“An Iranian national applied for asylum in Norway in 2011. The original asylum application was based on his fear of being persecuted by Iranian authorities after participating in a demonstration in Tehran. The application was rejected. Shortly after, he converted to Christianity. In the following years, he repeatedly requested the reversal of the rejection because he feared persecution in Iran due to his faith. The requests for reversal were not granted, and the case was brought to court.
The majority of the Court of Appeal assumed that the asylum seeker would practice his Christian faith discreetly upon a potential return to Iran, and therefore, he did not risk persecution. The question in the Supreme Court was whether, in cases where it is assumed that a convert will practice his religion discreetly upon return to his home country, the reason for this discretion matters. The asylum seeker argued that if the reason was fear of persecution, he had the right to asylum, but accepted that there was no right to asylum if the reason was social pressure. Such an approach, referred to as the "causal method", was adopted by the Supreme Court in a 2012 ruling concerning protection due to sexual orientation. The method has not been used for other grounds for asylum.
The Supreme Court found, as a starting point, that the same method could be used for all protection grounds, but that neither the Immigration Act nor the Refugee Convention suggests an extended use of the method.
The 2012 ruling was based on different premises than those present today, both in terms of administrative practice in Norway and developments in practice in other countries.
The Supreme Court noted that applying the causal method to additional protection grounds would effectively broaden the right to asylum under Norwegian law. Whether such an expansion should occur is a decision for the legislature to make. The case provides guidance on the interpretation of section 28 of the Immigration Act and Article 1 A of the Refugee Convention.”