Silas Habte Micael Zerazion v. Secretary of State for the Home Department

DETERMINATION AND REASONS

The appellant is a citizen of Ethiopia, born on 1 January 1958. She is an Eritrean. On 3 July 1984 she applied for political asylum. Her application was refused on 28 January 1986. She appealed. Her appeal was dismissed by an adjudicator (Mr. I.M.S. Donnell) in a determination dated 17 December 1986. On 25 February 1987 she was granted leave to appeal to the Tribunal.

Before us Mrs. M. Dines of Rights and Justice appeared for the appellant: Mr. A. Gammons appeared for the respondent.

The appellant is a young lady with a somewhat unusual background. Despite the discrimination which is said to operate in Ethiopia against those from Eritrea, she completed a technical education and in 1979 was appointed to a technical post in the nascent Ethiopian Television Service, a Government organisation. She became a sound mixer and then one of two colour mixers, when the service began transmission in colour. With six other technicians she was sent to London in May 1984 to learn more about the technical aspects of her work: that visit was planned in preparation for the extensive cover to be given in Ethiopia to the extravaganza devised for the tenth anniversary of the present regime.

She arrived in the United Kingdom on 23 May 1984. The technical instruction finished at the end of June. The party was due to return to Ethiopia on 2 July 1984. She avoided returning with the others and applied for political asylum, through Rights and Justice, on 3 July 1984. She had been admitted to the United Kingdom for six months, so she was not an overstayer. She was interviewed by the Home Office on 29 November 1984. There is no explanation in the explanatory statement dated 16 April 1986 of the extraordinarily long delay between that interview of November 1984 and the decision to refuse to vary leave on 28 January 1986. Mr. Gammons could not assist us. It is fair to say however that there is no suggestion that the appellant or her representatives were to blame. There was some delay in arranging the hearing before the adjudicator but again that appears to have derived from the case load of appeals and not from any application for adjournments on her behalf. The hearing actually took place on 18 November 1986, but appellant's representative had indicated as early as 23 June 1986 that she was ready to proceed.

We record this chronology in some detail because there is in our view an unusual element in this case.

We are bound by events which had occurred by the date of decision. Some additional fifteen months have now passed however and we are aware that the passage of time in this case may well have been unusually prejudicial to the appellant. Her appointment and position were such that she would invitably be missed - but not overlooked - by her employers and we think that if she were to be obliged to return to Ethiopia now, she would found it very difficult to escape notice on arrival. Doubtless her extended absence would be the subject of rigorous and distasteful enquiry. We return below to what we regard as the consequences that should follow from those delays.

First however we deal with the matters that are strictly before us as an appeal from the refusal of January 1986. Her original claim to political asylum must rest essentially on her past history in Ethiopia. Her father was allegedly killed by government forces returning from operations against Eritreans: he was said to have given rebels food. Her brothers, or some of them, are alleged to have been involved with the Eritrean Peoples Liberation Front. She herself, as we note above, had enjoyed an exceptionally successful career. She says she was an object of suspicion in the television service and any failure or mishap was attributed to her: she was an object of suspicion. Nevertheless, she remained in post.

The adjudicator did not find her a wholly credible witness. He thought she had inflated the difficulties she had faced in Ethiopia. In evidence before him she asserted that ever since the murder of her father she had wanted to leave the country - and the visit to the United Kingdom for technical training was a golden opportunity. That would be to us a more convincing story if she had sought asylum immediately upon arrival. She did not. She worked through the course and only initiated her claim the day after she should have left the United Kingdom. That suggests to us strongly that up to the date when she, as it were defected, from the group with whom she had come to London, there was nothing in her history to suggest that she was liable to persecution in Ethiopia. We have read carefully the evidence before the adjudicator and we conclude that he was correct in holding that she did not qualify for refugee status at the date of decision. We come to the same conclusion, and the appeal is dismissed.

However, looking at the case as a whole we have considerable sympathy with the appellant. We accept that a person in her unusual position (for there must be relatively few persons with her skills in Ethiopian Television, and far fewer Eritreans) would feel somewhat uneasy in Ethiopia. Probably the prospect of returning became increasingly a matter of disquiet to her while on the technical course. She is a young girl without, so far as we know, relatives in the United Kingdom. She may have not known where immediately to turn for advice: in desperation she may then well have simply avoided the bus to the airport. Inevitably defecting in that way carries its own risks because if the individual is then refused asylum he or she has necessarily "broken cover", and is unlikely to be able to return safely to an anonymous existence. That would apply especially to someone with the job she held.

That is a risk which many aspirant refugees must run and in itself we do not think that it qualifies a person for refugee status. It is in that context however that we consider the very long delays which have occurred in this case to be significant. We do not blame anyone for the delays but the consequence is that her position now is much more difficult than it probably was at the date of decision and certainly was at and shortly after the date of application. We are satisfied that the delays are not her responsibility (or that of her representatives): she has not prevaricated nor attempted, it seems to extend proceedings by, for example, repeated applications for adjournments of appeals. In the meantime the circumstances of government opponents in Ethiopia have if anything become more hazardous.

It is in the light of these facts that we take the unusual course (and one we would not adopt without careful thought) of urging most strongly the Secretary of State to review the case outside the rules. We sincerely hope that taking all matters into consideration he will feel able to incline to giving the appellant exceptional leave to remain until such time as political conditions in Ethiopia improve.

For the reasons we give above however the appeal for refugee status is dismissed on the facts as they appeared in January 1986.

This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.