This report examines how asylum claims based on ‘non-religion’ (including apostasy) are recognised in policy and practice in the United Kingdom. Drawing on a doctoral research project examining blasphemy and apostasy in asylum cases, the study explores how individuals persecuted for non-religious identities navigate the UK asylum system and how their claims are assessed in law and practice. In doing so, it addresses a significant yet overlooked area within refugee protection and Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) frameworks. Using qualitative interviews with refugees (n = 12) and human rights advocates, including legal practitioners and representatives from advocacy organisations (n = 22), alongside analysis of international human rights law and national asylum policy, the report identifies persistent structural and conceptual gaps in the treatment of non-religious claims. The findings demonstrate that asylum processes often rely on religious conversion frameworks that are ill-suited to non-belief, leading to misunderstandings of apostasy, inappropriate credibility assessments, and evidential expectations that disadvantage applicants whose identities are defined by the absence of belief rather than religious affiliation. The report argues that non-religious persecution challenges existing assumptions embedded within asylum decision-making and advances a series of policy recommendations, including improved institutional training and more nuanced approaches to assessing identity and risk. It concludes with practical recommendations aimed at policymakers, legal representatives, and decision-makers to support fairer and more consistent protection outcomes for non-religious asylum seekers.
CORE (COnnecting REpositories)
CORE (COnnecting REpositories)