The applicant, Iranian national, applied for asylum in the Netherlands claiming that she turned away from Islam and converted to Christianity in Iran. The applicant alleged that, as a result, she experienced problems with the Iranian authorities, preventing her from returning to Iran. The State Secretary considered that the applicant’s statements with regard to apostasy, conversion to Christianity and difficulties if returned to Iran are implausible. Despite the fact that the distancing from Islam and multiple arrests by the Iranian authorities were found credible, however the State Secretary considered that these facts are not sufficiently serious as to be considered reasons to be granted asylum. The Court of the Hague confirmed the negative decision and the applicant appealed before the Council of State.

The Council of State considered that the main issue at stake is related to the assessment on whether a third country national who claims to be apostasy and alleges problems upon return to his country of origin has a conviction worthy of protection. The gave the UNHCR the possibility to participate in the procedure by asking to state on what is meant by 'apostasy' under the Refugee Convention and the Qualification Directive, how to establish that a third country national is apostasy and what requirements apply to it.

The Council of State clarified that the apostasy is an independent asylum motive in this case and means that the renunciation of a previous religious belief, also in view of the statements about it and the period in which the events took place, is a clearly distinguishable phase of a possible alleged conversion to another religious belief. The Council of State examined the reason for refugee status within the meaning of Article 1 of the Refugee Convention and Article 10 of the recast QD, along with Article 3 ECHR and Article 15 QD.

According to the Council of State, apostasy means that a third country national has turned away from the faith with which he grew up, which he has previously adhered to or to which he should be affiliated in the eyes of his social environment or the government. The Council of State also noted that the State Secretary does not have a separate policy for the investigation and assessment of the asylum motive apostasy.

The Council of Sate considered that in view of the nature of the subject matter, without a policy rule, fixed course of conduct, or other clear explanation of the way in which the determining authority examines and assesses the alleged apostasy, it is not possible for the administrative court to effectively review how the investigation and the assessment were carried out in the multitude and variety of concrete cases and/or how concrete decisions about the credibility of the apostasy is carefully prepared and properly justified.  The Council of State mentioned also that the fact that apostasy has different manifestations does not alter the lack of assessment method and that such cases are no different from those concerning conversions to, for example, Christianity. The Council of State indicated that  the State Secretary has to design and apply a clearer working method.

The variety of manifestations of apostasy therefore does not prevent the credibility of apostasy from being examined and assessed on the basis of the three elements of the work instruction for conversion cases, namely 'the motives for and the process of', 'the knowledge of' and 'the activities around'. In terms of examination, the State Secretary has to look for the authentic story of a third country national who claims to be apostasy and the meaning that the apostasy has for that applicant. The examination of the apostasy alleged by an applicant is to be carried out primarily on the basis of the statements made by that foreign national during the hearing and the evidence submitted by him, where available (see, CJEU, the judgments of  M. (Rwanda) v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and Attorney General, C-560/14,  9 February 2017, and  Bahtiyar Fathi (Iranian) v Chairman of the Bulgarian State Agency for Refugees (BG, Predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite), C-56/17, 4 October 2018).

Moreover, the State Secretary must cooperate with an applicant, for example by asking him open questions during the hearing and by asking for clarification, supplementation or confirmation of answers already given and looking at them in conjunction with each other, but also by investigating, where appropriate, the evidence submitted by that third country national. Due consideration has to be given to the personal background, origin and social environment of a foreign national. If a third country national has stated that he has turned away from that belief or has behaved or expressed himself in such a way, the State Secretary must therefore always assess whether it is plausible that the applicant runs the risk of persecution or inhuman treatment when returning to the country of origin because he is attributed apostasy by an actor of persecution. The State Secretary must assess this on the basis of the statements of the applicant in the light of what is known about the country of origin in general.

The Council of State found that the facts indicated by the applicant concerning her behavior after turning away from Islam did not have any repercussions in her country of origin and the problems with the authorities were no reason for her to leave Iran as she subsequently travelled legally out of the country. However, the applicant had rightly complained that the State Secretary did not sufficiently take into account her statements about her behavior, problems and her long stay outside Iran in her judgment. These statements should have prompted the lower court to assess whether the Secretary of State should have investigated better and - in the light of what is known about Iran - to justify why he does not consider it credible that the applicant will experience problems due to the alleged apostasy if returned in Iran

The Council of State concluded that the negative decision was not carefully prepared and not properly motivated, annulled it and referred the case back to the State Secretary for re-examination. The Council of State mentioned that the State Secretary has to re-examine and assess whether the applicant is at risk of persecution or inhumane treatment for apostasy or attributed apostasy upon return to Iran. If the State Secretary considers the apostasy or attributed apostasy to be credible, he must, when assessing the plausibility of the risks that the foreign national claims to run when returning to Iran, take into account the conclusion of the Council of State in the similar case pronounced on 19 January 2022, Applicant v State Secretary for Justice and Security (Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid).  After examining and assessing the apostasy, the Secretary of State must re-examine and assess whether the alleged conversion is credible.