SH (Baha’is)

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.

The burden of proof is on the appellant to show that, if returned to Iran, he would be at real risk of persecution for a Refugee Convention reason, or of treatment that would violate the ECHR. The Tribunal has applied that standard of proof in the present case. It has reached its findings having regard to the evidence as a whole, examining that evidence in the round.

The appellant's documentary evidence comprises three written statements by him, a written statement of his wife, the oral evidence of the appellant and his wife and the oral and written evidence of Mr Barnabus Leith, Mr Daniel Wheatley, and Dr Nazila Ghanea-Hercock. The Tribunal also had before it the respondent's bundle of documents, including records of interviews with the appellant and his wife, university and medical certificates relating to the appellant's wife, and the letter of refusal addressed to the appellant dated 16 November 2005.

The appellant claims to fear persecution in Iran by reason of his Baha'i faith. The appellant qualified as a doctor in Iran in 1979, the same year in which his father in law was compelled to flee to the United Kingdom as a result of difficulties arising from his Baha'i faith. The appellant married in 1981. Both the appellant and his wife encountered difficulties in pursuing their profession as doctors, on account of their faith. 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. Whilst in prison, the appellant was beaten and kept from time to time in solitary confinement. Together with other Baha'is, he was released in 1989, having served some five years eight months of his sentence.

After his release, the appellant and his wife struggled to practise as doctors. They were hampered by government restrictions, which they considered were placed on them by reason of their being Baha'is. The appellant sought redress by writing on approximately twenty occasions to persons in the Iranian government. On one occasion when the appellant visited the offices of the Prime Minister the appellant was told by the officials there that he was a spy for Israel.

The appellant's house was confiscated by the authorities in 1994, for the reason that it had been given to them by the appellant's father-in-law, a prominent Baha'i. In that year, the appellant and his wife finally secured passports, after attempting to do so for some fifteen years. They travelled to the United Kingdom and subsequently returned to Iran.

In 1998 the appellant was 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. This time, however, he was not beaten whilst in prison, although he was compelled to have his head shaved and was placed in an overcrowded cell. 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.

After his second release, the appellant went to work in the surgery which his wife was running in Isfahan. The couple experienced financial difficulties as a result of the fact that patients with medical insurance could not recoup from their insurers the costs of being treated by Baha'i doctors.

In 2000, the appellant again travelled to the United Kingdom and also the USA. On return to Iran, the appellant and his wife were roughly handled by the authorities, who interrogated them about the trip.

In July 2004 the appellant was arrested at home whilst hosting a devotional meeting involving a form of Baha'i teaching developed by that organisation known as the Ruhy Institute. Ruhy teaching enables non-Baha'i people to become familiar with the Baha'i faith. One of those present on 12 July 2004 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.

The appellant and his wife entered the United Kingdom on 23 April 2005 as visitors. Their purpose was to visit the parents of the appellant's wife and to attend certain medical events in this country.

On 5 October 2005, the appellant's wife received a telephone call from a relative in Iran who told her that she and the appellant should not return to that country. The brother-in-law rang again on 10 October when he spoke to the appellant. The brother in law told the appellant that the latter would be arrested at the airport on arrival in Iran and that there was an arrest warrant out for him. The appellant inferred that the decision to make the telephone call had been taken by the Baha'i community in Isfahan. An Iranian friend of the appellant who was in the United Kingdom returned to Iran, where he met the appellant's brother-in-law on 20 October 2005. The friend was informed that hard-liners who were in the Iranian security service regretted the fact that the appellant had been released on bail in 2004. That particular information was said to have been given to the appellant's brother-in-law by a Baha'i from the appellant's community.

As a result of the first telephone conversation on 5 October, the appellant and his wife decided that they would be in danger if they were returned to Iran and the appellant accordingly claimed asylum.

The Home Office Science and Research Group's October 2005 Report on Iran contains (at paragraphs 6.80 and 6.81) a brief description of the Baha'i faith. Founded in the mid-nineteenth century in southern Iran as an offshoot of Shi'a Islam, it has since developed into a separate religious faith. For the Baha'is, God is completely transcendent and unknowable, although divine manifestations occur throughout history in the form of prophets such as Adam, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed and Zoroaster. The founder of the Baha'i faith, Baha'ullah, was such a manifestation. Although all prophetic religions are considered to be true, Baha'is consider that theirs is the most suitable to the present age. Mohammed is not regarded by Baha'is as the ‘seal’ of prophets. The Baha'i faith has no priesthood but there is instead an administrative hierarchy of elected local and national Spiritual Assemblies. The highest organ of administration is the Universal House of Justice in Haifa, Israel.

At the hearing the appellant gave evidence with the assistance of an interpreter in the Farsi language. The appellant was, however, able to communicate to a significant extent in English, and did so when he so chose. The appellant adopted the written statements, from which the above summary of his account is largely taken. Mr De Mello asked the appellant why he had not claimed asylum during one of his earlier visits to the United Kingdom or, indeed, when he last arrived in this country in April 2005. The appellant said that despite the difficulties he and his wife had encountered, they remained committed to their Baha'i community in Iran. The telephone conversations in October 2005, however, had persuaded the appellant that he would be in serious danger if he were now to return. He would, nevertheless, continue to practise as a Baha'i, if given the opportunity in Iran.

In cross-examination, the appellant was asked about the letters that he had written to various people in Iran, complaining about the difficulties he and his wife were encountering as doctors. He said that some ten to fifteen letters had been written but each one had been copied to a number of individuals. As a result of one such letter, the appellant's wife had finally been enabled to work in private practice.

The...