Fleeing Persecution Asylum Claims in the UK on Religious Freedom

<strong>the</strong> validity of any evidence and <strong>the</strong> credibility of <strong>the</strong> applicant’s statements’. 63 The applicant’s
evidence can be judged aga<strong>in</strong>st objective evidence where available, for example country of orig<strong>in</strong>
<strong>in</strong>formation. <strong>UK</strong> guidance recognises <strong>the</strong> challenges faced by asylum seekers <strong>in</strong> ga<strong>the</strong>r<strong>in</strong>g
documentary evidence to substantiate <strong>the</strong>ir claim. 64 Consequently <strong>the</strong>re is a shared duty between
<strong>the</strong> <strong>UK</strong> authorities and <strong>the</strong> applicant to ascerta<strong>in</strong> and establish all <strong>the</strong> evidence that would
substantiate a claim. 65 This, for example, may <strong>in</strong>clude <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terviewer <strong>in</strong>vit<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> applicant to
submit evidence considered necessary to support <strong>the</strong> claim.
An asylum-seeker is not required to prove each material fact with documentary evidence <strong>in</strong> order
for <strong>the</strong> claim to be deemed credible. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, it is ‘<strong>in</strong>ternally’ credible if <strong>the</strong>y are able to provide
<strong>in</strong>dependent evidence and corroborate evidence about past and present events that is supported
by available objective <strong>in</strong>formation. 66 Where applicants are <strong>in</strong>consistent <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir evidence, mitigat<strong>in</strong>g
circumstances should be taken <strong>in</strong>to account, such as <strong>the</strong> impact of trauma on memory. The
applicant’s ‘<strong>in</strong>ternal credibility’ is <strong>the</strong>reafter analysed aga<strong>in</strong>st objective country <strong>in</strong>formation. If
objective evidence clearly contradicts applicant’s statements, this is likely to result <strong>in</strong> a negative
credibility f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g. 67 Where <strong>the</strong>re is no such objective <strong>in</strong>formation, <strong>the</strong> decision-maker can apply
<strong>the</strong> benefit of <strong>the</strong> doubt, where an applicant is deemed to be generally credible. 68
In light of <strong>the</strong> subjective nature of a credibility assessment, various safeguards are <strong>in</strong>corporated
<strong>in</strong>to current <strong>UK</strong> guidance to try to ensure claims are assessed objectively and not on <strong>the</strong> decisionmakers
own experiences and beliefs that would underm<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong> balance and fairness of an
assessment. This requires decision-makers to apply a structured approach to credibility
assessment, with <strong>the</strong> requirement that f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs be made only on material facts and not peripheral
or m<strong>in</strong>or details; clear reasons provided for why facts have been accepted or rejected and <strong>the</strong>
applicant be given <strong>the</strong> opportunity to expla<strong>in</strong> any <strong>in</strong>consistencies or <strong>in</strong>coherency with <strong>the</strong>
evidence.
To properly <strong>in</strong>vestigate <strong>the</strong> claim, it is vital that <strong>the</strong> decision-maker asks <strong>the</strong> right questions. In
religious cases this is a delicate exercise due to <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternal nature of religious belief and <strong>the</strong> fact
that religious knowledge may not be proof of any personally held religious conviction. ILPA has, <strong>in</strong>
its submission to this enquiry, made reference to <strong>the</strong> new asylum <strong>in</strong>terview API as it relates to
religious conversion cases as progress, although ra<strong>the</strong>r narrow <strong>in</strong> scope. The policy recognises that
knowledge tests ‘are liable to establish noth<strong>in</strong>g more than <strong>the</strong> ability to absorb factual <strong>in</strong>formation’
and be ‘based on <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terview<strong>in</strong>g officer’s subjective perception of what a convert should know,
ra<strong>the</strong>r than focused on <strong>the</strong> personal beliefs and behaviour of <strong>the</strong> claimant” and directs
63
See, UNHCR Handbook para 195. See also <strong>the</strong> European Court of Human Rights Case R.C. v. Sweden
Application No. 41827/07 where <strong>the</strong> Court holds that ‘<strong>the</strong> State has a duty to ascerta<strong>in</strong> all relevant facts,
particularly <strong>in</strong> circumstances where <strong>the</strong>re is a strong <strong>in</strong>dication that an applicant’s <strong>in</strong>juries may have been
caused by torture’. The Court states ‘that <strong>the</strong> onus rests with <strong>the</strong> State to dispel doubts about <strong>the</strong> right of
his be<strong>in</strong>g subjected aga<strong>in</strong> to treatment contrary to Article 3 <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> event that his expulsion proceeds’, para
53 : http://hudoc.echr.coe.<strong>in</strong>t/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-97625#{"itemid":["001-97625"]}
64
See <strong>UK</strong>VI <strong>Asylum</strong> Policy Instruction, Assess<strong>in</strong>g Credibility and Refugee Status, 6 January 2015, para 4.1:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/397778/ASSESSING_CREDI
BILITY_AND_REFUGEE_STATUS_V9_0.pdf
65
UNHCR Handbook and Guidel<strong>in</strong>es on Procedures and Criteria for Determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g Refugee Status under <strong>the</strong>
1951 Convention and <strong>the</strong> 1967 Protocol Relat<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> Status of Refugees, December 2011, para. 196,
available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/4f33c8d92.html
66
See <strong>UK</strong>VI <strong>Asylum</strong> Policy Instruction, Assess<strong>in</strong>g Credibility and Refugee Status, 6 January 2015, para 5.2,
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/397778/ASSESSING_CREDI
BILITY_AND_REFUGEE_STATUS_V9_0.pdf
67
Ibid Para. 5.4.
68
Ibid
23