Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the role of the Church of England is on advising on the validity of religious conversion claims where the threat of religious persecution is given as a material basis for the claim.

All asylum and human rights claims, including those based on religion or belief, are carefully considered on their individual merits in accordance with our international obligations, so that we do not remove anyone who faces persecution or serious harm on return to their country of origin.

Detailed Home Office policy guidance provides a framework for considering asylum claims, including those based on religious conversion, and all caseworkers receive extensive training and mentoring support before making such decisions.

Each individual assessment is made against the background of relevant case law and the latest available country of origin information. This is based on evidence taken from a wide range of reliable sources, including reputable media outlets; local, national, and international organisations, including human rights organisations; and information from the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office.

The degree of weight to be given to evidence from church witnesses will depend on how much knowledge and experience a church witness has, and the individuals concerned, and the way in which the claimant may have engaged in church activities. Evidence from a senior church member is not considered to be determinative.

In such cases, decision-makers must decide whether a conversion is genuine on the balance of probabilities. Decision-makers must consider all evidence in the round, including, where relevant, such factors as the claimant’s participation in church activities, the timing of their conversion, their knowledge of the faith, and the opinions of other members of the congregation as to the genuineness of the conversion.

Protection is normally granted where a claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution under the Refugee Convention or a claimant faces a real risk of serious harm. Those found not to need protection are refused, and the decision can be subject to legal challenge where appropriate, either via appeal to the independent courts or through a judicial review, depending on the decision in question. Once appeal rights are exhausted, they are liable for removal and enforcement action pursued where necessary.