A denial of review will return the petitioner to the theocratic regime in Iran, but an erroneous grant of review could establish a precedent that rewards less than genuine fears of persecution based on religious conversion. ... The right course between the threats of Scylla and Charybdis is for the Board to reconsider the record, which contains important evidence that the Board failed to mention.... There is evidence that the law against apostasy is not often enforced in Iran, but neither the Board nor the Immigration Judge considered Kazemzadeh's testimony that Iranians who convert from Islam to Christianity avoid punishment by instead suffering persecution by practicing underground.Judge Marcus concurred, but also wrote a separate opinion stressing, among other things, that "it is legal error to deny asylum on the basis of well-founded fear of religious persecution on the theory that an individual may escape discovery by abandoning his faith or hiding it and practicing his religion underground."
Judge Edenfield dissented on the religious persecution issue, arguing that having to practice religion underground to avoid punishment should not be seen as a form of persecution. He went on to conclude that the Board of Immigration Appeal acted reasonably in concluding that appellant had failed to demonstrate a pattern or practice of persecution against Christian converts in Iran. Finally he urged that on remand the Board of Immigration Appeals make a credibility determination as to the issue of the genuineness of appellant's conversion. Volokh Conspiracy discusses this latter point more fully. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]
