SJ (Iran) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In asylum claims based on conversion to Christianity, risk on return must be assessed against available country evidence and the claimant’s likely conduct. Country guidance distinguishes active converts, pastors, church leaders, proselytisers and evangelists, who may face a real risk, from converts without that status, for whom the risk will not normally arise. Tribunals must assess evidence in its cultural and country context. They must avoid treating inherent probability or Western assumptions as substitutes for proper fact-finding, but need not accept testimony at face value. An appellate court should not interfere with detailed credibility and risk findings where the tribunal considered the evidence in the round, relevant guidance and cumulative factors, absent an error of law.

Three Iranian nationals, a mother and her two children, appealed against an Immigration Appeal Tribunal determination promulgated on 13 September 2007. The Tribunal had dismissed their appeals against decisions of the Secretary of State dated 12 October 2005 refusing asylum, humanitarian protection and human-rights claims and proposing removal to Iran.

The central issue was whether the Tribunal had misdirected itself when assessing the appellants’ claimed conversion to Christianity, their likely proselytising on return, and additional risk factors including the first appellant’s hairdressing salon and family circumstances. The appellants also alleged that the Tribunal had assessed their evidence by Western standards and had failed to consider the cumulative case. The Court of Appeal considered whether there was any arguable error of law warranting permission to appeal.

1. Permission refused. The Court of Appeal found no real prospect of success and no identifiable error of law in the Tribunal’s determination.
2. The Tribunal had carefully considered the evidence concerning the appellants’ Christianity. The Court accepted that some detailed questions about scripture were questionable and that many Christians might not know the answers. Nevertheless, the Tribunal had relied on a significant finding concerning the first appellant’s lack of understanding of the reason for Christ’s crucifixion, assessed the evidence in the round and was entitled to conclude that the appellants were principally concerned to be perceived as Christians for the purpose of their asylum claims.
3. The relevant country guidance distinguished the active convert, pastor, church leader, proselytiser or evangelist, who faced a real risk, from a person without that status. The Tribunal was entitled to find that the appellants had not openly proselytised in Iran and were unlikely to adopt a method of practising their faith on return that would attract the attention of the authorities.
4. The Tribunal had not failed to consider the cumulative effect of the other alleged risk factors. It considered the hairdressing-salon incident and treated it as closed. The other matters, viewed independently, would not establish risk, but the determination showed that the Tribunal had considered them alongside the central Christian-conversion claim.
5. The guidance in HK v SSHD [2006] EWCA Civ 1037 did not require the Tribunal to accept the appellants’ evidence. Tribunals must assess evidence against country conditions and avoid judging it by Western standards, while retaining responsibility for making findings of fact. This Tribunal had considered the country material and the guidance in FS & Others v SSHD (Iran-Christian converts) CG Iran [2004] UKIAT 00303.
6. The Tribunal was also entitled to comment on the appellants’ ability to resolve the salon issue, having regard to their sophistication and sensitivity to local circumstances. The applications for permission to appeal were therefore refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused permission to appeal against the Tribunal’s determination; [2008] EWCA Civ 675.
• Asylum & Immigration Tribunal: on 13 September 2007 dismissed the appellants’ appeals against the Secretary of State’s decisions refusing asylum, humanitarian protection and human-rights claims and proposing removal to Iran.