Germany - Administrative Court Stuttgart, decision of 30 December 2011 – A 11 K 2066/11

Facts:

The applicant, who was born in 1992 in Iran, is an Iranian national of Tajik ethnicity. In August 2010 he travelled overland to Germany and applied for the recognition of refugee status on the grounds that he had attended school in Mashhad until the 9th class but was refused the right to take the school-leaving examination. He stated that he had not been allowed to attend school since 2009 because he did not possess any identity documents. He subsequently worked in a garage for one or two months until two years before moving to Teheran. He was arrested by the national security authorities on one occasion in 2009 and detained for one night.

Decision & reasoning:

The applicant has the right to claim recognition of refugee status. Before leaving Iran, he suffered racial persecution. It can be assumed that the claimant is of Iranian nationality. However, the claimant’s grandfather neglected to have his father registered in Iran. Subsequent attempts by the claimant’s father to obtain Iranian nationality documents failed. In spite of judicial obligations, the competent registry office persistently refused to issue identity papers for the claimant, his father and brothers and sisters. Due to this lack of identity papers, the claimant was prevented from obtaining a school-leaving certificate and attending a state school. Iranian children require a birth certificate in order to register with a school.

Due to their intensity and seriousness, these measures represent a violation of the claimant’s human dignity. This is substantiated by the fact that, according to Article 9(2)(b) of the Qualification Directive, persecution according to paragraph 1 includes among other things legal, administrative, police and/or judicial measures which are discriminatory in their own right or are applied in a discriminatory manner. The refusal by the Iranian authorities to issue identity papers for the claimant represents a significant discriminatory administrative measure. The claimant was exposed to further serious disruption on account of this discriminatory act. The refusal by the authorities to issue identity papers meant that the claimant was not allowed to attend Iranian state schools and could not take examinations or obtain qualifications from the non-state schools which he attended. This refusal to offer suitable educational opportunities seriously limited the claimant’s future possibilities in terms of determining and planning his life in an independent manner. Moreover, the right to suitable education corresponding to a child's abilities is recognised as a human right according to international law.

The acts of persecution suffered by the claimant before leaving Iran were linked to racial reasons (Article10 paragraph 1 letter a) of the Qualification Directive). The claimant was frequently victimised on account of his roots on the side of his Afghan grandmother. He credibly stated that he had been called “Afghani” at school as an insult. In Iran Afghans are generally considered as second-class citizens and have a negative image among the population. The fact that the claimant is of Iranian and not Afghan nationality is insignificant in this context (Article 10 paragraph 2 of the Qualification Directive).   

The claimant did not receive adequate protection in Iran against the harm suffered. Indeed the claimant stated, with supporting evidence, that the registry office of the town of Mashhad was bound in the legal proceedings initiated and implemented by his father to issue him and members of his family with identity papers. He credibly stated that the registry office had not fulfilled its legal obligation in spite of enforcement applications made by the lawyer appointed by his father. It cannot be assumed in this matter that an effective guarantee of protection was provided according to Article 7 paragraph 2 of the Qualification Directive.

Since the claimant left Iran on the grounds of persecution already suffered, the alleviation of the burden of proof according to Article 4 paragraph 4 of the Qualification Directive applies. The actual assumption that previous persecution would recur if the claimant were to return to his country of origin is in support of his case. There are no obvious valid reasons which could invalidate the likelihood of such repetition.

Outcome:

The authorities were obliged to grant the claimant refugee status.

Other sources:

• Federal Foreign Office, report on Iran of 04.11.2011, p. 39, 48
• Federal Office for Migration, Swiss Confederation, Afghans in Iran – part 2: daily life and return, 17.01.2008