Skip to content

Court: No asylum for Iranian women solely because they refuse to wear headscarves

Refusing to wear a headscarf is not sufficient grounds for asylum for women from Iran, according to court rulings. The Schleswig-Holstein Higher Administrative Court (OVG) in Schleswig ruled in two judgments announced on Monday that there is only a right to protection if "Western" values and...

Justice in front of legal texts.aussiedlerbote.de
Justice in front of legal texts.aussiedlerbote.de

Court: No asylum for Iranian women solely because they refuse to wear headscarves

The two plaintiff women had both stated that they did not want to wear a headscarf and had become accustomed to the local "Western lifestyle". The OVG ruled that this did not yet lead to persecution with "considerable probability". The same applied to an illegal departure from Iran, an application for asylum and a longer stay in a Western country, as well as a "mere formal conversion to Christianity" or mere participation in demonstrations in Germany. The OVG therefore dismissed the second applicant.

The first, on the other hand, was successful. Here, the judges in Schleswig were convinced that she had "an identity-defining commitment to 'Western' values". It was therefore unreasonable to expect her to submit to the "regulations of the Iranian state that contradict these values". In addition, she had actively campaigned for women's rights in Iran and had also been "prominently involved in exile politics" in Germany. A photo in this regard is "easy to find on the internet".

A third plaintiff belongs to the Ahwazi, an Arab population group with around four million members in Iran. The OVG ruled that these people could not rely on so-called group persecution. Although there were "numerous de facto discriminations and restrictions", these did not "exceed a persecution-relevant threshold". However, the plaintiff had actively campaigned for the human rights of the Ahwazi on the internet, naming himself. As Iran could consider this to be critical of the regime, the OVG granted him refugee protection.

Read also:

The court's judgment on the asylum application of the Iranian woman who refused to wear a headscarf sparked controversy. Critics argued that the decision could potentially deny asylum to other Iranian women in similar situations. From the court's perspective, this refusal was not considered a substantial reason for granting asylum in Germany.

None of the factors mentioned, such as an illegal departure from Iran, an asylum application, a longer stay in a Western country, or even a formal conversion to Christianity, were sufficient reasons for the court to overturn its decision. The second applicant's case was therefore dismissed.

Despite the court's refusal, the first applicant's commitment to 'Western' values and her activism for women's rights in Iran and Germany were key factors in her asylum being granted. Her case highlighted the complexity of these issues and the need for a nuanced approach.

The OVG's ruling on the Ahwazi plaintiff was another contentious issue. While acknowledging de facto discriminations and restrictions, the court concluded that these did not reach a persecution-relevant threshold. However, the woman's public activism for Ahwazi human rights on the internet, despite potential repercussions from the Iranian government, contributed to her being granted refugee protection.

These cases illustrate the delicate balance between national security and individual human rights, as well as the complexities inherent in refugee applications at the European Court of Justice in Schleswig.

The court's decisions also underscore the importance of each case being assessed on its individual merits, rather than using blanket judgments based on nationality, religion, or cultural practices. This nuanced approach, while challenging, is essential in ensuring a fair and equitable asylum process.

These court judgments also reveal the fluid nature of asylum law and the ongoing debates within legal circles about the interpretation and application of refugee protection principles.

In conclusion, the court's judgments on these asylum applications serve as a reminder of the complex and evolving nature of refugee law and the need for a nuanced, individualized approach.

Source: www.stern.de

Comments

Latest

Grave accusations levied against JVA staff members in Bavaria

Grave accusations levied against JVA staff members in Bavaria

Grave accusations levied against JVA staff members in Bavaria The Augsburg District Attorney's Office is currently investigating several staff members of the Augsburg-Gablingen prison (JVA) on allegations of severe prisoner mistreatment. The focus of the investigation is on claims of bodily harm in the workplace. It's

Members Public