An Iranian national requested international protection in Cyprus on 27 February 2020, and the request was rejected on 27 September 2021. The applicant appealed the decision to the International Protection Administrative Court (IPAC).

IPAC upheld the decision of the Asylum Service and granted the applicant subsidiary protection under Article 15(c) of the recast Qualification Directive (QD) because of the security situation in his area of origin, Tehran.

The court rejected the credibility of the applicant's alleged criminal prosecution for participating in Christian meetings and his subsequent conversion to Christianity. It concluded that while the applicant's formal baptism into the Orthodox Church and his relationship with the ecclesiastical community were proven, the internal credibility of his deep, genuine and experiential conversion to Christianity was not substantiated with the required adequacy, clarity and coherence. Thus, it was not proven that the applicant's alleged conversion to Christianity resulted from an internal and genuine religious belief. Examining the claim of risk sur place, the court ruled that there was no sufficient individualised evidence to make it reasonably likely that if he were to return, the Iranian authorities would treat him as a person who apostatised from Islam or is actively involved in Christian activities.

Examining the eligibility for subsidiary protection, the court concluded that, from the accepted facts, it did not appear that the applicant qualified for protection under Article 15(a) or (b) of the recast QD. The court held that whilst the country of origin information (COI) reported the existence of a problematic human rights situation, including arbitrary arrests and detention, torture and serious deficiencies in fair trial guarantees and incidents of ill-treatment of detainees, it was required that the applicant would face a real and individual risk to suffer serious harm if returned.

Nonetheless, the court concluded that there was a serious and personal threat to the life or physical integrity of the applicant due to the situation of indiscriminate violence on account of mere presence in Tehran. Relying among other sources on an Update Special Report from the Institute for the Study of War, the court noted that the memorandum aimed at cessation of hostilities signed on 17 June did not lead to a definitive end to the conflict, remaining active with successive de-escalation and resurgence periods. It observed that since early July, new exchanges of fire had been recorded, followed by a new round of American airstrikes and Iranian retaliation, which led to the effective collapse of the interim de-escalation agreement in late July. The court noted that the temporary de-escalation in early August did not show a definitive solution of the conflict or a permanent ceasefire.

Based on this information, the court concluded that the conflict has continued for several months, has been characterised by successive and rapidly alternating stages of de-escalation and re-intensification, and is characterised by the involved parties' ability to repeat large-scale operations in a short period of time. In addition, the court concluded that the geographical scope of the violence is particularly wide, the means and methods used create an increased risk of collateral damage and harm to civilians, and the consequences of the conflict were not limited to military targets. As for the applicant´s area of origin, the court noted that it is not outside of the geographical scope of operations, that the presence of military and administrative installations of high strategic importance objectively increased the likelihood that operations would occur in close proximity to population, that the recording of over a thousand incidents and over two thousand deaths over the course of the year demonstrated that the capital is not merely indirectly affected by the general instability, but it is a recurring and essential arena of conflict. While acknowledging the temporary de-escalation agreement of early August, the court concluded that the development was not sufficient to overturn the overall picture, and that previous periods of ceasefire proved temporary and were repeatedly interrupted by new attacks. The court noted that no binding stable agreement to end the hostilities had been reached, while serious political disagreements and the threat of further attacks persisted; thus, a temporary absence of attacks for a few days could not be interpreted as a permanent change in the security situation.

The court annulled the rejection decision and granted the applicant subsidiary protection.