Another Case of Transnational Repression: Another Activist Faces Permanent Risk of Arrest After Homeland Sentence is Finalized

The case represents another clear instance of transnational repression, in which a state uses its judicial system to punish and exile critics living overseas. Legal analysts note that such in absentia verdicts, often based on broadly defined national security charges, serve as a deliberate mechanism to sever dissidents from their country of origin. 

His conflict with Iranian authorities began before his public activism came to the fore. Following his arrests, interrogations, and a brief period of detention, he ultimately made the decision to leave the country. This move was to evade the continuing legal threat and the risk of a formal, long-term prosecution. His advocacy grew more focused after a personal loss during the 2022 protest movement. He subsequently used his professional skills to develop a documentation platform, a move that firmly established him as a person of interest to the authorities.

The trial, held without the defendant present, has drawn sharp criticism for denying basic elements of a fair legal defense. The finalization of the lengthy sentence is viewed as a pointed message to the Iranian diaspora, indicating that past clashes with the state and ongoing activism from abroad can lead to permanent exile and the enduring threat of imprisonment.

Since the appellate ruling was issued, he has maintained public silence, a response that observers attribute to the serious and complex risks involved. His case underscores the increasing peril faced by Iranians abroad as the state deploys its legal apparatus across borders to penalize past dissent and deter current criticism.