You are here: UK Essays » Custom Essays » Iran Refugee Maltreatment

Free Essays - Essays

Iran Refugee Maltreatment

Introduction

1.1 This report will aim to deliver how the present condition of Iran suggests that an individual from Iran could be entitled for a refugee status by fulfilling the grounds of well-founded fear expressed in the Refugee Convention 1951. There are a numerous reasons as to why citizens of Iran may confront maltreatment and this report will focus on maltreatment in relation to religious grounds, particularly in connection with the religion of Christianity and those who have committed apostasy.

Background Evidence

2.1 Even though the state of Iran is governed by an Islamic Constitution, it identifies Christianity to be amongst one of the three religious minority groups in which the right to religious education and religious practice is assured to every citizen. On the contrary, there is evidence to show that the Iranian government do not entirely act upon this legislation.

2.2 As Iran developed as an Islamic (Shariah Law) country, it showed indications of discrimination in respect of education, property ownership and employment towards religious groups and ethnic minorities. The Ministry of Islamic Guidance (MIG) have strongly monitored and closed many Churches and Christian Training Centres.

As a result, many priests and strong believers have had to secretively open places of worship for Christians. The US State Department Report on Religious Freedom in Iran 2003 expresses these points and explains further as to how minority religious groups are discriminated in the state of Iran. This confirms that Christians do not benefit from the Constitutional rights given to them by the state of Iran and consequently, have to suffer stern persecution.

2.3 The state of Iran relies profoundly on Islamic (Shariah) law. The Shariah law is the legal framework in which Muslims seek guidance as to the way of belief and practice. In accordance with this law a Muslim may not convert to another religion. Proselytism is forbidden for Muslims and those convicted of apostasy could face the death penalty. Furthermore, the Iranian Constitution discriminates against religious groups and minorities and those in opposition of this Constitution are subject to arrest, attack and even the death penalty.

2.4 Many incidences of apostasy usually occur from the religion of Islam to Christianity. There have been reports as to Christian converts disappearing or being executed by the local authorities. It is apparent that due to harassment, maltreatment and discrimination, religious minority groups have remained silent in fear of being maltreated or their community being maltreated.

Many Christians are frightened to approach their government to report incidents of maltreatment. The only time when incidents like this are reported is usually when a refugee has moved to another country and their safety is assured. Even then many refugees fail to report these unpleasant incidents, even though they are safe, simply because they know they are not going back. Those refugees who do report incidents of maltreatment may do so but this may be years later.

Protection

3.1 In order for an Iranian citizen to qualify as a refugee they meet the criteria outlined in the Refugee Convention Article 1A (2) which stipulates that "a person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country".

3.2 Maltreatment alone is inadequate for an Iranian citizen to be accepted as a refugee. The above criteria must be met. Usually, the citizens in Iran are unlikely to be maltreated on the foundation of Nationality or Race. However, it is highly probable for them to be maltreated on the grounds of Religion, Membership of a particular social group or Political opinion.

Many homosexuals and women in the state of Iran are continuously besieged, discriminated, held under illegitimate incarceration and maltreatment. Citizens of this sort would be categorised under the criteria of Social groups. The state of Iran is notorious for targeting political activities and therefore, it can be categorised under the criteria Political opinion.

3.3 In relation to religious minority groups the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights stipulates in Article 18 that ‘No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice’, and this freedom includes the right to change faith and hold a different view from the official state religion.

It is apparent that the people of Iran are absent from this freedom due to proselytism and apostasy being a crime that is punishable by death. Moreover, the state of Iran offers no protection for people wanting to change their religion. This is a crime where citizens are liable to be punished under Iranian law.

3.4 It is evident that Iranian citizens cannot embrace the state protection of Iran with open arms as it is one that continues to persecute Iranian citizens on Convention grounds such as religion, political opinions, social groups and so forth. Iran may decide to persecute someone with different reasons, but if the convention ground requirement is established then that will be sufficient for an Iranian citizen to obtain a refugee status. A refugee claiming that he is being maltreated on grounds of religion is more likely to be granted as Iran’s constitution is influential upon Shariah law.

Standard of Proof

4.1 Persecution in any state is an infringement of fundamental human rights and a malfunction of state protection. The notion of “well founded fear” has been acknowledged as taking into account a subjective and objective appraisal. Both elements must be considered to determine whether well founded fear is present. Fear could be described as a sensation of threat where serious harm could occur. It is nothing more or less than a belief of what could happen.

4.2 Common law suggests that in order for the standard of proof indicating that the fear is ‘well founded’ there must be a ‘serious possibility’ or ‘reasonable degree of likelihood’ present. This was illustrated in R v SSHD ex p Sivakumaran. Previous experience to persecution or maltreatment is usually adequate evidence to take into consideration if an individual is probable to be persecuted in the future.

In order for an Iranian citizen to be granted refugee status he would need to show that there is a reasonable likelihood of persecution as one of the convention grounds. Furthermore, there are numerous cases and precedent material in Iran to illustrate that homosexuals, women and religious minorities have been maltreated and persecuted and will continue to in the future.

4.3 For an Iranian citizen to be granted refugee status he need not show that he is being targeted independently. The convention grounds express that being part of a group which is randomly targeted in Iran would be adequate to receive refugee status. Thus, Iranian citizens would only need to prove that there is a reasonable chance their group being persecuted will occur.

Conclusion

5.1 In light of all the facts and information present, it is evident that Iran is insecure and dangerous as there are numerous Iranian citizens being maltreated and persecuted on conventional grounds. According to many reports Iranian citizens feel that they are not being protected by their state and are equally, being maltreated.

"I believe that … in the wake of the problems of mass migration that we have been facing our system is not fit for purpose. It is inadequate in terms of its scope; it is inadequate in terms of its information technology, leadership, management, systems and processes; and we have tried to cope with this new age, if you like, with a system that has been inherited from an age that came before it." Dr John Reid, Home Secretary, 1866 23rd May 2006

Critically evaluate ‘[the] system that has been inherited from an age that came before it’ and the measures adopted to make it 'fit for purpose'.

In the UK, immigration officers work for the UK Immigration Service which is part of the Home office’s Border and Immigration Agency that is responsible for securing the borders and controlling migration in the UK. The officers enjoy the powers of search, seize and arrest in addition to the ability to exercise some physical force.

Although comprising of individuals of a civilian body, the officers are directly linked to the home secretary and as such, they play an important part to immigration.Furthermore, section 3 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (IAA 1999) allows the secretary of the state acting on behalf of the sovereign, to enact certain prerogative powers in respect of individuals who enter and leave the UK.

Immigration rules are formulated by the home secretary and referred to by section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971. They include powers of governing those who enter or leave the UK and evidently in the UK, such powers are granted to secretary of the state on behalf of the sovereign.

The rules are not like normal statutes as they depict the criteria for which an individual would have to qualify to leave or enter the UK. The immigration rules are subject to changes as confirmed by Section 1(4) of the Immigration Act 1971 and hold enough weight to be admissible in courts and tribunals as evidence.

It is apparent that the UK aims to exercise cautiousness in regards to the official level concerning the case of immigrants, irrespective of whether they are of refugee status or any other for that matter. An issue arises as to the credibility of the immigration system and namely whether the system as such, is monitoring the mass migration in the UK effectively.

It has been mentioned by many critics that the political break up of Britain entailing as a result of immigration is inevitable. In fact, such critics hold the view that the UK may reach to a stage where it would no longer be acknowledged as a single united nation. Nevertheless, the Home office refuses to accept such critics and expresses strong emphasis on the concept of the UK entailing a balanced migration policy forwarded by the government. However, the criticism does still exist as a crucial issue in the area of immigration.

Home secretary John Reid suggested in May 2006, that he had entailed a ‘tidal wave of events’ since becoming the home secretary a fortnight previously. He commented to BBC News stating:

“The immigration department’s operation has been expressed as "not fit for purpose" with "inadequate" leadership and management systems…”

He then went on to state, that although his department was adjusting to accommodate the problems of mass migration, the system in the UK is inevitably proving to be unfit for it’s purpose.

A major piece of legislation in relation to immigration in the UK is the incorporation of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (IANA 2006). The act expresses new civil penalties for individuals who employ illegal workers, in combination with allowing people who are leaving the country to be detained whilst allowing immigration officers to execute biometric checks on passengers who have biometric documents in their possession.

It also stipulates the provision in respect of the removal of rights of appeals against the refusal of visas and specifies the increased power of the police, immigration and custom officers whereby, they are able to obtain any passenger, crew or freight information. The underlying outcome of the act identifies the UK’s attempt to initiate measures based on the recent technologies to tackle the issue of mass migration and affirm the immigration system as it for its purpose.

Nevertheless, the concept entails that the government could not issue any financial bonds and statistics demonstrate the lack of increase in the incarceration of unsuccessful asylum seekers. Asylum seekers who were removed after having being unsuccessful in their claims could not be taken up with the policy requirements respectively.

A huge impact on the management of the immigration system which led to the appointment of new home secretary John Reid, was the lack of concern of the UK citizens, in respect of the actions of the department in the removal of national prisoners. The people in the UK did not disregard the actions of the department in removing national prisoners, without considering the costs of deportation to subsequently have a knock on effect on the management of the immigration system.

Likewise, a system has been introduced in the UK so as to assist the handling of passenger’s information, to enhance the legitimate passenger’s movement in a timely manner whilst simultaneously informing the government of potential problems of terrorism, crime and illegal immigration. This system is recognized as the Border Management System and is at its early stage at the moment, with the intention of disseminating in July this year. Subsequently, the system does hold its disadvantages.

Some of which include; the accessibility difficulties which can prevent the availability of such information by the required agencies, the incapability of sharing the intelligence as such due to its direct connection to statutory regulations and the concept of less powered officers who cannot execute border control functions effectively.

It is not surprising that the lack of collaboration at times between agencies such as the Border Agencies Working Group and the Border Agencies Director Group, hamper the positive functioning of such systems. Further negating factors of the Border Management System include the loss of links with inland organizations, reduction of skills and the lacking ability of utilizing the biometric service process.

The efficiency of the immigration system in the UK is further scrutinized by its limited procedures of determining whether an individual is working in the UK or not. The employer’s duty under the corresponding law is the only means of establishing as such if an individual is working in the UK. The employers have a simple task of analyzing certain documents of potential employees, so as to ascertain whether they are entitled to work in the UK.

This although seems an easy task, has proved to be a major threat in the area of immigration in the UK, due to the open availability of forged documents that are used by many to overlook this requirement of providing documents to confirm their identity. The deliberate employment of an individual, who is not allowed to work in the UK, holds the employer to be acting contrary to section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996.

The mass migration issues and corresponding problems are in recent times on the verge of changing for the better. In fact, a points based immigration system is to be implemented in the UK, whereby requiring certain skills to enter the country and thus depicted as a measure which has been created to assist the government in controlling mass migration.

The points system is based primarily on the particular sector by which a person is entering the UK and certain points are allocated in accordance to their expertise, aptitude and age respectively. The secretary of state expressed in the recent case of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department that there were strong reasons why the migrants who are admitted under any programme preceding the aforementioned revisions, should be encompassed by the changes and that to allow them to proceed on an unaffected basis would undermine the operation of the revised programme. Thus, the system seems to be fit for its purpose to accommodate immigration.

A further positivity of the UK immigration system is evident in the advanced requirement for entry requirements to the UK. The efforts of the legislature to make it more fit for its purpose of governing immigration law is evident by its aim of replacing the current eighty routes to enter the UK into five tiers of workers at different skill levels. However, although it has its positive aspects, the replacement has been argued to encourage and increase the exploitation of migrant workers respectively.

The concept of migration is of a converse nature. On one hand there lies the issues of oppression and societal dysfunction which propel individuals to leave their homeland and on the other hand, the numerous economic and social opportunities attract individuals to leave their homeland and migrate to the UK. Clearly, there is a need of communicating the political and economical concern to encompass a well organized and correctly functioning international system in respect of immigration. The immigration system holds a requirement of the government formulating effective devices so as to promote and express its smooth functioning in the future and subsequently avoid any negative happenings in the future.

Bibliography

Secondary Sources

S Hamood, ‘EU-Libya cooperation on migration; a raw deal for refugees and migrants?’ (2008) 21(1) J.R.S. 19

D Duheric, ‘Employment and Immigration Points Based System’ (2008) 84 Emp.L.B. 2

Websites

The Star, ‘UK needs “principled” refugee policy – rights groups’ <http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/4/17/worldupdates/2007-04-16T210111Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_-294447-1&sec=Worldupdates> Accessed 10^th May 2008

BBC News, ‘Immigration system is unfit’ <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5007148.stm> Accessed 11^th May 2008

All of the essays in the free essays section were written by students and then submitted to us to display and help others. Thanks to all the students who have submitted their essays to us. You should not hand in our essays as your own. We do not condone plagiarism! If you need custom essay help, then have a look at our essay writing services.

Sign up and be the first to receive our latest offers: