ECRE is currently working on redeveloping the website. Visitors can still access the database and search for asylum-related judgments up until 2021.
Sweden – Migration Court, 27 April 2011, UM 20800-10
Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
27-04-2011
Citation:
UM 20800-10
Court Name:
Administrative Court Stockholm – Migration Court
Relevant Legislative Provisions:
European Union Law
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 4
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 4
National / Other Legislative Provisions:
Sweden - Utlänningslagen (Aliens Act) (2005:716) - Chapter 4 Section 1
Sweden -Utlänningslagen (Aliens Act) (2005:716) - Chapter 5 Section 1
Sweden -Utlänningslagen (Aliens Act) (2005:716) - Chapter 5 Section 1
Printer-friendly version
PDF version of Summary
Headnote:
This case concerned the risk that Christian converts face in Iran. The applicants, from Iran, were granted a residence permit and refugee status because their Christian belief came to the Iranian authorities' attention.
Facts:
The applicants, A, and his wife B, converted to Christianity in the Lutheran Church of Sweden. In Iran, A used to attend meetings on Christianity in the Christian neighbourhoods. He came from a small town where there was no church and so Christians met at home and prayed. A was the only person in the group who was born a Muslim. One evening, when he was on his way to his car which was parked some distance away four persons from the security agency Basij came and took him away. He was arrested for three days and beaten with a club and sticks. During his arrest he was told that he had been under surveillance and they knew that he regularly went to a particular dwelling. That evening as A was arrested, their home was searched. The Basij told neighbours that they suspected that A has abandoned Islam and neighbours began harassing the family by breaking windows, scratching their car and throwing eggs and tomatoes. The arrest of A led to fear, stress and anxiety for B, who also felt very bad about the neighbours' harassment. After the arrest A tried to avoid any more meetings with the Christians, but he was again stopped by four people who beat and threatened him when he was on his way to work. After this incident the family drove to Teheran, and stayed in hiding there for four months until they could leave the country. A had received summonses at his home during this period stating that he was required for questioning.
Decision & Reasoning:
The Migration Court noted that the country information showed that conversion from Islam is prohibited in Iran and can be punished by death through sharia law. Muslims who recently converted were regularly detained for long periods in jail. Furthermore, there had been a gradual worsening of the situation of Christian converts in Iran since the presidential election in 2009.
In it's decision the Court took into account UNHCR guidelines on religion-based claims which state that the right to religious freedom includes the right to express one’s faith, individually as well as in groups, in public and in private. The right to religious identity is so fundamental to a person’s identity that you cannot force anyone to hide, change or renounce their faith in order to escape persecution. In determining whether there is reason to fear religious-based persecution the credibility assessment is central. It must also be borne in mind in the onward-looking assessment whether the conversion has come to the knowledge of the home government.
After an oral hearing the Court did not question that A and B intended to live as Christians if returned to Iran. Their account was consistent with country information and remained unchanged during the asylum process. It was unclear, however, if the authorities in Iran had noted A's and B's interest in Christianity. The evidence submitted did not provide clear support for this. A and B had not been clear about who had arrested and beaten A, and who had carried out the raid. Even the fact that they could leave the country legally contradicted their assertion that they had attracted the attention of the authorities. However, the Court did not believe that there was reason to question the sequence of events (the arrest, beatings, searches and harassment by neighbours) had occured .Therefore, they concluded that A and B had shown it was likely that their Christian commitment was known by the Iranian authorities even before they left Iran.
Outcome:
The three lay judges in the Migration Court quashed the Migration Board's decision and granted the applicants a permanent residence permit and refugee status. The presiding judge dissented.
Observations/Comments:
The dissenting opinion argued that the current situation in Iran is not such that a genuine convert can been considered a convention refugee. While concurring with the majority on credibility gaps in the account he finds that being able to leave the country legally was not credible. The fact that members of the Applicant’s church were not arrested was also remarkable, as was the fact that no material was confiscated in the raid on their home. Nor were the applicants members of an evangelising group and therefore not especially vulnerable. They had therefore not shown that they risked persecution on religious grounds. Furthermore, they lacked sufficient grounds to be granted any other form of protection.
