An Iranian couple of Kurdish ethnicity applied for international protection in Denmark in autumn 2015. They later married in Denmark and had two children. In 2017, the Danish Immigration Service rejected their international protection applications under Section 7 of the Aliens Act, and in autumn 2018 the Refugee Appeals Board upheld the rejection, finding their initial reasons, including family opposition to their relationship and alleged risks linked to “abduction” under Iranian law and to their conversion to Christianity, insufficiently credible.

In 2023, the Refugee Appeals Board reopened the case following significant developments in Iran, including nationwide protests after Mahsa Amini’s death and the rise of the “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement. It referred the matter back to the Immigration Service to reassess the couple’s newly asserted sur place activities. In 2025, the Immigration Service again issued a notice of rejection. The applicants argued that they had become politically involved with the “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement in Denmark, including giving speeches at several demonstrations and appearing in a music video of a well-known regime critic which had been widely circulated on social media. They also highlighted their conversion to Christianity, holding that they actively participated in Christian activities, including Bible teaching and church service every Sunday.

The Refugee Appeals Board conducted a detailed assessment of credibility, relying on the UNHCR’s Guidelines on Religion-Based Refugee Claims. The Board noted that, as their original motives had previously been rejected, a thorough and critical review of the new submissions was required.

Regarding conversion to Christianity, the Board examined whether each applicant had demonstrated a genuine inner conviction. It evaluated their oral statements, their consistent participation in church life, baptism of both children in a church with which they maintained a long-term link, and written statements from church representatives confirming their commitment. During the hearing, both applicants displayed substantial knowledge of Christian theology and practices, which the Board deemed credible and convincing. The Board attached considerable importance to the fact that the applicants have both explained the importance of Christianity to them in a relevant, reflective and convincing manner, including that this is an expression of an inner conviction for them.

The Board found that in case of return to Iran, the applicants would live openly as Christians and continue to proselytise. Thus, it held that the applicants had sufficiently demonstrated that they would be at risk of asylum-relevant persecution in case of return. It therefore found it unnecessary to assess their other claimed motives, including political activities abroad.

In conclusion, the Board concluded that both applicants had demonstrated a genuine conversion to Christianity exposing them to persecution upon return. It granted each applicant refugee status under Section 7(1) of the Aliens Act and extended this protection to their two minor children.