Asylum Cannot Be Based on a Hypothetical Threat: The Risk of Persecution Must Be Concrete and Foreseeable
A general fear of what might happen upon return to the country of origin is not sufficient for asylum. In its judgment in Case No. 2 Sak 4/2025 of 31.07.2025, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic emphasised that the threat of persecution must be individually established and realistically foreseeable. The Court applied that principle to the fourth application for international protection lodged by an Iranian national who relied primarily on his intended conversion to Christianity and his bisexuality.
The case was unusual because the applicant had made false statements in previous asylum proceedings, which he later admitted. He had previously claimed that he had converted to Christianity in Iran and had been sought by the police, but subsequently stated that he had practised Islam in Iran and had only begun considering conversion after arriving in Slovakia. In one of the earlier proceedings, he had also withdrawn his asylum application because he intended to return to Iran. The Supreme Administrative Court therefore considered the serious doubts concerning his credibility relevant when assessing his current allegations of persecution.
The Court also recalled the specific nature of asylum proceedings. The applicant bears the burden of making the relevant allegations, while the evidential burden is shared between the applicant and the administrative authority. A credible, consistent and convincing statement may in itself be sufficient to establish a claim for international protection. However, where an applicant repeatedly provides fundamentally contradictory or knowingly false information, his current statements cannot automatically be regarded as a sufficient basis for finding a well-founded fear of persecution.
As regards religion, the Supreme Administrative Court stressed that the genuineness of faith cannot be assessed solely through a knowledge test. The relevant factors include the applicant’s inner conviction, religious identity, way of life, the duration and depth of his faith and his involvement in a religious community. In the present case, however, the Court accepted the conclusion that minimal religious activity, the absence of concrete steps towards conversion and the applicant’s overall lack of credibility did not support a finding that the claimed conversion was genuine.
The same principle applied to the applicant’s alleged bisexuality. Membership of a particular social group does not automatically establish a well-founded fear of persecution. The applicant himself stated that he had never experienced problems in Iran because of his sexual orientation, and there was no indication that the Iranian authorities were aware of it. Referring to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 07.11.2013 in Joined Cases C-199/12 to C-201/12, X, Y and Z, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the alleged risk remained purely hypothetical. For international protection to be granted, the threat of persecution must be individualised and sufficiently foreseeable in reality.
