Fleeing Persecution Asylum Claims in the UK on Religious Freedom

same word to <strong>the</strong> Judge. The judge <strong>in</strong> his decision stated that <strong>the</strong> last book of <strong>the</strong> Bible
was not Mokashefe but ra<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> book of Revelation. Mohammad also did not have any
lawyer and <strong>the</strong>refore could not answer all <strong>the</strong> judge’s questions promptly as he was
under a lot of pressure. He won his case at <strong>the</strong> Upper Tribunal though after <strong>in</strong>struct<strong>in</strong>g a
lawyer, hav<strong>in</strong>g a witness and hav<strong>in</strong>g a different <strong>in</strong>terpreter.”
In <strong>the</strong> case of Mohammad, while <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpreter was clearly fluent <strong>in</strong> Farsi and English, Christian
term<strong>in</strong>ology is not commonly understood and consequently this <strong>in</strong>terpretation error was used to
underm<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong> applicant’s credibility and possibly led to <strong>the</strong> rejection of his claim. In <strong>the</strong>ir jo<strong>in</strong>t
written submission to <strong>the</strong> APPG and <strong>the</strong> AAG, Wag<strong>in</strong>g Peace and Article 1 organisations also
highlighted <strong>the</strong> problems with <strong>in</strong>terpreters with o<strong>the</strong>r languages, notably Arabic. In <strong>the</strong>ir
submission <strong>the</strong>y state “this happens very often <strong>in</strong> Coptic Christian cases or where Muslim Arabic
<strong>in</strong>terpreters are critical of an <strong>in</strong>dividual’s decision to leave Islam” and that <strong>the</strong> Sudanese asylum
applicant Ms B said that “this was an issue for her, as her <strong>in</strong>terpreters did not know what <strong>the</strong> term
FGM (female genital mutilation) meant and had trouble translat<strong>in</strong>g terms from <strong>the</strong> Baha’i Faith.
She was also afraid that her <strong>in</strong>terpreter might be Sudanese, which made her scared that her story
would be made public and her life would be threatened.”
In fact, <strong>the</strong> fear over <strong>the</strong> professional conduct of <strong>in</strong>terpreters and <strong>the</strong>ir ability to communicate
clearly between <strong>the</strong> decision maker and applicant as well as an <strong>in</strong>timidat<strong>in</strong>g dynamic of be<strong>in</strong>g
<strong>in</strong>terpreted/translated through a person from <strong>the</strong> religious community that has caused
persecution to <strong>the</strong> asylum applicant has been frequently raised to <strong>the</strong> APPG by stakeholders as an
ongo<strong>in</strong>g concern. This is particularly so <strong>in</strong> religious conversion cases. Dr Ibrahim Habib of United
Copts of Great Brita<strong>in</strong> stated <strong>in</strong> his oral presentation before <strong>the</strong> members of <strong>the</strong> APPG and <strong>the</strong> AAG:
“A Muslim <strong>in</strong>terpreter and at times a Muslim caseworker make th<strong>in</strong>gs very difficult for
applicants. Tell<strong>in</strong>g stories of persecution <strong>in</strong> Egypt and conversion from Islam to
Christianity makes <strong>the</strong> process very emotionally difficult for <strong>the</strong> people if <strong>the</strong> person <strong>the</strong>y
are talk<strong>in</strong>g to is a Muslim. Some fear <strong>the</strong>ir applications might not have a fair chance or
<strong>the</strong>y feel pressured to control what <strong>the</strong>y say. There must be more sensitivity to <strong>the</strong>ir
needs.”
Grounds for Refusal
In evidence submitted to <strong>the</strong> APPG and <strong>the</strong> AAG, <strong>the</strong>re are concern<strong>in</strong>g examples of asylum
applications be<strong>in</strong>g denied on grounds that clearly contradict law and <strong>the</strong> <strong>UK</strong>’s own policy
guidel<strong>in</strong>es and Country of Orig<strong>in</strong> Information.
This is most acutely seen <strong>in</strong> cases where '<strong>in</strong>sufficient <strong>in</strong>formation' or evidence is cited as grounds
for refusal. In <strong>the</strong>ir submissions, Wag<strong>in</strong>g Peace and Article 18 note that “<strong>the</strong> Home Office regularly
claim not to have <strong>in</strong>formation on particular groups”, which directly effects credibility assessment.
For <strong>in</strong>stance, <strong>the</strong> submissions by both organizations give example of <strong>the</strong> case of Ms A from Sudan,
who had claimed asylum <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>UK</strong> on <strong>the</strong> basis of her a<strong>the</strong>ism. She was told “that as <strong>the</strong>re was no
evidence about a<strong>the</strong>ism <strong>in</strong> Sudan, it could be concluded that <strong>the</strong>re are no a<strong>the</strong>ists <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> country
and that <strong>the</strong>refore she could not possible have been persecuted for this reason.”
Ano<strong>the</strong>r ground for refusal identified <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> submissions was on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>the</strong> applicant could keep
<strong>the</strong>ir faith to <strong>the</strong>mselves and not engage <strong>in</strong> public expressions. As Wag<strong>in</strong>g Peace and Article 1 note
<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir evidence:
30