A Christian woman who fled Islamic persecution to seek asylum in the UK has won the legal right to remain in the country despite resistance from Islamic elements in the Home Office and evidence of ‘tampering’ with her application.
‘Maria’ who cannot be named or identified for security reasons, says she and her family essentially received the ‘death penalty’ from the Home Office, before a dramatic legal reversal allowed her and her family to remain safely in the UK.
She had taken the Secretary of State for the Home Department to court for refusing her asylum application after fleeing forced conversion and abduction attempts in her country of origin because of her Christian faith.
A judge subsequently found that the Home Office’s decision to reject her claim was: “in breach of the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention; and unlawful under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
Maria, who has been supported by the Christian Legal Centre, is now speaking for the first time about her case following leaked documents that have revealed that there is an Islamic network of over 700 staff members in the civil service.
The network states that they aim to: “promote the recruitment, retention and progression of Muslim staff in the Home Office” and “influence policy makers so that policy is more inclusive of Muslim needs”.
Her story reflects concerns of the growing Islamic influence at the heart of UK government and institutions and raises serious concerns as to whether the UK is or will be a safe place for Christians to seek asylum.
Christian persecution
Married, middle class, Christian mother of one, Maria, was working in a high-flying role with her employer.
But one day, everything changed.
After leaving university, Maria began working professionally and was the only Christian in her department and her Muslim colleagues tried to convert her.
In her country of origin, Christians and Muslims live separate lives and mostly in peace. But things are not easy for the Christian community; especially not for Christian women.
The country is used to women with Maria’s identity being kidnapped, forced to convert to Islam, and forced to marry their captors.
Forced Islamic conversion
Initially, the attempts of Maria’s co-workers were inoffensive: sharing Islamic videos and talking to her at work.
But when she refused to convert, their tactics changed.
She found herself in trouble at work, accused of committing a fraud, despite being sure that she had done nothing wrong.
However, her Muslim managers offered her a way out. If she converted, the problem would go away.
Her husband was away, so she was unable to talk to him and too afraid. There is also significant stigma and shame for men in this region if they are unable to protect their family.
Maria wanted to protect her husband from this and believed she could deal with what was happening to her.
Under immense pressure, she agreed to ‘convert’. Apart from a new identity card in her ‘Muslim’ name, nothing changed at first, but soon the pressure increased.
She was told that she would have to have her Christian cross tattoo removed, that she would have to leave her husband, that her daughter was now a Muslim and that she would have to wear a veil.
Initially, she acquiesced. But then she stood up to her Muslim managers and told them she was still a Christian and that she would never convert.
Attempted abductions
Legal evidence documents reveal that then, just before Christmas, two men approached her daughter’s school bus on motorbikes.
They opened the doors and went in, asking for her daughter. The driver and another bus driver fought the abductors back.
Then a few days later, as Maria was pulling out in her car, a black car blocked her car, and she noticed her manager in the car with two other men.
One of the men put his hand in through the window and pulled her by the hair. She started screaming as the man tried to hold her arm and threatened to kill her. But when the men saw another car pulling up, they fled.
Following this, Maria finally decided to tell her husband. They spoke to a Christian priest who put them in touch with a Christian lawyer. The lawyer advised that it was almost impossible to change her ID card from Muslim to Christian, and her life would be in danger forever if she chose to remain Christian and in this country.
Islamic conversion certificate
Maria, her husband and their daughter fled to the UK.
They had a holiday visa and friends and family in the UK. They thought the UK would be safe and would welcome them with open arms.
Despite the UK welcoming 20,000 Syrians between 2014-20 under the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme, a Muslim Home Office investigator rejected Maria’s claim.
Not only did the investigator say she believed Maria was making it all up, in her report she repeatedly misinterpreted passages from various international reports and the Home Office’s own reports on this country, to make it appear that it was a safe country for Christians.
Maria appealed to the Immigration Tribunal.
On the day of the trial, her documents, and most importantly her Islamic conversion certificate, was received back from the Home Office.
A judge later confirmed that her certificate had been ‘tampered with’ by someone at the Home Office. The certificate, the primary evidence of her forced conversion, had been lost and the Home Office posted back a photocopy.
The trial then proceeded to hear from Maria, her family, her UK vicar and Dr Martin Parsons (an expert witness on the Islamic world).
Dr Parsons told the tribunal that ‘the pattern that [Maria] has described of being first invited to voluntarily embrace Islam, then following her rejection of this, being coerced into converting, exactly parallels the pattern set out in Shari’a law.’
Maria produced police reports, witness statements, and WhatsApp texts, all evidencing what happened.
However, Judge Chaudhary rejected all their evidence as it was all too ‘incredible’.
Maria appealed again, this time to the Upper Tribunal who overturned the original verdict ruling that Judge Chaudhary had not properly considered all the documents that were put before the tribunal and there was a ‘total absence of reasoning’ at times given for rejecting the expert’s opinion.
Unlawful ruling overturned
The case was then remitted for retrial before Judge JL Barker.
In his ruling, Judge Barker said that the original refusal “decision is in breach of the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention; and unlawful under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
Maria wept for joy when the verdict arrived. After three years, her and her family were finally granted asylum.
On how Maria was treated in the workplace by Muslim colleagues, Judge Barker said Maria:
“Was questioned regularly and subtle attempts were made to discredit her beliefs and persuade her that Islam was better. I accept that this aspect of [Maria’s] account is entirely plausible and consistent with the country information about the treatment of Christians, particularly in a predominantly Muslim workplace such as this.
He added that: “I also accept the evidence from Dr Parsons, that in Islamic cultures it is common that strategies to convert non-Muslims from non-violent Islamists, as distinct from those who adopt violent means, would involve a step by step process, waiting for an opportune time to begin or increase their ‘campaign.’
“I also accept that this pressure increased over the course of approximately 2 years, from gentle persuasion, to become more sinister and aggressive in nature, and involved the unfair treatment of her including an increase in work; a refusal to give her the breaks she was entitled to; and the insistence that she work when unwell, and that this treatment culminated in her effectively being set up and placed in a position where she had little option but to comply with their demands, or face losing her job, or worse.”
On forced conversion to Islam:
“Having taken a step back, and considered the evidence in the round, I am satisfied that [Maria] has demonstrated that it is reasonably likely that she was forced to convert to Islam against her wishes, and as accepted she was born into and continues to embrace Christianity.
“In essence, I accept that [Maria] rejects the Islamic faith and on return to [this country] would live as a Christian. Whilst she has clearly lived as a Christian before, I accept that she was subject to the treatment she describes and as a result of her forced conversion and what would be seen as her subsequent rejection of Islam, she would now be considered to be an apostate.”
“I accept that her Christian beliefs are and always have been genuine, as is unchallenged by the Respondent. It follows my findings, that on return to [the country] the Appellant would wish to revert back to her Christian identity, and would be considered to be an apostate, given her perceived rejection of Islam.”
“In essence, the evidence provided by Dr Parsons is clear, the Appellant’s attempts to convert back to Christianity would be considered as apostacy, for which Sharia law starkly dictates the death penalty even for women, or if a different school of Islam is followed, the punishment would be at least imprisonment and beatings until they repent.”
On the attempted abductions, the judge said:
“Having considered this evidence in the round with the other evidence available to me, I find that it is reasonably likely that these incidents did occur as claimed by [Maria].”
He added that “I also accept that the issue of honour and shame that would be perceived by [Maria] would also prevent her from sharing her problem with those close to her.”
“In my judgment, notwithstanding that [Maria] may have thought she would be able to work in the UK on arrival, the professional and personal background of [Maria] and her husband, and the life they were living… leads away from any suggestion that they are merely economic migrants, and in my judgment adds some further support to the credibility of the Appellant’s account about the reasons why she and her husband were forced to leave the country of their origin.”
On the ‘tampering with certificate’
Judge Barker said: “Perhaps most significantly, in support of her account to have converted to Islam, [Maria] claims to have submitted the original Conversion Certificate that she received from [the mosque]. However, and this was the subject of much discussion at the first appeal hearing, [Maria] asserts that the document provided to the Tribunal previously by the [Home Department] is in fact not the document that she provided to them during her asylum interview…
“It is clear from the [Home Department’s] refusal letter that the author of the refusal letter considered a laminated copy of the Conversion Certificate and did not accept that it was reliable evidence in support of [Maria’s] claim. When that document was eventually submitted to the Tribunal…I accept that it appears to be the same laminated copy referred to by the author of the refusal letter. However, [Maria] has consistently claimed that this is not the document that she submitted to the [Home Department], and she has given evidence repeatedly that the version she submitted was the original, containing the original photograph taken of her wearing a Hijab, stapled to the top left corner of the document.
“It seems that [Maria] isn’t just suggesting that the [Home Department] has lost or misplaced the original, and produced a copy to the Tribunal instead, but she is asserting that the [Home Department] has produced a laminated copy of the original. I struggled to understand the sense of this during the hearing, and am still puzzled by why the [Home Department] would laminate a copy, rather than simply submitting a copy if the original if that is what was submitted by [Maria]. However, the reality is that I don’t know why this would happen, but any consideration of this must be purely speculative, and whilst doing such an act deliberately may be unusual in my experience, I must not speculate. Having considered the evidence, including the content of the refusal letter itself which states that the document considered at that time was a laminated copy, I accept this and find that the document provided to the Tribunal…is not in fact the document that [Maria] submitted to the Home Office at the time of her asylum interview…
“In those circumstances, I find that the criticism contained within the Respondent’s refusal letter is an unfair one, given that by my findings the Appellant submitted the original document, and this was then not seemingly considered by the person making the refusal decision.
“In order to try to rectify this, the Appellant has in fact submitted a further document in support of her claimed conversion, and provided the original to me during the hearing. Mr [X] did not wish to examine the original when offered to him, but I did, and it was wholly consistent with the evidence given by the witnesses about the type of paper used and the style and format of the document used in the original Conversion certificate. I find that this adds support to the assertion that the document submitted by the Appellant during her asylum interview was an authentic and reliable document. The certified copy contains the same information as the copy of the original certificate, and examination of both reveals nothing of concern, and I am satisfied from the document itself and the evidence of its provenance, that this is a reliable document, worthy of some weight.”
‘I can no longer be silent’
Maria said: “I can no longer remain silent about what happened to me. The original dismissal of my evidence by the Home Office and tribunal was essentially a death penalty to my family and I. How many others have experienced this and not had the support I have had?
“I have fled a country where there have been suicide bombs in my community, attempted abductions and forced conversions to Islam. I came to the UK and felt finally safe in a Christian country. I have been increasingly alarmed, however, not only by my treatment by the Home Office, and initially by the tribunals, but also looking on at the gaining influence of Islam across the country.
“Were we rejected at first by the Home Office because we were Christian and had ‘converted’ to Islam? I firmly believe so and all the evidence points to this.
“At the Home Office, I was interviewed by a woman wearing a hijab. I thought everything was ok, but when I discovered what had happened with the conversion certificate, I felt breathless, like this wasn’t happening to me. I asked myself how I was going to prove that something deeply wrong was happening.
“My health has been impacted ever since I was forced to convert to Islam. I was in a crisis for years and there often appeared to be no way out.
“At times I completely lost hope of proving my innocence and securing safety myself and my family. How many others have lost hope and not had the extensive legal, material and emotional support that I have had?
“All along, despite all the trials, I knew that God was in my heart and with me and had a plan for my life.
“I and my family were overjoyed to receive justice after years of struggle and trauma. We do not want this to happen to anyone else.
“Life is still hard, but we are safe. We believe it is crucial for other genuine Christians fleeing Islamic persecution to receive the support and protection they need.
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “Maria’s courage and faith in Jesus have helped her to never give up hope. If she had been returned to her country of origin, the consequences for an ‘Islamic convert’ returning to Christianity would have been been very serious indeed.
“The fact that the Home Office and the first tribunal judge were happy to send her back in these circumstances is deeply troubling..
“The case provides tragic insight to Christian persecution in the Islamic world and the Islamic influence on the Home Office and the Courts.
“Having an Islamic lobby group inside the Home Office represents a serious threat to the government’s aims of combating Islamic extremism and granting asylum to Christians fleeing Islamic countries, like Maria.
“A full inquiry is now needed.”
