the request and the appeal, on the grounds that W’s statement would not be relevant and Y’s allegations remained contradictory. The author alleges that the authorities’ failure to hear his wife and evaluate the threats from her relatives amount to a violation of article 13 (expulsion of aliens).

Admissibility

The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the communication is manifestly ill-founded. It further observes that Y was heard at length in its native language and his allegations were individually assessed. Therefore, it considers that the author has not sufficiently substantiated that the negative credibility determination made by the Danish authorities would have been reversed had W been interviewed. Moreover, the author has not substantiated his allegation that the initial failure of the Immigration Service to evaluate the threats from her relatives represented a procedural error, since he had not mentioned such threats during his first asylum interviews. The communication is thus inadmissible.

By: Giacomo Bruno