The applicant, an Iranian woman, requested international protection in Cyprus in November 2018, claiming that she was a victim of domestic violence by her spouse. Additionally, she stated that she had fled her country of origin due to her involvement in an extramarital relationship. In February 2020, her application was rejected at first instance. She appealed against this decision in August 2020.
During her second interview with the Asylum Service, the applicant, for the first time, disclosed her affiliation with Mr. A, a political activist who operated in the United States due to his persecution in Iran. Furthermore, she asserted her active membership in the movement initiated by Mr. A, as well as her participation in several movements opposing the Iranian government's dictatorship. She alleged that during her initial interview, she had been advised not to disclose both her political and personal claims. Additionally, the applicant mentioned that she had sent a video to Mr. A, featuring herself and her daughter, and had requested him to send her an Iranian flag bearing the symbol of the monarchy. This video, which is publicly accessible on various platforms, had been posted on Mr. A channel, "Channel X," broadcasting from Los Angeles. While residing in Iran, the applicant claimed to have attended marches organised by the "We Want Bread" movement, consistently maintaining political awareness.
Her application for international protection was rejected at first instance while accepting her claim regarding the domestic violence but rejecting the extramarital affair allegation as non-credible. Moreover, her assertion of appearing on Channel X with the dissident Mr. A was accepted.
During the oral and writing proceedings before the Administrative Court for International Protection (IPAT), the applicant affirmed her active involvement in the movement since 2020, which publicly opposed the Iranian government. In addition, in her testimony, the applicant presented events that took place after her second interview with the Asylum Service. She emphasized her current active participation in Mr. A's channel, "Channel X," through which she expressed her views against the government of Iran and tried to discourage her compatriots from voting in the elections of the Islamic Republic of Iran. She added that she was trying to convince new members, whether within or outside Iran, to resist and deliver presentations to the channel concerning human rights violations affecting political prisoners and women.
In her appeal, the applicant asserted that her involvement with Channel X had notably intensified following her initial interview with them. She had become more deeply involved with Mr. A's movement opposing the government and had actively taken part in broadcasting programs where she advocated positions against the policies of the Iranian government.
The applicant submitted some new evidence before the IPAT, including a letter from the movement Ma Hastim, confirming her active engagement, a journalist Member Card for Channel X and a USB stick with three videos with the applicant in them.
The IPAT examined the applicant’s request for international protection based on her fear of persecution due to her political views. The court referred to the CJEU case law in the judgment of 4 October 2018, C-652/16, Ahmedbekova and others v. Zamestnik‑predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite, paras. 86-87, to determine if there are legitimate concerns that the government may view the mentioned participation as a form of political opposition, potentially leading to reprisals. The court noted that in this particular case, the fact that the applicant is associated with Channel X, an organisation founded by political activist Mr. A with opposition leanings, and her outspoken critique of certain government policies indicate that she has effectively expressed her political beliefs.
According to the analysis of the principle of shared burden of proof under the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status and Guidelines on International Protection, the applicant has provided the court with corroborating evidence and has formally stated her claims on these issues under oath.
In view of the analysis of the element of persecution, the IPAT consulted the UNHCR's Guidance Note regarding Refugee Claims Related to Crimes of Lèse-majesté and Similar Offenses, which draws from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It reiterated that the right to freedom of thought and expression includes the liberty to express one's beliefs without disturbance. Any form of harassment, intimidation, or discrimination against an individual, including their arrest, detention, prosecution, and imprisonment because of their opinions, is regarded as a breach of Article 19(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Lastly, the court referred to CJEU case law in judgment of 2 March 2010, C-175/08, C-176/08, C-178/08 and C-179/08 Aydin Salahadin Abdulla and others v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, paras. 63-64, 71 to assess the applicant’s claim of persecution.
The IPAT concluded that the applicant's ongoing engagement in journalism, particularly when combined with her active participation in a program where she openly criticizes the Iranian government, its laws, and practices, leads to her apprehension of potential persecution upon her return due to her political beliefs. The actor of her persecution is the state, and her fear of persecution is rooted in events that have escalated since she left her home country, especially following her role as a reporter for Channel X after her departure. Moreover, the court assessed the applicant’s claim regarding her involvement in protests while in her home country as a member of the "We Want Bread" organization. Her political activities have intensified since her arrival in Cyprus (sur place), where she has become part of a program associated with political activist Mr. A., who is wanted by Iranian authorities for allegedly inciting public support for actions against the Islamic State. Furthermore, this online channel broadcasts into Iran, raising legitimate concerns that the applicant might already be a person of interest to her home country's authorities. Consequently, upon her return, she may face risks due to her political beliefs. The court granted the applicant international protection.