More than 300 migrants, including a convicted Iranian paedophile identified as MM, have lodged appeals after claiming to have converted to Christianity.
MM’s case, in particular, has drawn attention due to his 14-year asylum battle, a recent baptism, and a legal appeal that challenges deportation based on his newfound faith.
MM’s Unusual Case:
The 45-year-old Iranian sex offender, labeled a ‘danger to the community,’ asserts that his recent conversion to Christianity, marked by a baptism just days before his latest legal appeal, should exempt him from deportation.
Despite a previous immigration judge rejecting his claim, a senior judge criticized the analysis, deeming it ‘wholly inappropriate.’
The case will undergo another hearing at a different immigration tribunal.
Widespread Appeal Trend:
MM is part of a larger trend, with over 300 migrants filing appeals based on their alleged conversion to Christianity.
Examples include a Bangladeshi murderer and a Somali career criminal, raising concerns about the credibility of such conversion claims.
Notably, Abdul Ezedi, a chemical attack suspect with sex assault convictions, was granted asylum after asserting a conversion to Christianity.
Public and Political Responses:
Former Home Secretary Dame Priti Patel criticizes the MM case as ‘appalling,’ urging the Church to refrain from offering support to dangerous criminals exploiting the asylum system.
She emphasizes the public’s expectation that violent criminals should be swiftly deported.
The Church of England, however, maintains its stance that vetting asylum seekers is not its responsibility.
MM’s Legal History:
Court documents reveal MM’s illegal entry into the UK in 2010, subsequent rejected asylum claims, and criminal convictions for sexual assault.
His first deportation papers were served in 2018, leading to a human rights appeal.
Despite convictions, he submitted new claims, citing the risk of persecution in Iran due to his Christian conversion and his brother’s employment with the BBC.
Changing Narrative:
MM’s narrative takes a turn in 2020, with claims of genuine commitment to Christianity, a baptism, and the alleged tattoo of a Christian cross.
Conflicting views from different judges, overturned rulings, and a critical assessment of MM’s sincerity contribute to the complexity of the case.
Judicial Criticism and Anonymity:
Despite criticism from a higher judge, the judge responsible for the ‘inappropriate analysis’ of MM’s relationship with God remains unnamed.
The judiciary declines to release the criticized judge’s name, raising questions about transparency and accountability within the legal system.
The controversy surrounding migrants’ conversion claims brings to light the intricate intersection of faith, legal proceedings, and public scrutiny.
MM’s case stands as a focal point, sparking debates on the authenticity of such conversions and the broader implications for asylum processes.