AAR (OLF - MB confirmed) Ethiopia
| Country of Decision: | United Kingdom |
| Country of applicant: | Ethiopia |
| Court name: | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Date of decision: | 21-12-2021 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Persecution Grounds/Reasons
Description
Per Article 1A ofthe1951 Refugee Convention, one element of the refugee definition is that the persecution feared is “for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion“. Member States must take a number of elements into account when assessing the reasons for persecution as per Article 10 of the Qualification Directive. |
|
Return
Description
"In the context of the Return Directive (2008/115/EC), the process of going back - whether in voluntary compliance with an obligation to return, or enforced - to: - one's country of origin; or - a country of transit in accordance with EU or bilateral readmission agreements or other arrangements; or - another third country, to which the third-country national concerned voluntarily decides to return and in which he/she will be accepted. There are subcategories of return which can describe the way the return is implemented, e.g. voluntary, forced, assisted and spontaneous return; as well as sub-categories which describe who is participating in the return, e.g. repatriation (for refugees)." |
Headnote:
The assessment for a well-founded fear of persecution under the Refugee Convention must have regard to Country-of-Origin information and reports. Moreover, if the publication of the applicant’s name will have no adverse effect on either him or his family, the appellant’s private life rights, protected by article 8 ECHR, will not outweigh the public interest in open justice, as protected by article 10 ECHR.
Facts:
The applicant, a supporter of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), sought asylum in the United Kingdom. He claimed that if he returned to Ethiopia, he would face persecution as a result of his affiliation with the OLF and following multiple incidents of aggression against him by Ethiopian authorities.
After attending a screening interview where he submitted a witness statement explaining his circumstances, the Competent Authority found him to be a victim of human trafficking, however, rejected his application for international protection. This was because the authorities believed his fear of persecution was not well-founded. They cited the fact that the Oromo political prisoners were being released in Ethiopia, the OLF no longer being banned, and its leader returning to Ethiopia as justification for their decision. He appealed this decision.
The First-tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal, having considered the Danish Immigration Service Report ‘Ethiopia: Political situation and treatment of opposition’. This report stated that ‘there is now a willingness on the part of his country to offer him protection and he is not at risk from the State authorities.’ As such, there was no substantial fear of persecution.
The appellant further appealed this decision to the Upper Tribunal.
Decision & reasoning:
Fear of persecution:
The Upper Tribunal set aside the decision of the First-Tier tribunal.
Having regard to the Country-of-Origin information and an Amnesty International letter, the Upper Tribunal found that the applicant’s fear of persecution was well-founded. The Amnesty letter noted that, despite a change in Government in Ethiopia and a more accepting attitude towards former OLF supports, there was ‘a downward spiral for human rights in the country.’ Moreover, in its ‘Beyond law enforcement’ report, Amnesty International concluded that multiple groups, such as armed vigilantes and Ethiopian National Defence Forces, carried out serious human rights violations against former OLF supporters. As such, even though there may have been a change of Government, members, and supporters of the OLF may still be victims of violent attacks [para. 99]
As a result of the above, the Upper Tribunal concluded that the applicant’s removal from the United Kingdom would expose him to a real risk of persecution within the meaning of the Refugee Convention and ill-treatment contrary to article 3 ECHR.
Anonymity
The Upper Tribunal lifted the anonymity order made by the First-tier Tribunal.
The First-tier Tribunal issued an anonymity order regarding the case but provided no reasoning as to why the appellant’s private life rights, protected by article 8 ECHR, outweighed the public interest in open justice, as protected by article 10 ECHR.
As such, having regard to the importance of open justice and noting that the publication of the applicant’s name will have no adverse effect on either him or his family, the Upper Tribunal decided to lift the anonymity order made by the First-tier Tribunal [para. 121].
Outcome:
The Upper Tribunal set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal.