Here’s an ethical conundrum. An Iranian woman leaves her country and converts to Christianity. She moves to New Zealand and claims asylum. Should we give it to her?
The North Shore Times clearly thinks so. It has waged a campaign on behalf of Bahareh Moradi, dedicating several front pages to the 25 year old woman’s case. Commentators at Dhimmi watch have joined the chorus.
I guess the underlying assumption is that conversion from a male-dominated religion like Islam as a positive step, and we should protect a woman who does so.
But what if it seems that she converted purely to get asylum in New Zealand?

I’ve read the decision by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority on Moradi – well, I assume it is the one on her: names and locations have been censored, but the general story and the dates coincide with the North Shore Times’ reports.
It’s not hard to find online, and I recommend you try to track it down.
The RSAA decision outlines discrepancies in the woman’s evidence when compared with official documentation, and says she changed her story over the course of the hearing.

“The lies told by the appellant about the duration of her stay in ZZ and her conversion are not peripheral matters; they go to the very heart of her refugee claim and as such seriously undermine her credibility.”

The woman was claiming asylum partly on the basis that her brother’s activities outside of Iran would reflect badly on her in the eyes of the Iranian authorities. She lived with her brother in a third country (ZZ, where she converted to Christianity) before coming to New Zealand. The RSAA raises questions as to why her brother has invested large amounts of money in “ZZ” and is not also seeking asylum in New Zealand. Indeed, it seems her brother has even returned to Iran several times.

The RSAA concluded that the woman converted to Christianity to facilitate a move to New Zealand.

“The appellant’s Christian faith is her passport to the desired goal of a life outside Iran. Although she has not been truthful about her adoption of Christianity in ZZ, in the Authority’s assessment, she is nonetheless strongly motivated to be a Christian in the sense that she associates Christianity with Western freedoms and life style and enabling her to remain in this country. This plus her exposure to Christian doctrine over time may make it artificial to talk of the “genuineness” or “falsity” of her professed adherence to Christianity. It is possible that the appellant sincerely wants to be a Christian and in so wanting can be regarded as such. The Authority finds, however, that the appellant’s Christian faith is essentially instrumental in that it is intimately tied up with her endeavour to create a new life for herself outside of Iran. It has not been pursued for spiritual reasons.”

I have a huge amount of respect for the Refugee Status Appeals Authority. It examines all available evidence with great care. That is hard to do in a newspaper article with a weeping woman on one side and dry, clipped Immigration Service comment on the other.
I sympathise with the Ms Moradi; I don’t think I’d like Iran much either as a place to live. (Persepolis is an impressive film on that subject). But this is a small country with limited resources. To be able to provide adequate care for refugees then we need to make sure we give that care to genuine refugees.

Other posts by Katie Llanos-Small