The letter pointed out that by Khalili’s own account he was none of the above, and therefore “according to the objective evidence” he would not be at risk on his return to Iran.
The issue of Khalili’s second arrest was then addressed. The letter argued that numerous inconsistencies appeared in his claim, not least about the timing of events. It was also argued that the fact that Khalili claimed that the only significant long-term symptom he could show—blood in the urine—was inconsistent with his claims of repeated beatings. Quoting the Home Office’s own Country of Origin Information Report, which claimed that Ettelaat was “one of the largest and most active intelligence agencies in the world,” the letter argued that it was inconsistent that they were not able to find Khalili after he had escaped (COIS 2009). It was concluded that Khalili had given an “inconsistent and implausible account” of his experiences and therefore it was not accepted that he had ever been detained or was of interest to the Ettelaat. In short, the claim was not believed. As a result, the letter ended by saying that Khalili did not qualify for protection under the Refugee Convention or Article 3 and it was “therefore considered that your removal from the UK is appropriate.”
Legal Representation
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
