Fleeing Persecution Asylum Claims in the UK on Religious Freedom

<strong>the</strong>y have merely been told what to say.”
In support, ILPA provided <strong>the</strong> example of a Ch<strong>in</strong>ese Christian who demonstrated lack of knowledge
on Biblical questions but at her appeal hear<strong>in</strong>g demonstrated excellent knowledge of <strong>the</strong> Catholic
catechism. A Ch<strong>in</strong>ese priest “who gave evidence at her appeal spoke of <strong>the</strong> lack of knowledge
among his native flock of New Testament Bible stories, <strong>the</strong> gospels etc. He set <strong>in</strong>to context <strong>the</strong>
client’s difficulty <strong>in</strong> answer<strong>in</strong>g such questions <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>terview follow<strong>in</strong>g which her claim had been
refused.”
Interpreters
Interpreters arranged by <strong>the</strong> Home Office via private companies provide <strong>in</strong>terpretation/translation
for asylum <strong>in</strong>terviews. Though not employed by <strong>the</strong> Home Office, <strong>the</strong> Home Office expect and
assumes an efficient level of language skill and professionalism from <strong>in</strong>terpreters sent. Home
Office policy governs this expectation.
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>UK</strong> policy, <strong>in</strong>terviewers are required to ‘check with <strong>in</strong>terpreters before <strong>the</strong> start of
<strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terview that <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpreter has an understand<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> religious term<strong>in</strong>ology and that
questions prepared can be <strong>in</strong>terpreted accurately.’ 84 However, dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> hear<strong>in</strong>gs, <strong>the</strong> APPG and
<strong>the</strong> AAG have heard first hand testimonies of <strong>in</strong>terpreters fail<strong>in</strong>g both on <strong>the</strong>ir language
competency and professional conduct, <strong>the</strong>reby hav<strong>in</strong>g a detrimental impact on <strong>the</strong> process.
In an <strong>in</strong>terview with <strong>the</strong> APPG <strong>in</strong> May 2016, Mr Hamid Delrouz, an Iranian Christian convert, stated
that his asylum rejections by <strong>the</strong> Home Office were helped by <strong>the</strong> fact that, <strong>in</strong> court, his <strong>in</strong>terpreter
was not familiar with <strong>the</strong> Biblical terms <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g ‘Book of Psalms’ and ‘Jeremiah’ which were
translated <strong>in</strong>correctly. Such mistranslation, he attests, helped <strong>in</strong>form <strong>the</strong> Home Office’s rejections
that were given on <strong>the</strong> basis of his be<strong>in</strong>g ‘unable to demonstrate, as truth, that he is a Christian’.
In fur<strong>the</strong>r evidence submitted to <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>quiry team <strong>in</strong> May 2016, <strong>the</strong> Ahmadiyya Muslim Association
<strong>UK</strong> highlights <strong>the</strong> case of one Ahmadi man who, <strong>in</strong> his <strong>in</strong>terview, felt that he had to start answer<strong>in</strong>g
<strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terviewer’s questions <strong>in</strong> his broken English and not use his Urdu-speak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>terpreter, mak<strong>in</strong>g
<strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpreter angry, because some of <strong>the</strong> concepts he was convey<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Urdu were not be<strong>in</strong>g
translated properly or were be<strong>in</strong>g missed out. The Ahmadi applicant felt that this was affect<strong>in</strong>g his
asylum case and was concerned that ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpreter did not have knowledge of Ahmadis’
beliefs or did not personally agree with <strong>the</strong>m. In this <strong>in</strong>dividual’s First Tier Tribunal case, when he
said to <strong>the</strong> judge that he wanted to expla<strong>in</strong> his position properly when he felt <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpreter was
fail<strong>in</strong>g to do so, he was told by <strong>the</strong> judge not to speak <strong>in</strong> English and only <strong>in</strong> Urdu through <strong>the</strong>
<strong>in</strong>terpreter.
Ms Attieh Fard, a solicitor focus<strong>in</strong>g on asylum claims, gave <strong>the</strong> example of Mohammad (a
pseudonym) <strong>in</strong> evidence to <strong>the</strong> APPG and <strong>the</strong> AAG:
“Mohammad was an active house church leader <strong>in</strong> Iran. His case was refused because <strong>the</strong>
Home Office did not believe he was a Christian. He lost his first appeal because of mistranslation
of Christian term<strong>in</strong>ology at <strong>the</strong> hear<strong>in</strong>g. Dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> tribunal hear<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>the</strong> judge
asked him to state <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>the</strong> last book of <strong>the</strong> Bible. Mohammad responded
Mokashefe, which is <strong>the</strong> Farsi word for Revelation; <strong>the</strong> Muslim <strong>in</strong>terpreter repeated <strong>the</strong>
84
See <strong>UK</strong>VI <strong>Asylum</strong> Policy Instruction <strong>Asylum</strong> InterviewS, 31 March 2014, para 8, available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/298853/<strong>Asylum</strong>_<strong>in</strong>terview
_policy_guidance_v_5.pdf
29