Fleeing Persecution Asylum Claims in the UK on Religious Freedom

person was to keep <strong>the</strong>ir sexual orientation to <strong>the</strong>mselves <strong>the</strong>y could live freely <strong>in</strong> ano<strong>the</strong>r part of
<strong>the</strong>ir country of orig<strong>in</strong>. A landmark court case has set a precedent on overturn<strong>in</strong>g asylum denials
on such a rationale, argu<strong>in</strong>g that one's sexual orientation and identity <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sically results <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>
right to live freely and <strong>the</strong> freedom to enjoy that fundamental right. Follow<strong>in</strong>g that landmark
judgment, civil society groups have worked with <strong>the</strong> Home Office to provide a dedicated tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g
module to decision-makers on LGBTI cases and how to assess claims made on <strong>the</strong> basis of sexual
orientation correctly and sensitively. There is now a 'second pair of eyes' test <strong>in</strong> place for LGBTI
claims, mean<strong>in</strong>g that all LGBTI decisions are reviewed by a Technical Specialist - who usually
supervises decision makers - before be<strong>in</strong>g issued to <strong>the</strong> applicant. 87 A similar procedure would be
highly beneficial for religious persecution cases.
Ano<strong>the</strong>r precedent for accommodat<strong>in</strong>g sensitivity on religious backgrounds of decision-makers
and <strong>in</strong>terpreters <strong>in</strong>volved with <strong>the</strong> asylum case can be seen <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> gender sensitivity provided by
<strong>the</strong> Home Office. The <strong>Asylum</strong> Policy Instruction, <strong>Asylum</strong> Interviews state:
“Claimants are asked at <strong>the</strong> screen<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>terview if <strong>the</strong>y would like a male or female
<strong>in</strong>terviewer and <strong>the</strong>y may also make such a request subsequently. A request by <strong>the</strong>
claimant for a gender specific <strong>in</strong>terviewer should normally be met and if it cannot be met
on <strong>the</strong> scheduled day, <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terview should normally be re-arranged. This applies to <strong>the</strong>
<strong>in</strong>terpreter also, as far as practically possible. The caseworker must be aware of gender
related issues, s<strong>in</strong>ce this may affect how <strong>the</strong> claimant responds dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>terview.” 88
The concerns beh<strong>in</strong>d such provisions are real. This was highlighted by Refugee Women's Strategy
Group, which stated <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir submission that “70% of asylum seek<strong>in</strong>g women report<strong>in</strong>g experiences
of physical and/or sexual violence <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir lifetime”, and thus if <strong>the</strong>y are not speak<strong>in</strong>g to a female
decision-maker and <strong>in</strong>terpreter, “many women feel unable to disclose <strong>the</strong>ir experiences of sexual
violence, which obviously has an impact on <strong>the</strong> quality of decisions.” We commend Home Office
guidance on <strong>the</strong> matter, and cont<strong>in</strong>ue to ask for its uphold<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> practice. Such sensitivity must also
be shown to religion-based claims.
It is important that a special focus is given to Freedom of Religion or Belief and religion-based
asylum claims to address <strong>the</strong> problems mentioned above. The APPG has been notified of various
attempts over <strong>the</strong> years by stakeholders who have raised concerns of how <strong>the</strong>se claims are
assessed and handled. The Rt Reverend Jonathan Clark, Bishop of Croydon submitted a statement
to <strong>the</strong> APPG and <strong>the</strong> AAG on behalf <strong>the</strong> Churches' Refugee Network stat<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong> group had
several face-to-face consultations <strong>in</strong> 2005-2007 with senior <strong>UK</strong>BA officials and that <strong>the</strong>y have
presented suggestions and offer of provid<strong>in</strong>g tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g. A similar <strong>in</strong>itiative has been taken by <strong>the</strong>
<strong>Asylum</strong> Advocacy Group lead by HG Bishop Angaelos of <strong>the</strong> Coptic Orthodox Church, which has
pursued multiple meet<strong>in</strong>gs with Home Office officials.
Stakeholders report that while some steps have been taken and some concerns engaged with,
<strong>the</strong>re is a genu<strong>in</strong>e view that <strong>the</strong> Home Office could do more to ensure that <strong>the</strong> asylum process for
religion-based asylum claims is fair and humane. This will not only ensure that <strong>in</strong>dividuals who face
serious risks are given such vital and potentially life-sav<strong>in</strong>g protection but also that <strong>the</strong> substandard
performance of first <strong>in</strong>stance asylum decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g does not result <strong>in</strong> burden<strong>in</strong>g limited
resources of <strong>the</strong> <strong>UK</strong> Government through a prolonged appeal process. The <strong>in</strong>quiry team will be
request<strong>in</strong>g a meet<strong>in</strong>g with relevant M<strong>in</strong>isters to raise <strong>the</strong> recommendations made <strong>in</strong> this report.
87
<strong>UK</strong>VI, ‘LGBTI Action Plan 2015-2016’, Page 8, paragraph 5
88
See <strong>UK</strong>VI <strong>Asylum</strong> Policy Instruction, <strong>Asylum</strong> Interviews, March 2015, para 3.7, available at:
, (accessed: 31/05/16)
35