Judges expressed concern that some “unquestioning” church leaders were being “duped” by insincere asylum seekers who converted to Christianity to avoid deportation.
A series of judicial decisions have highlighted examples of clergy and religious leaders failing to question the motives of would-be converts whose asylum applications they agreed to support.
The comments came as Lord Carey, the former archbishop of Canterbury, accused his successor, the Most Rev. Justin Welby, and other bishops in the House of Lords of being “blind” to the impact of mass immigration on “our culture, our infrastructure and our culture”. symbiosis”.
Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, he called on bishops to do “much more” to listen to “communities in difficulty” who feel “alienated and excluded by unprecedented rates of migration and change”.
Lord Carey, who was archbishop from 1991 to 2002, has launched an extraordinary attack on the Church’s current leadership, blaming the ongoing debate over refugee conversions on Archbishop Welby and other bishops’ opposition to the Government’s Rwanda plan and saying the Church’s opposition is now over. “its brutality and intensity disturbed me”.
The expert warned that the Church does not give priests adequate advice on “how to discern whether these transformations are real, long-lasting and life-changing.”
Immigration court decisions analyzed by this newspaper show that the Home Office has repeatedly raised questions in court about the extent to which clerics “investigate” the true intentions of immigrants seeking to convert from Islam to Christianity.
Immigrants may seek asylum for converting to a new religion if they would face persecution in their home country because of their new faith. In many cases, religious officials agree to support their claims.
In two separate cases uncovered by this newspaper, judges questioned how local church leaders could vouch for the faith of refugees from Iran and Iraq despite being unable to properly communicate with them due to language barriers.
In one case, a pastor claimed to have had an “in-depth” conversation with an Iranian-born immigrant whose application he supported, but the man himself said the pair never discussed his faith “one-on-one.”
He said their interactions were limited to “greeting and asking how we are.” [With] broken English and hand signals.” In the same case, the judge found it “very surprising” that church authorities allowed the man in his 40s to be baptized at Wakefield Cathedral just five weeks after arriving in Britain.
The statements come after the Church of England last week rejected claims by Suella Braverman and Priti Patel in the Sunday Telegraph that churches routinely support “bogus” asylum claims.
Archbishop Welby accused the Church’s critics of “mischaracterisation” and said that in asylum cases “we are simply following the Bible’s teaching to care for the stranger. “It is the duty of the Government to protect our borders, and it is the duty of the courts to try asylum cases.”
Ministers are considering the role of clergy in supporting asylum applications following a chemical attack in which a mother and her two children were injured. The suspect, Abdul Ezedi, was finally granted asylum after claiming that he had renounced Islam and that his life would be in danger if he returned to Afghanistan.
The Church of England has rejected claims by the Rev. Matthew Firth, head of a church in the north of England, that he was complicit in the “conveyor belt” of refugee baptisms that migrants use to stay in the UK.
However, many of Mr Firth’s allegations about the approach of insincere converts also appear to be borne out in asylum case decisions reviewed by this newspaper; including the tendency for such immigrants to prominently display their beliefs on Facebook and use these posts in support. asylum claims. In the case of an immigrant who was later denied asylum, the judge said such posts were “purely general” and “purely to support his claim.”
The Church of England has said clergy support in any asylum application does not amount to “some kind of magic ticket”.
But judicial decisions analyzed by this newspaper reveal a series of cases since 2018 in which judges questioned statements made by religious or non-religious church leaders about asylum seekers who claimed to have actually converted to Christianity.
The immigrant cannot give the name of the church
In one case, the leader of an evangelical church in Wiltshire was found by an immigration judge to have been “duped” by an Iranian immigrant in his 20s whose claim that he had converted from Islam to Christianity before coming to the UK was deemed “unreasonable”. .
While the leader, then a pastoral assistant, “gave completely frank statements as to his belief in the appellant’s conversion”, the trial judge “remarked on the degree of the unquestionable nature of this belief”. The immigrant couldn’t even say the name of the church.
In another case, the vicar of a church in Barnsley wrote letters and appeared at a formal hearing in support of an Iranian-born man in his 40s who claimed to be a Christian.
But Tier One immigration judge Abigail Holt concluded: “In short, [the vicar’s] The appellant’s assessment appears to have been made on the basis that he was a pleasant, friendly and courteous individual… However, these factors do not imply that: [the vicar’s] “The appellant’s assessment supports his claim and I am not satisfied that the appellant is a genuine Christian who would face the risk of persecution or worse upon his return to Iran.”
The judge added of the chaplain: “The tenor of his evidence was that it was part of his Christian ‘duty’ to be open to new recruits, even if he was not very keen on them. I think this unquestioning attitude is probably blinding. [the vicar] Consideration of alternative motivations on the part of the appellant. There was no evidence that it had ever occurred to the appellant why joining the church might be an attractive option for the appellant other than for other reasons linked to gaining status in the UK, namely that he claimed to be genuinely interested in Christianity. In short, [the vicar] He evaluated the appellant uncritically at ‘face value’.”
A later decision upholding Judge Holt’s rejection of the man’s asylum application said the judge “found it very surprising that the appellant was allowed to be baptized by the church authorities at Wakefield Cathedral on 2 May 2018, as he had only recently arrived in the UK”. .. approximately 5 weeks ago, which raises the question of how well they knew the appellant and whether there was a critical assessment of his motivation and desire to attend the christening”.
‘Fear of harm’ claim rejected
In a second case, the judge found that a lay leader of a church in Wigan, Greater Manchester, had “tried to cover up a language issue” in the case of an asylum seeker whose cause he had supported; although the priest acknowledged the immigrant’s language problem. “His English was so poor that it took weeks to understand why he came to church,” according to a 2019 ruling.
In another case the judge heard that a vicar in Hartlepool had testified that he “had genuine views” that another Iranian-born man had “genuinely converted to Christianity”, that he had known the man “only for a relatively short time” and had “somewhat limited interaction with him”.
The judge upheld Sajid Javid’s decision to reject the man’s “fear of harm” claim and concluded that he was “neither a credible witness nor a consistent witness in relation to his claim to be a genuine Christian”. in the United Kingdom”.
A Church of England spokesman said: “Clergy, like other citizens, are expected to support the law and are therefore expected to hold themselves to the highest standards of accurately representing their character and participating honestly in formal legal processes.
“Obviously we will never know for 100 per cent, so we support the Home Office’s ultimate duty to examine and decide on applications. In the Barnsley case the system clearly worked; the references given by the church were not decisive, the judge made a decision and in this case the application was refused.”
The Anglican Diocese of Leeds, which has responsibility for Wakefield Cathedral, said ministers took potential baptisms “extremely seriously” and knew they “needed to be mindful of personal integrity and faithful commitment when bringing people to baptism”.