Case summaries

According to the Qualification Directive, forced marriage, along with domestic violence and issues of faith, can be considered as persecution on a cumulative basis having regard to the situation in the country of origin.

The rationale of the decision in HJ (Iran) (see separate summary in this database) applies to cases concerning political opinion. Consequently an individual cannot be expected to modify their political beliefs or deny their opinion in order to avoid persecution. The situation in Zimbabwe was exceptional. At that time, the country guidance held that those who were unable to demonstrate their loyalty to the regime were at risk of persecution. Thus, those with no political beliefs could not be required to profess their loyalty to the regime to avoid persecution and were entitled to refugee status.

The applicant in this case claimed to fear persecution in Nigeria on account of his sexuality. A decision to affirm a deportation order against him was quashed on the basis that insufficient assessment was given to whether the applicant’s human rights would be infringed by the behaviour required of him in order to avoid persecution. The thrust of the refugee and subsidiary protection decisions in the case, and of the deportation decision, was that the applicant could hide his homosexuality and not therefore expose himself to persecution, prosecution or serious harm.  

In assessing state protection, a judge must look, notwithstanding a general sufficiency of protection in a country, to the individual circumstances of the applicant. In assessing whether an appellant’s individual circumstances give rise to a need for additional protection, account must be taken of past persecution (if any) so as to ensure the question posed is whether there are good reasons to consider that such persecution (and past lack of sufficient protection) will not be repeated. When considering whether past persecution is a serious indication of a well founded fear under Article 4(4) of the Qualification Directive, Recital 27 to the Directive indicated that the past ill treatment of family members was also relevant.

The House of Lords confirmed that in addition to establishing a real risk of harm, the applicant would also have to show that their state has failed to provide reasonable protection. 

This case concerned the consideration of expert medical evidence by asylum decision makers and the link with the assessment of credibility. The Court found that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal failed adequately to consider strong medical evidence relating to torture in assessing the overall credibility of the applicant’s refugee claim. The Court also found that it is incumbent upon the asylum decision maker to give reasons for rejecting the contents of medico-legal reports, especially those with a high probative value.

The Applicant, S.H., is a Bhutanese national of ethnic Nepalese origin who currently lives in Huddersfield. He claimed asylum in the UK, but the application was refused and he was served with removal directions. Prior to his removal, the Court indicated to the United Kingdom Government that he should not be expelled. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the Applicant complained that his removal to Bhutan would expose him to a risk of ill-treatment on account of his ethnicity, his status as a failed asylum seeker, and as the close relative of a human rights activist who has been granted asylum in the United Kingdom.

The Tribunal considered whether a woman who had been involved in invasions of white-owned farms at the behest of the ruling party in Zimbabwe was excluded under Article 1F(a) of the 1951 Refugee Convention. The Tribunal held, first of all, that Article 7(1) of the Statute of the International Criminal Court is usually regarded as providing the best working definition of a crime against humanity for the purposes of Article 1F(a) of the 1951 Refugee Convention. Secondly, it held that where the act or crime does not involve the specifically listed forms of acts or crimes, in order to consider that a crime against humanity had occurred, the Tribunal must consider if the acts participated in by the appellant were of a “similar character” to those specified in Article 7(1)(a) to (j) of the Statute. In so doing, the Tribunal must consider the specific purpose of the crime, its intent and effect, the participation of an appellant in the crime and if needs be whether the appellant made a substantial contribution to the crime.

A well-founded fear of persecution may also be based on events that took place after the Applicant left his country of origin (refugee sur place). Sur place evidence refers to circumstances which arose after the Applicant left his country of origin and which are as a rule connected with a change in the situation in the country of origin, but one cannot exclude other events which are closely linked with the person applying for refugee status and which occurred after he left his country of origin.