Advance unedited version CCPR/C/133/D/2623/2015 PRRA officer accepted that he had converted to Christianity. However, the officer concluded that as the author was a Sufi, and as such not a follower of Islam, he would therefore not face persecution for converting to Christianity. The author argues that the officer erred in this finding as the Sufi faith is a sect of Islam and, additionally, Sufis are persecuted by the Iranian regime for not following the state sanctioned religion, which would increase the risk the author is facing if returned. 5.3 The author notes that Amnesty International has stated that interrogation and harassment of Iranians who may have been asylum seekers appears to have become state policy.9 He notes that Amnesty International has expressed the view that the treatment of failed asylum seekers is unpredictable and depends on an individual’s profile and previous activities, including previous periods of detention. A person returned to Iran by way of an expired passport or one way travel document will almost certainly be questioned upon arrival about his reasons for departure from the country and the nature of his stay abroad. The author further notes that Amnesty International has also found that, while much depends on an individual’s profile and previous activities in Iran, should such a person be suspected of “constructing” an asylum claim, he could face vaguely worded charges relating to “propaganda against the system”, leading to detention, criminal prosecution, ill-treatment and torture.10 The author also notes that Amnesty International continues to have concerns about the continued persecution of Christian converts in Iran. Conversion from Islam, or apostasy, may be punished by death if the convert refuses to reconvert to Islam.11 5.4 This author further notes that he is a member of a congregation that is expected to proselytize. He notes that the PRRA officer found that he could practice his faith in secret. He argues that this finding is erroneous because even if he was not required to proselytize, he should not be required to practice his faith in secret, in fear, and without a church or fellowship with others. Even having a Bible in Iran would place him at risk should the regime ever find it. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the communication is inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies as the author has failed to exhaust domestic remedies by failing to: i) appear at his refugee determination hearing and the hearing into the abandonment of his claim; ii) seek judicial review of the finding that he was inadmissible due to criminality; and iii) apply for permanent residence based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations. It notes the author’s argument that he informed the State party authorities of his inability to attend the first hearing due to health reasons following a car accident and that neither he nor his counsel were informed of the Refugee Board’s decision to hold an abandonment hearing on his asylum application. The Committee further notes the author’s claims that he was not informed of the finding that he was inadmissible due to criminality and his claim that he does not have a criminal conviction in Denmark but was merely held in immigration detention in that country and his argument that a finding of inadmissibility due to criminality does not contain a risk assessment. The Committee notes that the parties have provided contradicting submissions as to whether the author was informed of the abandonment hearing in November 2014. Based on the information on file, the Committee finds that it has not been established that the author was duly notified of the 9 10 11 Letter from Amnesty International, dated June 18, 2015. Ibid. Ibid. 7