September 2016 10:00am VG 3 K 235 A‌ Public hearing Milad D. Legal counsel Lawyer K.T. Judge L.P. as sole presiding judge Federal Republic of Germany represented by the Federal Ministry of the Interior, represented by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees Asylum law – principal proceedings
Judge: For your information: I have not made any decision regarding your application for legal aid. I just haven’t found the time. Mr D., you were born in Iran in 1981. In 2013, you flew by aeroplane to Turkey and from there by aeroplane to Germany. When you entered Germany, you were in possession of a falsified Norwegian identity card under the name of Thore Lund. You applied for asylum in Germany and your case was heard by the Federal Office one year later. There you were able to state your case regarding your request for asylum and you produced a summons from Iran’s police authority. You had not responded to this summons and had left Iran because of it. At the Federal Office, you said that you had paid a smuggler nine thousand euros for the journey. Your father and brother live in Germany and have already received asylum. I suspect that your mother now also lives in Germany.
Plaintiff: Yes, my mother came to Germany as part of the family reunification process. Judge: In your request for asylum, you refer to your father’s activity and persecution in Iran. You mention a violent incident in 2009. The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees denied your application. In their decision, they say that the story you told seemed colourless and uninvolved. The Federal Office pointed out several contradictions in your story, particularly the contradictory information that you provided about the way that you and your mother left Iran. Your police summons only came from the FATA Cyber Police, which monitors internet crime. The Federal Office requested that you leave Germany and threatened you with deportation, against which you filed a lawsuit. I was recently told that you have converted to Christianity, that you are receiving psychotherapy treatment and that you have been prescribed psychotropic drugs. Are you still taking the tablets? Plaintiff: No, not anymore. Judge: Did you leave Iran using your own passport? Was it possible? Was there no travel prohibition for you? Plaintiff: My departure was arranged with money, which is still possible in Iran. Judge: Who was paid how much? Plaintiff: We paid the equivalent of 800 euros. My friend Salar, who helped me with everything, had a friend at the airport.
Judge: So, there was no travel prohibition for you? Plaintiff: I don’t know. Like I said, we paid. We wanted to be sure that we could leave. Judge (dictating): The plaintiff adds: “We flew from Chomeini Airport. I can’t say if there was a travel prohibition in place. My mother took care of it. My departure was paid for.” Judge: What exactly happened with your mother? You have provided some contradictory information. Plaintiff: It’s not true that there was a contradiction. They didn’t understand me properly and it also wasn’t verified. My mother flew with me to Turkey. The authorities could have seen that by looking at the stamp in her passport. What is true is that we got into the aeroplane separately. Judge: And then your mother flew back to Iran? Plaintiff: Yes. Judge: Did she go into hiding after she returned? Plaintiff: She lived with relatives, not in our house. She came to Germany in 2014. Judge: And she was able to leave normally? Plaintiff: She paid too.
Judge: You have a brother. Does he live in Iran? Plaintiff: He now lives in Germany and has also applied for asylum. Judge: Tell me what you experienced in Iran – why did you flee? Plaintiff: I would like to begin with the events of 2003. It was the anniversary of the student protests of 9 July 1999. I was apprehended by the police at my university and taken to a mosque. Judge (dictating): “I was held for approx. five hours and beaten up. I was accused of having written slogans on walls.” Plaintiff: In 2009, during the demonstrations after the presidential election, my father and I left our garage door open so that people could take refuge. I saw a young woman being beaten up by a plain-clothes police officer and got in between them. I was apprehended and taken by car to a mosque. Judge (dictating): “Once it had transpired that Ahmadinejad had been elected again, I was let go.” Judge: Did anything happen after that? Plaintiff: I already provided information about that. I helped my father to take money to the relatives of the political prisoners, which they used to pay lawyers and cover other costs. One fifth of the earnings were collected and distributed. Judge: At the Federal Office, you said that you had not carried that out yourself.
Plaintiff: No, that’s not true. It was always the two of us. I was always there. Judge: How often did you do it? Plaintiff: Frequently. I did it for approx. One year. Judge: Why did you stop doing it? Plaintiff: Because of the security situation; it was getting more and more dangerous. And then my father left and the group became less and less active. But my father is still in contact with the people there. Lawyer: I want to point out that the plaintiff didn’t know back then what exactly he was doing and what he was handing over the money for as a messenger. Judge: Didn’t your father tell you? Plaintiff: He always said, “Take the money, a friend of mine needs it.” Sometimes he didn’t give me any explanation at all and I didn’t ask. Judge: When was your home searched? Plaintiff: About ten days after two plain-clothes people had visited me. Judge: What exactly were they looking for?
Plaintiff: They were asking about my father. They didn’t want to show their identity cards and didn’t have any order to search the house. I didn’t let them in. The next time they came with an official. Judge (dictating): “They searched all the rooms, even my parents’ bedroom.” Judge: Did they threaten you? Plaintiff: Yes. Judge: How? Plaintiff: They said it would be better if I told them where my father was, otherwise I could expect consequences. Judge: And what consequences did they mean? Plaintiff: That they would take me with them and get to my father that way. Judge: Is that what they said to you? Plaintiff (suddenly speaking in German): Yes, of course. Judge: So, it was a kind of hostage taking? And was that the specific reason that you left the house? Lawyer: He felt like he was being watched. He was being spied on.
Judge: I didn’t see that in the file. Lawyer: But it’s in there. Judge: Ah yes, ok. What happened exactly? Plaintiff: There was always a car with two bearded men parked in front of the house. When I left the house, the car followed me. Judge: Back to the police summons. How did you gain knowledge of it? Plaintiff: I wasn’t at home. The caretaker accepted the summons and then gave it to my mother. I was supposed to appear at the police station within the next 72 hours. Judge: What do you think that the police actually wanted from you? Plaintiff: I didn’t find out what my father was doing until I got to Germany. I didn’t know what I was supposed to tell them and what would have happened to me. Maybe they wanted to lure me there. Judge: Due to your father’s activities, which you didn’t know about at the time, you felt threatened. So that is so to speak the main reason for asylum – is that right? Judge (to a man in the courtroom): Are you the father? The unidentified man: Yes.
Lawyer: Do you want to ask the father about his organisation? Judge: No, I don’t see any reason to for now. I would like to get to the second aspect. You have said that you have converted to Christianity. You have produced a baptism certificate from Bremen. But you live in Berlin. How did you get to know the congregation in Bremen? How did it come about? Plaintiff: A friend of mine took me there. I had a lot of problems with Islam in Germany. There is freedom of religion here. I wanted to compare them. My friend said to me, “Instead of taking medication, come to us and look for yourself.” I found the consolation and the peace there that I have been looking for my whole life. One month later I was baptised. Judge: That means that you came to the congregation in July and were baptised one month later? Plaintiff (in German): Am I allowed to say it in German? Interpreter: He can speak German; he has completed a B2 course. Plaintiff: I know what you mean. I was very surprised myself. And I am happy and proud to have become a Christian. Judge: What is the difference between Islam and Christianity? Plaintiff: For me, Islam is about power and force. In Christianity, it is about love. And I know that my sins will be forgiven through repentance. Judge: I have a written confirmation that you are taking part in bible study classes. How are you doing that if you don’t live
there? Plaintiff: I travel to Bremen on the Flixbus every Thursday. I have all my tickets here – I can show you. Shows the judge the tickets on his mobile phone. Judge: Why haven’t you gone to a congregation in Berlin? Congregation: I went to a congregation in Berlin two years ago. But I couldn’t concentrate on the lessons; back then I was taking a lot of medication. As I said, a friend of mine connected me with them. And my family lives in Bremen. Judge: What are the main tenets of Christianity for you? Judge (dictating): The plaintiff responds: “The main tenets of Christianity for me are love, faith, peace. You find inner peace through remorse and repentance.” Judge: Are you familiar with the Holy Trinity? Plaintiff: Yes, that’s God the Father appearing in three forms: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Judge: What does your family think about your faith? What do your friends in Iran say? Plaintiff: They have differing opinions, but many of them are very interested. Judge: Can you tell me the name of the pastor of the congregation?
Plaintiff: Schulze. Plaintiff: Ms Schulze. Plaintiff: Yes, Bjanca Schulze. Judge: Your baptism went pretty fast… Plaintiff: Look, it took by me surprise too. And it’s so nice for me! I wanted it and the congregation accepted my request. We were baptised in the water, there were almost 200 of us, all of us were baptised. My parents filmed the baptism, but I don’t have the video with me. Judge: I don’t have any more questions. Is there anything you would like to add? Lawyer: The plaintiff says that he will keep practicing his faith if he returns to Iran. Judge: I haven’t heard him say that. Plaintiff: The bible commands us to spread the Christian faith, which I will do in Iran as well. And I can’t imagine how it will be possible there. Judge: Then I’ll get to the submission of the application now. Judge (dictating): The legal counsel is applying to compel the defendant to quash the decision of 12 March 2016 and recognise that the plaintiff has a right to asylum pursuant to section 16a, to award the plaintiff refugee status or, alternatively, to grant subsidiary protection status or, alternatively, to de-
termine that deportation is legally prohibited pursuant to section 60(5). Judge: The ruling will be communicated. The verbal hearing is concluded at… Lawyer (interrupting): Can you give us a hint? Can’t we speak openly with one another? Otherwise I need to say a few more things. Judge: I won’t rule on it today. I can’t tell you anything, I need to take a closer look at everything again. I don’t know if I can understand the persecution, some of the contradictions still haven’t been cleared up. And I am still doubtful about his conversion to Christianity. The ruling will not go out today. Lawyer: In my opinion, what the plaintiff said was convincing. The police could have used the plaintiff to force the father to come back to Iran and surrender himself to the authorities. The plaintiff never said that he was being persecuted politically. He was subject to a latent danger. He felt like it would no longer be possible for him to leave if the situation intensified. He didn’t feel safe anymore. That’s exactly what the plaintiff said. Nothing more and nothing less. He didn’t exaggerate anything and what he said also can’t be overvalued. Regarding the open contradictions: in my opinion, the only contradiction relates to the question of whether the plaintiff’s mother accompanied him to Turkey or not. That will be easy to ascertain by looking at the stamp in her passport. Judge: Why don’t I have a copy of it? Lawyer: We can submit it later. The question is how important it is for the whole thing, what role does it play at all. At
the end of the day, it’s completely irrelevant whether the mother was there or not. And I wanted to say something else about the conversion of faith. You should know that this particular congregation only performs baptisms once a year. There were talks, they decided that the plaintiff was ready to be baptised. That was not the plaintiff’s decision, it was the congregation’s decision. There are many people who visit the congregation for a long time and still don’t get baptised because the congregation wants to wait and see. You asked the plaintiff certain questions and interviewed him about his knowledge of Christianity. I see that as problematic. Faith is an inner process that cannot be verified by external circumstances. The plaintiff presented all of this convincingly. Judge (dictating): The defence counsel adds: “The plaintiff has become a committed Christian and as such cannot return to his home, Iran. One should assume that the Persian community in Germany is being spied on. The fact that the plaintiff has converted to Christianity will already be known in Iran, where it will be viewed as an act that is hostile to both Islam and Iran.” Judge: The verbal hearing is concluded at 1:39pm.
2016 www.refugeeslibrary.wordpress.com