![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal >> AA (Non-Arab Darfuris - relocation) Sudan CG [2009] UKAIT 00056 (18 December 2009) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIAT/2009/00056.html Cite as: [2009] UKAIT 00056, [2009] UKAIT 56, [2009] UKAIT 0056 |
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Heard at: Field House (AIT Procession House)
Date of Hearing: 4 November 2009
Date Promulgated:
Before
SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE ALLEN
SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE LANE
Between
Aa
Appellant
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms S McEwen, Legal Representative, Refugee and Migrant Justice
For the Respondent: Mr E Tufan, Home Office Presenting Officer
DETERMINATION AND REASONS
All
non-Arab Darfuris are at risk of persecution in Darfur and cannot reasonably be
expected to relocate elsewhere in Sudan
. HGMO (Relocation to Khartoum)
Sudan
CG [2006] UKAIT 00062 is no longer to be followed, save in respect of
the guidance summarised at (2) and (6) of the headnote to that case.
1. The appellant is a citizen of Sudan
. He appealed to an Immigration Judge against the Secretary of State’s decision on 8 September 2008 to remove him as an illegal entrant from the United Kingdom.
2. Little more need be said about the Immigration Judge’s determination, given that it was successfully challenged and on 16 March 2009 a Senior Immigration Judge ordered a full second stage reconsideration hearing. A copy of that determination is annexed hereto.
3. The second stage reconsideration took place before us on 4 November 2009. Ms S McEwen of Refugee and Migrant Justice appeared on behalf of the appellant. Mr E Tufan appeared on behalf of the Secretary of State.
4. It was common ground that the
appeal fell to be allowed. The UK Border Agency produced an Operational
Guidance Note (OGN) on Sudan
on 2 November 2009. At paragraph 3.8.9 we find
the following:
“3.8.9 Ordinary non-Arab
Darfuris are not thought to be subject to systematic persecution outside Darfur and the courts have found that it is not unduly harsh to expect them to internally
relocate to Khartoum. However, those decisions predated the developments and
reports referred to at paragraph 3.9.4 to 3.9.7 below, and restrictions on the
operations of NGOs – a key source of country of origin information on Sudan
–
have meant that we have been unable to obtain sufficient reliable information
to be able to assess accurately whether there is a continued heightened risk to
non-Arab Darfuris in Khartoum. In light of the fact that we do not yet have
sufficient information to allay the concerns raised in the reports, case owners
should not argue that non-Arab Darfuris can relocate internally within
Sudan
.
3.8.10 Conclusion.
All non-Arab Darfuris, regardless of their political or other affiliations, are
at real risk of persecution in Darfur and internal relocation elsewhere in Sudan
is not currently to be relied upon. Claimants who establish that they are non-Arab
Darfuris and who do not fall within the exclusion clauses will therefore
qualify for asylum.”
5. Paragraphs 3.9.4 to 3.9.7 of
the OGN summarise recent evidence on the situation in Khartoum. On 10 May 2008 JEM launched an assault on Omdurman, Khartoum as a consequence of which there
were reports of arbitrary arrests by the Sudanese authorities, extrajudicial
executions and ill-treatment of detainees following the attack. The Foreign
and Commonwealth Office stated that following the fighting large number of
non-Arab Darfuris living in Khartoum were detained. On 4 March 2009 the ICC announced the issue of an arrest warrant against President Bashir for war
crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. This led to the expulsion of a
number of international NGOs and the closure of some local human rights
organisations, which severely reduced the ability of the local human rights
community to monitor and report on human rights violations. There was
continued press censorship and intimidation which further increased
restrictions on the freedom of expression. A UNHCR report of November 2008
refers to the use by the National Intelligence and Security Services (NISS) of
arbitrary arrest against political dissidents in Khartoum which can involve
ill-treatment, torture and unofficial places of detention, and it is said that
Darfurians may raise the suspicion of the security forces by the mere fact of
travelling from other parts of Sudan
to Darfur, by having travelled abroad, or
having been in contact with individuals and organisations abroad.
6. Thus it is clear that the
appellant, if he is a non-Arab Darfuri, must succeed in his appeal. His
evidence has consistently been that he is of the Masseleit tribe, and
Mr Tufan accepted that that had not been contested. He referred to
paragraphs 16 and 22 of the refusal letter as raising some sort of challenge,
but the former does no more than find that the appellant did not have an
individual threat of persecution directed against him, and the latter refers to
him remaining in Sudan
for a further three years after the attack on his
village. We consider that these matters come nowhere near a challenge to his
claimed tribal affiliation, which is noted without comment at paragraph 7A of
the refusal letter. Accordingly we accept that the appellant is a non-Arab Darfuri,
and it is not suggested that he falls within the exclusion clauses.
7. As a consequence of the
further evidence referred to in the OGN reassessment, it is clear that persons
who are non-Arabs from Darfur facing relocation to Khartoum are now a risk
category. It follows from this that the guidance summarised in paragraphs (3),
(4), (5) and (7) in the head note to HGMO (Relocation to Khartoum) Sudan CG [2006] UKAIT 00062 is no longer to be followed.
8. However, as regards other aspects of the guidance given in HGMO, nothing in the recent evidence or the OGN indicates any reason to depart from the guidance summarised in paragraphs (2) and (6) in the head note to HGMO. These state as follows:
“(2) Neither involuntary returnees nor failed asylum seekers nor persons of military age (including draft evaders and deserters) are as such at real risk on return to Khartoum
(6) An appellant will be able to succeed on the basis of medical needs only in extreme and exceptional circumstances.”
This appeal is allowed under the Refugee Convention and under Article 3 of the Human Rights Convention.
Signed
Senior Immigration Judge Allen