An Iranian sex offender has won his asylum claim to stay in the UK after he said he would be prosecuted because he would be Christians in his home country with his lawyer who refers to productive pedophile Jimmy Savile as evidence abusers can also be religious.
The 31-year-old criminal, who cannot be mentioned because of anonymity due to immigration rights, has not attended his tribunal hearing.
The man, who has a conviction of sexual violence from 2010 and ran into problems for stalking in 2015, was in an immigration file for 20 years after he claimed that asylum feared mistreatment in Iran.
He claimed that in 2003 he was accused of committing adultery, tortured and sentenced to death before he was fleeing the following year.
In 2005 he said that he had converted to Christianity and tried to stay in Britain because he believed that he would run the risk of running at his new religion in Iran.
An immigration statement, however, went against him because he had not succeeded in looking for asylum in France, Italy or Greece, and he had stated that he was a Shia -Muslim when he was questioned. His account was considered 'unbelievable'.
The legal merry-go-round continued, while he claims a number of new asylum to stop his removal from Great Britain.
Last year he claimed that he had not claimed asylum on the continent because an 'agent' told him that they were going to Canada.
An Iranian sex offender has won his asylum claim to stay in the UK after he said he would be prosecuted for being a Christian in his home country with his lawyer who refers to productive pedophile Jimmy Saville (photo) as proof abusers can also be religious
The home office claimed that the man was 'manipulative' and 'the system manipulated in his current presentation' but has now enabled him to stay in the UK (photo: the home office's head office in London)
The reason that between 2004 and 2014 he was unable to provide evidence of visiting the church was because when he was moved to Nottingham in 2005, he never found one that he felt comfortable with, belonged immigration rights.
Although he went to some churches, he was not nearly present and he could not get any proof from them.
The man, who is reportedly has mental health problems, suggested that 90 percent of the Iranian congregation in two churches was not really Christians and only wanted to strengthen their chances to get an immigration visa.
A judgment says: 'The appellant stated that he adores himself at home, which he finds more comfortable. At an earlier address in Nottingham, where he lived for eight years, he converted his garden in his own house church and would use his garden to pray and relax and think about Jesus and God. '
Nevertheless, he was placed in the register of sex offenders after a conviction of sexual violence in 2010 and five years later he was in trouble for stalking. His other beliefs are one for theft.
The home office claimed that the man was 'manipulative' and 'the system manipulated in his current presentation'.
An immigration referee had previously ruled: 'I reject proof of the appellant and I think he is willing to say everything that his claim would improve.
'I think the conversion of this appellant is an attempt to strengthen a weak claim with regard to adultery. I therefore conclude that this appellant is in fact not a real convert to Christianity. '
But on his last profession, the man's lawyer referred to Jimmy Savile.
Immigration rights argued: “We also notice on the recent scandal with clergy in the church of England and Catholic priests who were convicted of child abuse at a time when no one had doubted that they seemed to be real Christians.”
They added: “There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that unless a person visits a church, they cannot be a Christian.”
Upper Tribunal judge Christopher Hanson rejected his claim that he had been tortured in Iran for adultery.
The judge said that the issue was whether he was a real convert to Christianity “is not the most important question.”
Reigning in his favor after the long shelter, the tribunal explained: 'Is there a risk for the appellant on return to Iran? In the bottleneck on return and later in society on the basis of an actual or attributed religious belief – yes.
'Are there insurmountable obstacles for integration back in life in Iran? Because there is a real risk – yes. '
