The applicant, an Iranian national, arrived in Norway in 2009, and he was baptized in the local congregation where he had settled. He applied several times for asylum on the grounds that, as a Christian convert, he had a well-founded fear of persecution in his country of origin. The Immigration Appeals Board (UNE) rejected the applications.

On further appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the asylum seeker would practice his religion in such a way that he would be subjected to persecution upon return to Iran.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the Court of Appeal had not considered the significance of the asylum applicant's explanation being adapted along the way, and concluded that the Court of Appeal's specific application of law was based on an incorrect evidentiary assessment. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was overturned.

The court further held that the courts can fully test whether UNE's decision is valid, including the future-oriented risk assessment of persecution due to religion. The decision also provided guidance on which evidentiary requirement is to be used as a basis for the assessment.