Fleeing Persecution Asylum Claims in the UK on Religious Freedom

“There is a presumption, evident <strong>in</strong> conversations and dur<strong>in</strong>g question<strong>in</strong>g with <strong>the</strong>
Home Office and o<strong>the</strong>r authorities, that your faith or beliefs are someth<strong>in</strong>g you choose,
and can be kept private. Ms A was asked why she could not have just kept her a<strong>the</strong>ist
beliefs to herself, and asked repeatedly what made her speak out. Ms A says this l<strong>in</strong>e of
question<strong>in</strong>g made her feel she was be<strong>in</strong>g blamed, ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> regime that had
persecuted her.”
Such views not only demonstrate a lack of understand<strong>in</strong>g of religion, religious identity and religious
persecution, but also contradict human rights and refugee law, as recently stated by <strong>the</strong> <strong>UK</strong>
Supreme Court, 85 with <strong>the</strong> tenant of refugee law to protect fundamental freedoms and <strong>the</strong> right
to live out those freedoms.
Ano<strong>the</strong>r frequent reason for refusal that came before APPG and <strong>the</strong> AAG <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> evidence is <strong>the</strong>
<strong>in</strong>ternal relocation argument, comb<strong>in</strong>ed with an absence of subsequent analysis of <strong>the</strong> ability of
<strong>the</strong> state to protect aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> harm feared <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> proposed area of relocation. Concerns were
voiced <strong>in</strong> evidence to <strong>the</strong> APPG and <strong>the</strong> AAG given that widespread social hostilities towards
religious m<strong>in</strong>orities <strong>in</strong> certa<strong>in</strong> countries by non-state actors and <strong>the</strong> correspond<strong>in</strong>g weak or
unwill<strong>in</strong>g law enforcement, <strong>the</strong> presence of radical and militant networks and <strong>the</strong> deep social
taboos regard<strong>in</strong>g apostasy <strong>in</strong> relocation areas. Dr Ibrahim of United Copts of Great Brita<strong>in</strong> stated
that “Over <strong>the</strong> years, some applications have been turned down with <strong>the</strong> argument that if a Copt
was persecuted <strong>in</strong> one part of Egypt, <strong>the</strong>y could be safe if <strong>the</strong>y moved to ano<strong>the</strong>r part of <strong>the</strong>
country. This relocation argument is not valid, because <strong>the</strong> widespread media, nationwide radical
organizations and nationwide community relations, relocation does not protect an <strong>in</strong>dividual who
has already faced life threaten<strong>in</strong>g condition”.
Mr Dave Smith, founder of <strong>the</strong> Boaz Trust, which offers “accommodation and support for refused
asylum seekers who would o<strong>the</strong>rwise be destitute”, cited <strong>the</strong> case of a H<strong>in</strong>du Nepali couple who
converted to Christianity and claimed asylum due to fear of a militant group. Their application was
refused based on negative credibility assessment (particularly that <strong>the</strong>y first arrived to <strong>UK</strong> as
students and only after several months sought asylum), and that <strong>the</strong>y would be safe if <strong>the</strong>y were
to relocate to Kathmandu. However, Mr Smith noted that <strong>the</strong> bro<strong>the</strong>r of <strong>the</strong> applicant was tracked
down <strong>in</strong> Kathmandu by <strong>the</strong> group, severely beaten for refus<strong>in</strong>g to tell <strong>the</strong> whereabouts of <strong>the</strong>
asylum seeker, kidnapped and later found dead. Mr Smith reports that <strong>the</strong> applicants were
deported back to Nepal, but immediately after arriv<strong>in</strong>g, fled to India out of fear for <strong>the</strong>ir lives and
are now liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a small village <strong>the</strong>re.
Procedural challenges and <strong>the</strong> impact on fairness and quality of decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g
Rev. Andrew Dawson, who has experience <strong>in</strong> work<strong>in</strong>g among Iranian Christian asylum seekers
noted <strong>in</strong> his submission that “people escap<strong>in</strong>g from <strong>the</strong>ir own country may not know <strong>in</strong> advance
<strong>the</strong> basis on which <strong>the</strong>y can make an asylum claim, nor what evidence <strong>the</strong>y can attempt to br<strong>in</strong>g
<strong>the</strong>m?” Therefore, decision-makers must be careful to ensure that <strong>the</strong> necessary amount of time
and clear guidance have been given to applicants to support <strong>the</strong>ir claims.
Solicitors Qassem Hayat, who specialise on applications from Ahmaddiya asylum-seekers from
Pakistan noted that a key aspect of establish<strong>in</strong>g such asylum-seekers’ credibility can be <strong>the</strong>
provision of an official document from <strong>the</strong> Ahmadi Community <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>UK</strong>. These official statements
have been accepted as valid evidence <strong>in</strong> an Upper Tribunal decision “MN and o<strong>the</strong>rs” which has
85
See HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for <strong>the</strong> Home Department (Rev 1) [2010] <strong>UK</strong>SC 31 (07 July 2010) available
at: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/<strong>UK</strong>SC/2010/31.html
31