Norwegian authorities are proceeding with plans to return at least three Iranian asylum seekers to their home country, despite escalating violence and anti-regime protests across Iran. The decision, defended by the country's Immigration Appeals Board, maintains there is no current basis for a general suspension of returns, placing individuals like Sirwan Aminpour in a state of acute fear as they await deportation from the Trandum police immigration detention center.
A Life in Limbo at Trandum
Sirwan Aminpour, an Iranian-Kurdish man, wakes each day at the Trandum detention facility filled with stress and dread. His asylum claim was rejected in 2014, and he has remained in Norway since. Now, he faces forced return to an Iran convulsed by demonstrations where thousands have reportedly died. 'It is not an easy situation for me to be here. I wake up with a lot of stress and thoughts in my head, and I am afraid every day,' Aminpour said. The Norwegian administration concluded in his case that he had not sufficiently demonstrated he would be persecuted upon return, a assessment he vehemently disputes, fearing arrest and execution.
Official Policy: Individual Assessments Continue
The Immigration Appeals Board (UNE) is the appellate body for immigration cases. Its unit leader, Terje Østraat, stated in an email that despite the increased unrest, Iranian citizens with final rejections are still obligated to return. 'The assessment is that for the moment there is no basis for a general suspension of the duty to leave,' Østraat wrote. He emphasized that Norwegian authorities are monitoring the situation and that UNE implements an individual assessment in each case. The Police Immigration Unit (PU), responsible for carrying out returns, aligns its actions with these rulings. Section leader Håvard Johnsen Bekk declined to specify how many Iranians are scheduled for removal due to police operational considerations, confirming only that three are currently detained at Trandum planned for return to Iran.
Expert Criticism and Human Rights Concerns
This policy stance has drawn sharp criticism from human rights observers. Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, director of the organization Iran Human Rights, argues that no one should be forcibly returned to Iran at this time. 'It can absolutely be dangerous, especially for a Kurdish person,' he said, highlighting the particular risks faced by ethnic minorities and regime critics. The ongoing protests, which have filled streets in several Iranian cities for over two weeks, represent a significant escalation in the state's crackdown on dissent. Verified video footage from the capital, Tehran, shows brutal scenes of violence, underscoring the volatile environment. Critics argue the principle of 'non-refoulement'—the prohibition on returning people to places where they face serious threats—should trigger a blanket pause on removals.
The Mechanics of Forced Return
The process hinges on the distinction between a general country situation and an individual's proven risk. Norwegian immigration law requires applicants to substantiate a personal threat of persecution. UNE's position suggests the current widespread violence, while severe, does not automatically constitute a generalized risk warranting protection for every Iranian national. The Police Immigration Unit's role is administrative enforcement; they execute orders based on the legal decisions from the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration (UDI) and UNE. 'We relate to the decisions from UDI and UNE in individual cases and continuously assess which returns we plan,' Bekk explained in an email. This creates a stark reality where international attention focuses on Iran's internal crisis, while individuals within Norway's detention system face imminent transfer into that same crisis.
Broader Context and Political Implications
Norway's approach reflects a broader, challenging tension in asylum policy between adhering to strict legal procedures and responding to rapidly deteriorating human rights conditions abroad. The country has historically been seen as a champion of humanitarian principles, yet its immigration system must navigate complex legal frameworks. The case of the Iranians at Trandum tests the system's flexibility. Other European nations have at times halted returns to specific countries during acute crises, but Norway's authorities have not yet found the threshold met for Iran. This decision carries significant weight, potentially setting a precedent for how Norway evaluates unrest in other nations of origin for asylum seekers.
An Uncertain Future for Those Awaiting Departure
For Sirwan Aminpour and the two other Iranians detained at Trandum, the policy debate translates into a personal nightmare of waiting. Their futures depend on the continuous, case-by-case evaluation UNE promises, weighed against the unfolding tragedy in their homeland. The Norwegian government's stance is clear for now: the duty to return remains unless an individual can prove specific jeopardy. As images of violence continue to emerge from Iran, human rights organizations and legal advocates are likely to intensify their calls for a policy reassessment. The fundamental question remains: at what point does a country's general situation become so dangerous that it overrides the requirement for individual proof of persecution? The answer, for these three men, is a matter of life and death.