Last Updated: Monday, 19 February 2018, 14:34 GMT

Case Law

Case Law includes national and international jurisprudential decisions. Administrative bodies and tribunals are included.
Showing 1-9 of 9 results
[2013] UKUT 00439(IAC)

9 July 2013 | Judicial Body: International Association of Refugee Law Judges | Topic(s): Citizenship / Nationality law | Countries: Albania

[2013] UKUT 85 (IAC)

(1) Although there is a legal duty to give a brief explanation of the conclusions on the central issue on which an appeal is determined, those reasons need not be extensive if the decision as a whole makes sense, having regard to the material accepted by the judge. (2) Although a decision may contain an error of law where the requirements to give adequate reasons are not met, the Upper Tribunal would not normally set aside a decision of the First-tier Tribunal where there has been no misdirection of law, the fact-finding process cannot be criticised and the relevant Country Guidance has been taken into account, unless the conclusions the judge draws from the primary data were not reasonably open to him or her.

11 February 2013 | Judicial Body: International Association of Refugee Law Judges | Topic(s): Children's rights - Credibility assessment | Countries: Afghanistan

[2013] UKUT 59 (IAC) - Already in Refworld

1) There is no general duty of disclosure on the Secretary of State in asylum appeals generally or Country Guidance cases in particular. The extent of the Secretary of State's obligation is set out in R v SSHD ex p Kerrouche No 1 [1997] Imm AR 610, as explained in R (ota Cindo) v IAT [2002] EWHC 246 (Admin); namely, that she must not knowingly mislead a court or tribunal by omission of material that was known or ought to have been known to her. (2) The Country Guidance given by the Tribunal in EM and Others (Returnees) Zimbabwe CG [2011] UKUT 98 (IAC) on the position in Zimbabwe as at the end of January 2011 was not vitiated in any respect by the use made of anonymous evidence from certain sources in the Secretary of State's Fact Finding Mission report of 2010. The Tribunal was entitled to find that there had been a durable change since RN (Returnees) Zimbabwe CG [2008] UKAIT 00083. The Country Guidance in EM does not require to be amended, as regards the position at that time, in the light of- (a) the disclosure by the Secretary of State of any of the materials subsequently disclosed in response to the orders of the Court of Appeal and related directions of the Tribunal in the current proceedings; or (b) any fresh material adduced by the parties in those proceedings that might have a bearing on the position at that time. (3) The only change to the EM Country Guidance that it is necessary to make as regards the position as at the end of January 2011 arises from the judgments in RT (Zimbabwe) [2012] UKSC 38. The EM Country Guidance is, accordingly, re-stated as follows (with the change underlined in paragraph (5) below): (1) As a general matter, there is significantly less politically motivated violence in Zimbabwe, compared with the situation considered by the AIT in RN. In particular, the evidence does not show that, as a general matter, the return of a failed asylum seeker from the United Kingdom, having no significant MDC profile, would result in that person facing a real risk of having to demonstrate loyalty to the ZANU-PF. (2) The position is, however, likely to be otherwise in the case of a person without ZANU-PF connections, returning from the United Kingdom after a significant absence to a rural area of Zimbabwe, other than Matabeleland North or Matabeleland South. Such a person may well find it difficult to avoid adverse attention, amounting to serious ill-treatment, from ZANU-PF authority figures and those they control. The adverse attention may well involve a requirement to demonstrate loyalty to ZANU-PF, with the prospect of serious harm in the event of failure. Persons who have shown themselves not to be favourably disposed to ZANU-PF are entitled to international protection, whether or not they could and would do whatever might be necessary to demonstrate such loyalty (RT (Zimbabwe)). (3) The situation is not uniform across the relevant rural areas and there may be reasons why a particular individual, although at first sight appearing to fall within the category described in the preceding paragraph, in reality does not do so. For example, the evidence might disclose that, in the home village, ZANU-PF power structures or other means of coercion are weak or absent. (4) In general, a returnee from the United Kingdom to rural Matabeleland North or Matabeleland South is highly unlikely to face significant difficulty from ZANU-PF elements, including the security forces, even if the returnee is a MDC member or supporter. A person may, however, be able to show that his or her village or area is one that, unusually, is under the sway of a ZANU-PF chief, or the like. (5) A returnee to Harare will in general face no significant difficulties, if going to a low-density or medium-density area. Whilst the socio-economic situation in high-density areas is more challenging, in general a person without ZANU-PF connections will not face significant problems there (including a "loyalty test"), unless he or she has a significant MDC profile, which might cause him or her to feature on a list of those targeted for harassment, or would otherwise engage in political activities likely to attract the adverse attention of ZANU-PF, or would be reasonably likely to engage in such activities, but for a fear of thereby coming to the adverse attention of ZANU-PF. (6) A returnee to Bulawayo will in general not suffer the adverse attention of ZANU-PF, including the security forces, even if he or she has a significant MDC profile. (7) The issue of what is a person's home for the purposes of internal relocation is to be decided as a matter of fact and is not necessarily to be determined by reference to the place a person from Zimbabwe regards as his or her rural homeland. As a general matter, it is unlikely that a person with a well-founded fear of persecution in a major urban centre such as Harare will have a viable internal relocation alternative to a rural area in the Eastern provinces. Relocation to Matabeleland (including Bulawayo) may be negated by discrimination, where the returnee is Shona. (8) Internal relocation from a rural area to Harare or (subject to what we have just said) Bulawayo is, in general, more realistic; but the socio-economic circumstances in which persons are reasonably likely to find themselves will need to be considered, in order to determine whether it would be unreasonable or unduly harsh to expect them to relocate. (9) The economy of Zimbabwe has markedly improved since the period considered in RN. The replacement of the Zimbabwean currency by the US dollar and the South African rand has ended the recent hyperinflation. The availability of food and other goods in shops has likewise improved, as has the availability of utilities in Harare. Although these improvements are not being felt by everyone, with 15% of the population still requiring food aid, there has not been any deterioration in the humanitarian situation since late 2008. Zimbabwe has a large informal economy, ranging from street traders to home-based enterprises, which (depending on the circumstances) returnees may be expected to enter. (10) As was the position in RN, those who are or have been teachers require to have their cases determined on the basis that this fact places them in an enhanced or heightened risk category, the significance of which will need to be assessed on an individual basis. (11) In certain cases, persons found to be seriously lacking in credibility may properly be found as a result to have failed to show a reasonable likelihood (a) that they would not, in fact, be regarded, on return, as aligned with ZANU-PF and/or (b) that they would be returning to a socio-economic milieu in which problems with ZANU-PF will arise. This important point was identified in RN ... and remains valid. (4) In the course of deciding CM's appeal, the present Tribunal has made an assessment of certain general matters regarding Zimbabwe as at October 2012. As a result, the following country information may be of assistance to decision-makers and judges. It is, however, not Country Guidance within the scope of Practice Direction 12 and is based on evidence which neither party claimed to be comprehensive: (a) The picture presented by the fresh evidence as to the general position of politically motivated violence in Zimbabwe as at October 2012 does not differ in any material respect from the Country Guidance in EM. (b) Elections are due to be held in 2013; but it is unclear when. (c) In the light of the evidence regarding the activities of Chipangano, judicial-fact finders may need to pay particular regard to whether a person, who is reasonably likely to go to Mbare or a neighbouring high density area of Harare, will come to the adverse attention of that group; in particular, if he or she is reasonably likely to have to find employment of a kind that Chipangano seeks to control or otherwise exploit for economic, rather than political, reasons. (d) The fresh evidence regarding the position at the point of return does not indicate any increase in risk since the Country Guidance was given in HS (returning asylum seekers) Zimbabwe CG [2007] UKAIT 00094. On the contrary, the available evidence as to the treatment of those who have been returned to Harare Airport since 2007 and the absence of any reliable evidence of risk there means that there is no justification for extending the scope of who might be regarded by the CIO as an MDC activist.

31 January 2013 | Judicial Body: International Association of Refugee Law Judges | Topic(s): Credibility assessment - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Persecution based on political opinion | Countries: Zimbabwe

[2012] UKUT 390 (IAC) - Already in Refworld

(1) Article 223 of the Uzbekistan Criminal Code (UCC) makes it an offence for a citizen to leave the country without permission – what is described as "illegal exit abroad". The basic offence of "illegal exit abroad" is punishable by a fine or by imprisonment for between three to five years. (2) In specified aggravating circumstances (a physical breach of the border, conspiracy, or the exit abroad of a state employee requiring special permission) the penalty for "illegal exit abroad" under Article 223 of the UCC rises to five to ten years' imprisonment. It is unclear from the evidence before us whether a fine will also be imposed. (3) Uzbek citizens are required to obtain an exit permit prior to leaving the country. However, Annex 1 to the Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 8, issued on 06.01.1995, provides that no penalties apply to someone who returns to Uzbekistan after the expiry of their exit permit. Normally, exit permits can be renewed at the Uzbekistan Embassy in the third country where an Uzbek citizen is living. (4) There are cases of Uzbek nationals, having left the country lawfully, nevertheless being charged with "illegal exit abroad" and prosecuted under Article 223 following their return to Uzbekistan with expired exit permits. However, those cases involved pre-existing interest by the authorities, association with the events in Andijan in 2005, association with Islamic militant activity, travel to countries other than that authorised in the exit permit or other such distinguishing features. (5) There is no evidence of prosecutions under Article 223 of the UCC of ordinary returning Uzbek citizens with expired exit permits, including failed asylum seekers, where such individuals had no particular profile or distinguishing features which would otherwise have led to any adverse interest in them. It has therefore not been established that such returnees are at real risk of persecution on return. (6) The ill-treatment of detainees is a pervasive and enduring problem in Uzbekistan, for which there is no concrete evidence of any fundamental improvement in recent years (Ergashev v Russia [2009] ECtHR 12106/09 ECHR 2249). Therefore, where an Uzbek citizen is likely to be detained on return, Article 3 ECHR will be engaged. (7) The country guidance given by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal in OM (Returning citizens, minorities, religion) Uzbekistan CG [2007] UKAIT 00045 is re-affirmed.

23 November 2012 | Judicial Body: International Association of Refugee Law Judges | Topic(s): Entry / Exit - Immigration Detention | Countries: Uzbekistan

[2012] UKUT 00396

(i) In the absence of a s.120 notice and a statement of "additional grounds", an appellant could not rely on the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 before the First-tier Tribunal as that had not formed part of his application for leave to remain made to the Secretary of State: Lamichhane v SSHD [2012] EWCA Civ 260 applied. (ii) A statement of "additional grounds" may be made in response to a s.120 notice at any time, including up to (and perhaps at the time of) the hearing of the appeal. (iii) Although the legislative scheme prescribes no particular form in which a statement of "additional grounds" must be made, such a statement must as a minimum set out with some level of particularity the ground(s) relied upon by the appellant as the foundation for remaining in the UK and upon which reliance has not previously been placed. It must "state" the additional ground to be relied on in substance or, at least, in form.

10 September 2012 | Judicial Body: International Association of Refugee Law Judges | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Right to family life | Countries: Iraq

UKIAT_000248_2004.09.10 - Already in Refworld

Iraq – former KAZ – relevance of country conditions – expert witnesses – objective situation – sufficiency of protection

10 September 2004 | Judicial Body: International Association of Refugee Law Judges | Topic(s): Effective protection - Witnesses | Countries: Iraq - Turkey


Human rights – Article 8 ECHR – Family life – Proportionality – Deportation – Third party rights

2 June 2004 | Judicial Body: International Association of Refugee Law Judges | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return | Countries: Turkey


Was the claimant entitled to be regarded as a refugee or was he excluded from the benefits of the Refugee Convention under Article 1F(c) as a person "guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations"? – Definition of acts "contrary to the purposes and principles if UN"

7 May 2004 | Judicial Body: International Association of Refugee Law Judges | Topic(s): Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations - Refugees - Terrorism | Countries: Turkey


Palestine – Lebanese camps – Second and third category rights – Discrimination amouning to persecution Conjoined appeals of 3 stateless Palestinians

29 February 2004 | Judicial Body: International Association of Refugee Law Judges | Topic(s): Palestinian - Refugee camps | Countries: Lebanon

Search Refworld