An Iranian convert's asylum case must be reheard in the Court of Appeal

An Iranian asylum seeker had stated that the reason for his application was that he had converted to Christianity and therefore had a well-founded fear of being persecuted in his country of origin, see section 28 of the Immigration Act. Both the original application and several subsequent applications for reversal were denied by the Immigration Directorate and the Immigration Appeals Board. The District Court and the Court of Appeal ruled the latest decision from the Immigration Appeals Board invalid. The Supreme Court took as its starting point that the asylum seeker's statement had to be relied on if it appeared reasonably probable, and that the credibility of the statement had be balanced against other information provided in the case, including to which extent the statement had been changed during the proceedings. It was noted that the Court of Appeal, which initially had based itself on a correct standard of evidence, had not considered the fact that the asylum seeker, during his stay in Norway, had altered his statements and activities several times and often after the Immigration Appeal Board had made decisions to his disadvantage. The Court of Appeal had thus committed an error of law when assessing the evidence. The Court of Appeal's judgment was set aside, as the Supreme Court did not have a sufficient basis for ruling on the merits.

Read the whole judgment (Norwegian only)

Area of law: Immigration law. Asylum. Section 28 subsection 1 (a) of the Immigration Act. 

Key paragraphs: 63-66, 71-72 og 90.

Justices: Matheson, Normann, Noer, Steinsvik, Sæther