This Side of Silence. Tobias Kelly

of beer as well as an illegal satellite dish. The next day, he was taken to the Ettelaat office, where he was beaten again. His left eye socket was broken by a particularly heavy blow. As he was blindfolded, he did not know whether it was a kick, a punch, or a strike with an object. He then went on to explain to the British official that after a few days he was taken to court and sentenced to twenty-four lashes for possessing alcohol and fined for having the satellite dish. After paying the fine and receiving the lashes, Khalili was released.

      In the interview, the topic then turned to the conditions during Khalili’s most recent detention. Khalili told the official that he was held in the Ettelaat office for about one week. He claimed to have been tortured during this time. When pushed to give more details, Khalili explained that he had been blindfolded and handcuffed. He had then been hung from the ceiling by his hands and spun around while being beaten. The soles of his feet were hit with sticks, and he was later wrapped up in a rug until he felt he would suffocate. The Ettelaat officials also sat heavily on his knees and punched him in the head until he bled. After one week, he was taken to the hospital because he had blood in his urine.

      The immigration official then asked Khalili how he had managed to escape. Khalili explained that on the second night in the hospital his brother bribed one of the Ettelaat guards and he had managed to climb out a window and get into a waiting car. Khalili was questioned at length by the immigration official about the room he managed to escape from, and there was some confusion over whether Khalili climbed out the window of his room or of a nearby nurse’s room. Khalili described how he stayed at his cousin’s for two weeks, moving between his house and a shop. After a short break, the immigration official then turned to some apparent further inconsistencies in Khalili’s account. He claimed that Khalili had said that he had been arrested three and a half months ago, which was before he had said he had talked to his friends about Christianity. Khalili said that he had difficulty remembering the precise dates because of his “psychological status.”

      The immigration official told Khalili that he found it hard to believe that, given the torture described, he had not received more injuries. Khalili explained that this was because the Ettelaat “do their job very well” and do not want to leave any marks. The immigration official then turned to the issue of Christianity. Although Khalili knew Jesus had been crucified, when questioned he could not name the disciple who betrayed Jesus, the names of Jesus’ parents, or Jesus’ birthday. Khalili again explained that his psychological state made it hard for him to remember these things. Finally, Khalili was asked if he had attended any Christian services while he was in the United Kingdom, and he replied that he had not had any time. The interview was drawn to a close and Khalili was told he would be informed of the decision in due course.

       The Rejection

      Khalili’s case was being dealt with under a process within the UK immigration system, known as the New Asylum Model, which had been established in 2005 and was supposed to deal with cases in a faster and more efficient manner than previously. The UK Home Office boasted that this would lead not only to swifter decisions but also to faster removals (2006). Historically, cases had taken years to process, but under the new system some claims were being dealt with in a matter of weeks, although they could still take months or even years. One week after his interview, Khalili received a letter from the UK Border Agency signed by a different official from the one who had interviewed him. The letter quoted a report from the Danish immigration authorities that claimed “the consumption of alcohol in private homes is, in practice, not considered a crime any longer.” The letter argued that therefore, “Your account of being arrested, charged and sentenced partially for alcohol consumption in your own home is not consistent with the above objective evidence.” The letter went on to say, however, that even if this story were true, by Khalili’s own account he was released and he was therefore not believed to be of any further interest to the Iranian authorities.

      The letter then turned to Khalili’s account of his religious interests. It pointed out that Khalili had failed to identify Jesus’ birthday or the name of Jesus’ parents. Although it was noted that he had been able to provide other information about Jesus, the letter argued that the information was in the public domain, and therefore they gave it little weight. It was therefore claimed that the level of knowledge of Christianity that Khalili showed was not consistent with his claim to have had conversations about Jesus with his friends. The letter went on to quote a previous Asylum and Immigration Tribunal decision, where it was ruled that “for the ordinary convert, who is neither a leader or ordained, nor a Pastor, nor a proselytiser or evangelist, the actual degree of risk of persecution or treatment breaching Article 3 is not sufficient to warrant the protection of either Convention.”⁵ 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