TS v Secretary of State for the Home Department: atheism asylum claim rejected despite blog evidence

A First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) has dismissed the asylum, humanitarian protection and human rights appeal of a Bangladeshi woman who argued she would be at risk on return because of her atheism, after the judge found she had not established that she held that belief.

The case, heard by video before First-tier Tribunal Judge McMahon sitting at Newport, concerned an appellant referred to as TS, who challenged the Secretary of State's decision of 10 December 2024. Her two children, aged 20 and 17, were dependants on the claim. An anonymity order covering the appellant and her family remains in place.

The respondent accepted before the hearing that atheism was capable of engaging the Refugee Convention and that, if TS's account were accepted in full, she would be at risk on return. Her identity, nationality and family life in the UK were similarly not in dispute. The contested issues centred on whether she was genuinely an atheist, whether her account of receiving threats in Bangladesh was credible, and whether removal would be proportionate under Article 8.

Judge McMahon accepted, based on consistent evidence across her interviews, witness statements and the blog itself, that TS had authored and operated an online blog since around 2017 addressing religious norms from a feminist perspective. However, the judge declined to find she was an atheist, noting that this description appeared only once, in a blog post published shortly before the hearing was originally listed and after the respondent's review had already flagged the absence of such evidence. The judge also observed that TS's screening interview had recorded her religion as Islam, a declaration she had never sought to correct until it was raised in cross-examination.

On the threats said to have been received, the judge found TS's account had evolved over time regarding their nature and form, and gave weight to a police report describing an anonymous call shortly before her departure from Bangladesh, concluding that low-level, indirect threats had probably occurred but were not linked to the state or any Islamic group. Limited weight was placed on a letter from TS's father, given inconsistencies in its translation and provenance, and on an accompanying police report and arrest warrant, with the judge applying the established approach to documentary evidence from Tanveer Ahmed v SSHD. Facebook material showing threatening messages was accepted as showing some contact from anonymous accounts, but the judge found no evidence that those responsible knew TS's whereabouts or real identity, or had any connection to the authorities.

Having found TS's views amounted to a challenge to religious norms rather than an insult to religion, and noting the country guidance distinguishing arrest risk for those who insult Islam from the more limited evidence concerning bloggers expressing views of this kind, the judge concluded she would not face persecution or serious harm on return, and that in any event internal relocation would not be unreasonable.

The Article 8 claim also failed. While accepting that removal would interfere with family life established in the UK, much of it during a period of precarious immigration status, the judge found the public interest in maintaining effective immigration control outweighed the impact on TS and her children, including the disruption to their education, and that no very significant obstacles to reintegration in Bangladesh had been shown. The appeal was dismissed on all grounds, and no fee award was made.