The author of the communication is S.Q., a national of Iraq born on 20 May 1986. The author, who is deaf, claims that by deporting him to Iraq, the State party would violate his rights under articles 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16 of the Convention. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 14 January 2009. The author is represented by counsel.
The author married in 2013, and divorced his wife in 2015. Considering a divorce to be a hostile action, his former wife’s relatives threatened the author and his family and attacked his house. The author became afraid of his former father-in-law, who was aggressive. Additionally, his former wife’s family reported to the police that the author had raped her. The author feared that he would be killed. On one occasion, the author met his former fatherin-law and some other men holding knives on the street, but he managed to flee. On another occasion, the author was pushed against a wall. Thereafter, he hid at his aunt’s home. However, his former father-in-law continued to search for him. The author indicates that there was gunfire at his parents’ house.
On 4 November 2015, the author applied for asylum in the State party.3 On 7 April 2017, the Migration Agency rejected his asylum application, finding that the author would not be subjected to discrimination to the extent of persecution in Iraq. In doing so, the Agency stated that the author had been able to live with his family, work and support himself, that he had not systematically been excluded from public education, and that there were ongoing efforts in Kurdistan Region, from where the author originates, to improve the situation of deaf persons. The Agency considered his statements about threats by his former wife’s family not to be credible and found no reason to believe that he would be at risk of being subjected to death or torture.
- The author does not provide information as to when and how he left Iraq and arrived in the State party. ↩
On an unknown date, the author appealed to the Migration Court, claiming that the Migration Agency had not satisfactorily interviewed him and thus he had been unable to properly describe his experience because of linguistic shortcomings. The Court rejected his request for an oral hearing on 7 June 2017 and his appeal on 13 September 2017, finding that the Agency had properly handled his case and that nothing indicated that the author needed international protection. On 23 October 2017, the Migration Court of Appeal decided not to grant leave to appeal.
On an unknown date, the author requested the Migration Agency to review his case based on new circumstances supported by police reports, dated 15 and 16 February 2014, concerning his former wife’s family. On 7 June 2018, the Agency rejected the request, finding that the police reports were an addition to or a modification of previously invoked circumstances only.
On 5 July 2019, the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures, decided to register the communication but not to grant the author’s request for interim measures.
In its observations dated 24 January 2020, the State party submitted that the communication was partially inadmissible ratione materiae and ratione loci. The State party further submitted that the author had not substantiated his claim that he would run a foreseeable, present, personal and real risk of being subjected to a violation of the Convention upon return to Iraq. The State party submitted that the communication was based on grounds other than disability, that domestic remedies had not been exhausted and that the communications was without merit.
In his comments dated 5 April 2020, the author stated that he had not invoked any rights in the present communication beyond those enshrined in the Convention. The author stated that he had had serious difficulties understanding the questions at the asylum interview and giving proper answers, as confirmed by the interview transcript.
In its additional observations dated 9 April 2020, the State party expressed the view that the author’s comments did not include any new submissions.
On 3 December 2021, the State party requested that the Committee discontinue its consideration of the communication, as the decision to expel the author had become statutebarred and the author could apply anew to the Migration Agency for asylum and a residence permit.
At a meeting on 29 August 2024, the Committee, observing that the author had not commented on the State party’s request, concluded that the subject matter of the communication had become moot and decided to discontinue the consideration of communication No. 62/2019.