Photo: Adobe Stock

To be granted asylum, it must be “reasonably probable” that the applicant will act in such a way that he will be at risk for persecution, the ruling states.

- We appealed because we did not agree with the Court of Appeal in their decision, and because we wanted a clarification of the legal framework for considering persecution of converts. We have now been given this, says department head, Terje Østraat.

It was UNE that appealed the ruling from the Court of Appeals.

Not reasonably probable, but “somewhat likely”

The case was about how a convert will act after returning to his country of origin and the threshold UDI and UNE must use to consider. Is it what is most probable, or must it be somewhat likely, at so-called subdued evidentiary requirements?
The Supreme Court maintained that the question is if it is somewhat likely that the applicant will act in a way that places him at risk of persecution. It does not have to be probable that he will act in such a way.

You can read the entire ruling on (Norwegian only)

The Court of Appeal must consider the case again

Because the Supreme Court revoked the ruling from the Court of Appeal, they must consider the case again. The Court of Appeal had not considered the importance of the applicants changes in story and his activities several times during the stay in Norway. This was lacking in the Court of Appeals ruling. What the court then will consider, is the importance of the applicants several changes to his story.

The Supreme Court writes

“(85) As I have stated earlier, the assessment after the Immigration Act § 28 first paragraph letter a consider the asylum seekers statement. This statement will therefore be central also in the future assessment of risk. In accordance with the legal base will A’s general credibility be of relevance and to consider in this assessment. The general credibility weakens by statements that are gradually adapted. A prerequisite for the subdued evidentiary requirement is, as earlier stated, that the statement is credible, and is not adjusted in a way that is conspicuous."

“(86) I cannot see that the Court of Appeal, in the assessment which is the basis for maintaining that A’s statement is right from a subdued evidentiary requirement, at any place have considered the meaning of his many changes of statements and activities several times after UNE’s decision not have gone to his favour. The Court of Appeal’s assessment whether or not A’s statements are credible, are limited to the importance of the original asylum statement, which the Court of Appeals also found not to be correct.”

Can retry

The ruling states that the courts can retry UNE’s decisions of how an asylum seeker will conduct himself upon returning. The courts is not only to consider whether or not a decision is justifiable.