Category: ECHR

Article 3, Article 8, Asylum, ECHR, UTIAC

Upper Tribunal gives guidance on Article 3 and suicide

Asad Ali Khan, BA, MSc, MA, LL.B (Hons), LL.M

In AXB (Art 3 health: obligations; suicide) Jamaica [2019] UKUT 397 (IAC), the Upper Tribunal explained that the threshold for establishing Article 3 harm is the high threshold described in N v United Kingdom[2008] ECHR 453 and a Presidential Tribunal held that:

  1. In a case where an individual asserts that his removal from the Returning State would violate his Article 3 ECHR rights because of the consequences to his health, the obligation on the authorities of a Returning State dealing with a health case is primarily one of examining the fears of an applicant as to what will occur following return and assessing the evidence.  In order to fulfil its obligations, a Returning State must provide “appropriate procedures” to allow that examination and assessment to be carried out.  In the UK, that is met in the first place by an examination of the case by the Secretary of State and then by an examination on appeal by the Tribunal and an assessment of the evidence before it.
  2. There is no free-standing procedural obligation on a Returning State to make enquiries of the Receiving State concerning treatment in that State or obtain assurances in that regard.  Properly understood, what is referred to at [185] to [187] of the Grand Chamber’s judgment in Paposhvili concerns the discharge of respective burdens of proof.
  3. The burden is on the individual appellant to establish that, if he is removed, there is a real risk of a breach of Article 3 ECHR to the standard and threshold which apply.  If the appellant provides evidence which is capable of proving his case to the standard which applies, the Secretary of State will be precluded from removing the appellant unless she is able to provide evidence countering the appellant’s evidence or dispelling doubts arising from that evidence.  Depending on the particular circumstances of the case, such evidence might include general evidence, specific evidence from the Receiving State following enquiries made or assurances from the Receiving State concerning the treatment of the appellant following return. 
  4. Where an individual asserts that he would be at real risk of committing suicide, following return to the Receiving State, the threshold for establishing Article 3 harm is the high threshold described in N v United Kingdom [2008] ECHR 453, unless the risk involves hostile actions of the Receiving State towards the individual: RA (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 1210; Y and Z v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 362.
Asylum, ECHR, Iran, Kurds

New Country Guidance on Iranian Kurds: Failed Asylum Seekers, Illegal Exit and Removal Policy

Asad Ali Khan, BA, MSc, MA, LL.B (Hons), LL.M

In HB (Kurds) Iran (illegal exit: failed asylum seeker) CG [2018] UKUT 430 (IAC) (removal window policy) [2018] UKUT 430 (IAC) (12 December 2018), the UTIAC held that:

(1)    SSH and HR (illegal exit: failed asylum seeker) Iran CG [2016] UKUT 308 (IAC) remains valid country guidance in terms of the country guidance offered in the headnote. For the avoidance of doubt, that decision is not authority for any proposition in relation to the risk on return for refused Kurdish asylum-seekers on account of their Kurdish ethnicity alone. 

(2)  Kurds in Iran face discrimination. However, the evidence does not support a contention that such discrimination is, in general, at such a level as to amount to persecution or Article 3 ill-treatment.

(3)   Since 2016 the Iranian authorities have become increasingly suspicious of, and sensitive to, Kurdish political activity. Those of Kurdish ethnicity are thus regarded with even greater suspicion than hitherto and are reasonably likely to be subjected to heightened scrutiny on return to Iran.

(4)   However, the mere fact of being a returnee of Kurdish ethnicity with or without a valid passport, and even if combined with illegal exit, does not create a risk of persecution or Article 3 ill-treatment.

(5)   Kurdish ethnicity is nevertheless a risk factor which, when combined with other factors, may create a real risk of persecution or Article 3 ill-treatment. Being a risk factor it means that Kurdish ethnicity is a factor of particular significance when assessing risk. Those “other factors” will include the matters identified in paragraphs (6)-(9) below.

(6)   A period of residence in the KRI by a Kurdish returnee is reasonably likely to result in additional questioning by the authorities on return. However, this is a factor that will be highly fact-specific and the degree of interest that such residence will excite will depend, non-exhaustively, on matters such as the length of residence in the KRI, what the person concerned was doing there and why they left.

(7)   Kurds involved in Kurdish political groups or activity are at risk of arrest, prolonged detention and physical abuse by the Iranian authorities. Even Kurds expressing peaceful dissent or who speak out about Kurdish rights also face a real risk of persecution or Article 3 ill-treatment.

(8)   Activities that can be perceived to be political by the Iranian authorities include social welfare and charitable activities on behalf of Kurds. Indeed, involvement with any organised activity on behalf of or in support of Kurds can be perceived as political and thus involve a risk of adverse attention by the Iranian authorities with the consequent risk of persecution or Article 3 ill-treatment.

(9)   Even ‘low-level’ political activity, or activity that is perceived to be political, such as, by way of example only, mere possession of leaflets espousing or supporting Kurdish rights, if discovered, involves the same risk of persecution or Article 3 ill-treatment. Each case however, depends on its own facts and an assessment will need to be made as to the nature of the material possessed and how it would be likely to be viewed by the Iranian authorities in the context of the foregoing guidance.

(10)   The Iranian authorities demonstrate what could be described as a ‘hair-trigger’ approach to those suspected of or perceived to be involved in Kurdish political activities or support for Kurdish rights. By ‘hair-trigger’ it means that the threshold for suspicion is low and the reaction of the authorities is reasonably likely to be extreme.

Afghanistan, ECHR, EU Law, Guidance, UTIAC

Guidance on Safety in Kabul

Asad Ali Khan, BA, MSc, MA, LL.B (Hons), LL.M

In AS (Safety of Kabul) Afghanistan CG [2018] UKUT 118 (IAC) (28 March 2018), the UTIAC imparted the following guidance:

Risk on return to Kabul from the Taliban

(i) A person who is of lower-level interest for the Taliban (i.e. not a senior government or security services official, or a spy) is not at real risk of persecution from the Taliban in Kabul.

Internal relocation to Kabul

(ii) Having regard to the security and humanitarian situation in Kabul as well as the difficulties faced by the population living there (primarily the urban poor but also IDPs and other returnees, which are not dissimilar to the conditions faced throughout may other parts of Afghanistan); it will not, in general be unreasonable or unduly harsh for a single adult male in good health to relocate to Kabul even if he does not have any specific connections or support network in Kabul.

(iii) However, the particular circumstances of an individual applicant must be taken into account in the context of conditions in the place of relocation, including a person’s age, nature and quality of support network/connections with Kabul/Afghanistan, their physical and mental health, and their language, education and vocational skills when determining whether a person falls within the general position set out above.

(iv) A person with a support network or specific connections in Kabul is likely to be in a more advantageous position on return, which may counter a particular vulnerability of an individual on return.

(v) Although Kabul suffered the highest number of civilian casualties (in the latest UNAMA figures from 2017) and the number of security incidents is increasing, the proportion of the population directly affected by the security situation is tiny.  The current security situation in Kabul is not at such a level as to render internal relocation unreasonable or unduly harsh. Continue reading “Guidance on Safety in Kabul” →

Article 8, ECHR, Entry Clearance, Guidance, UTIAC

Presidential Guidance on the Scope of Human Rights Appeals

Asad Ali Khan, BA, MSc, MA, LL.B (Hons), LL.M

Recently, two cases have been handed down comprising presidential guidance on the scope of human rights appeals. In the case of Baihinga (r. 22; human rights appeal: requirements) Sierra Leone [2018] UKUT 90 (IAC) (5 February 2018), Mr Justice Lane gave the following guidance:

  1. The scope for issuing a notice under rule 22 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014 (circumstances in which the Tribunal may not accept a notice of appeal) is limited. A rule 22 notice may be issued at the stage where the First-tier Tribunal scrutinises a notice of appeal as soon as practicable after it has been given. Where no rule 22 notice is issued at that stage and the matter proceeds to a hearing, the resulting decision of the First-tier Tribunal may be challenged on appeal to the Upper Tribunal, rather than by judicial review (JH (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 78; Practice Statement 3).
  2. An application for leave or entry clearance may constitute a human rights claim, even if the applicant does not, in terms, raise human rights. In cases not covered by the respondent’s guidance (whereby certain applications under the immigration rules will be treated as human rights claims), the application will constitute a human rights claim if, on the totality of the information supplied, the applicant is advancing a case which requires the caseworker to consider whether a discretionary decision under the rules needs to be taken by reference to ECHR issues (eg Article 8) or requires the caseworker to look beyond the rules and decide, if they are not satisfied, whether an Article 8 case is nevertheless being advanced.
  3. The issue of whether a human rights claim has been refused must be judged by reference to the decision said to constitute the refusal. An entry clearance manager’s decision, in response to a notice of appeal, cannot, for this purpose, be part of the decision of the entry clearance officer.
  4. A person who has not made an application which constitutes a human rights claim cannot re-characterise that application by raising human rights issues in her grounds of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.

Continue reading “Presidential Guidance on the Scope of Human Rights Appeals” →