GS (Article 15(c): Indiscriminate Violence) Afghanistan v. Secretary of State for the Home Department

Author: Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT)
Document source:

United Kingdom: Asylum and Immigration Tribunal / Immigration Appellate Authority
Date:
19 October 2009

In this section

The appellant had not shown that incidents of indiscriminate violence are happening in such a wide way or on such a wide scale that it posed a serious threat of real harm on a quantitative basis. There was limited evidence for this in certain provinces which meant there was not enough to suggest the risk was at a level to engage Article 15(c) either. Therefore it was concluded the the appellant would not be at real risk of serious harm if he was returned to Jalalabad. moreover there was not found any real risk of serious harm when he would be travelling to Jalalabad as there was no satisfactory evidence the appellant would reasonably caught in an incident en route.

"The appellant arrived in the UK unlawfully in 2005 and applied for aslyum which was refused in 2007. The formal decision was to remove him as an illegal entrant. The appellant appealed the decision which was dismissed and applied for reconsideration on the basis that the previous court has not considered whether the appellant would be at real risk of serious harm as a result of a serious and individal threat to civilian life by reason of indiscriminate violence in situtuations of international or internal conflict.
The appellant claimed that his parents had been murdered by warlords and expressed fear he would also become a victim. This was rejected. The appellant also stated his brother died in Dubai and his sister lived in Pakistan. The only facts accepted by the courts were that the appellant is over 18, is from Jalalabad and has no immediate family in Afghanistan. "

8. At an earlier reconsideration hearing, before Senior Immigration Judge Mather sitting alone, both parties agreed that the Immigration Judge had made a material error of law. That is, that when he considered the question of humanitarian protection he did not deal with Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive. In other words he did not consider` whether the appellant would be at real risk of serious harm as the result of ?a serious and individual threat to a civilian?s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict?.

Appeal dismissed. Appellant was not entitled to humanitarian protection and the appellant's appeal was dismissed.

Author

Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT)

Title

GS (Article 15(c): Indiscriminate Violence) Afghanistan v. Secretary of State for the Home Department

Document source

United Kingdom: Asylum and Immigration Tribunal / Immigration Appellate Authority

Date

19 October 2009

Document number

CG [2009] UKAIT 00044

Document type

Case Law

Collection

GS (Article 15(c): Indiscriminate Violence) Afghanistan v. Secretary of State for the Home Department

GS (Article 15(c): Indiscriminate Violence) Afghanistan v. Secretary of State for the Home Department

In this section

Summary

Facts

Considerations

Conclusion

Document details

Profile