Points To Be Made Relevant to Asylum Application of Ardalan Masouleh
QUOTE THESE DETAILS IN THE EMAIL
Ardalan Ebrahimi Masouleh
10 Foster St
Oldham Ol4 1NQ
Home Office Reference: M1302297
Please support Ardalan (Arsen) Masouleh's asylum application by sending a message to Meg Hillier MP, Under Secretary of State at the Home Office. Contact details may be found on this link.
POINTS TO BE MADE (IN YOUR OWN WORDS PLEASE)
DO NOT USE THE NAME "ARSEN" WHICH IS HIS BAPTISM NAME ONLY AND NOT REFERRED TO IN HIS APPLICATION.
1. It is a basic human right to have the freedom to
practise one's religion.
2. Ardalan is an Iranian convert to Christianity from Islam and a member
of St. Aidan's Antiochian Orthodox Church in Manchester, serving on the
Parish Council there and being involved in many evangelistic activities
in the city.
3. He is an active Orthodox Christian who left Iran after his baptism
and applied for asylum here.
4. Following the circumstances of his departure from Iran his active
Christianity and compromised political status is now known to all who
wish to do him harm in Iran should he ever return. Evidence of this has
been provided.
5. His case and situation is identical religiously speaking to that of
Mr Ali Pourakaberian (Home Office reference of A1287855) who was
baptised with him and who has been granted asylum on almost
identical religious grounds.
DATA PROTECTION
If you get a message from the Home Office or anyone else saying that they cannot divulge any information under Data Protection then there are two views on this ...
1. Comply with request to get permission from Arsen on the grounds that they are not going even to read what you say without it.
OR ....
2. Write back and say this:-
"I am not ASKING for any information. I am GIVING you information ... which I still hope you might read and attend to. No response TO ME is expected. Thank you."
I favour the SECOND option on the grounds that they are not going to change their minds based on individual submissions anyway. The point is simply the cumulative response both in breadth and depth of feeling. My own view is that the "Data Protection" automated response is simply a plausible (but of course, absolutely irrelevant and inapplicable) way they have of trying to control their email Inbox and fax paper usage. Things change with VOLUME OF RESPONSE and PUBLIC EXPOSURE. The issues both have to get into the public domain AND pierce the hide of the establishment. Data Protection is a non issue when you making a personal representation on someone's behalf (which we are doing) rather than expecting a personal response (which we are not).
Thank you, Fr. Gregory
