![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |
United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal >> MA (risk from any political activity) Libya [2004] UKIAT 00252 (14 September 2004) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIAT/2004/00252.html Cite as: [2004] UKIAT 00252, [2004] UKIAT 252 |
||
[New search]
[Context
]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
MA (risk from any political activity)
Libya
[2004] UKIAT 00252
Date of hearing: 11 August 2004
Date Determination notified: 14 September 2004
| MA | APPELLANT |
| and | |
| Secretary of State for the Home Department | RESPONDENT |
Libya
. He was born on 23 May 1981 and so is now 23 years old. He appeals the determination of an Adjudicator, Mr Charles Vaudim d'Imecourt, who in a determination promulgated on 18 December 2003 dismissed his appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State that he was not entitled to refugee status and that removing him from the United Kingdom was not contrary to his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. It is against that decision that the Appellant now appeals.
Libya
freely on his own passport. It was his case that whilst out of
Libya
, in Malta, his cousin was arrested and the appellant was afraid that his cousin would be tortured and made to identify the Appellant as a supporter of the cousin's political movement and that he would be at risk having been so identified. The Appellant did not return to
Libya
. Rather he made his way to the United Kingdom and claimed asylum.
Libya
were seeking him. It was the Appellant's case that his family was known to the authorities. In 1980 one of his uncles had been arrested and since that uncle's arrest the Appellant's father has from time to time been summoned to the offices of the Libyan security service to be interrogated. His father complained of ill-treatment on those occasions.
Libya
are concerned with this Appellant in any way."
Libya
CG [2003] UKIAT. One member of the Tribunal that heard that appeal is a member of the Tribunal deciding this appeal. It was the conclusion of the Tribunal in ME (Risk-failed asylum seekers – Hassan)
Libya
CG that a returned asylum seeker will not necessarily be perceived as someone who had opposed the government of
Libya
and would not necessarily risk persecution.
Libya
CG was right subject to two clarifications.
Libya
CG the Tribunal said "Although the background material is sensitive to the theoretical risk facing people who have done nothing more serious to undermine the regime of
Libya
than to seek asylum somewhere else, there is no direct evidence of such a person being persecuted. The examples of people being seriously ill-treated all appear to relate to those who have been involved, or at least seriously suspected of being involved, in serious political activity or are radical Islamic supporters." Mr Fripp submitted that the phrase "in serious political activity" could be interpreted as meaning that the Libyan authorities discriminated between different degrees of political involvement.
Libya
still regulate society closely. She said that the regime "is particularly suspicious of people who have spent unauthorised time in Britain. This is because the UK is the centre of Libyan opposition activity abroad." She contained that "applying for asylum is generally considered as a betrayal of Qadhafi's revolutionary system and anyone doing so is looked upon unfavourably by the regime." We accept that Ms Pargeter offers these opinions in good faith with the benefit of her experience as an academic and the opinions are consistent with other material before us. We find that the fact that seeking asylum abroad is viewed with disfavour does not mean that every person known to have claimed asylum abroad risks persecution. Generally there is no such risk unless the returned asylum seeker is linked with some political activity.
Libya
CG does not, and was never intended to, suggest that only people who were involved in particular activities to a high degree would be at risk on return. Each case must be considered on its own merits. The evidence is that the authorities in
Libya
are deeply suspicious and that even now anything but the most fleeing political activity might be enough to create a risk of serious ill-treatment. We are happy to provide this clarification.
Libya
both because the authorities would be suspicious of them and because the regime is volatile. Evidence for the proposition that a failed asylum seeker remains at risk even if he enters the country safely comes from the end of Ms Pargeter's report. Ms Pargeter says that a person who had claimed asylum would for that reason have "a black mark against their name". She said "It is possible that they may face intimidation and harassment as they would be considered as soft targets." We accept that it is possible. That is how the regime in
Libya
has behaved in the past. However we do not accept that there is a real risk of an unsuccessful asylum seeker being persecuted on some future occasion because he claimed asylum abroad and then returned to
Libya
. There is no direct evidence that that has happened but there is evidence in the Dutch report, to which reference is made in ME (Risk-failed asylum seekers – Hassan)
Libya
CG of people who had returned to
Libya
going about their lives unhindered. We are not aware of any evidence of unsuccessful asylum seekers having trouble with the authorities after they have entered
Libya
. There is evidence in the Dutch report that such people have not had problems.
Libya
just because they are known to have claimed asylum in the United Kingdom.
Libya to the extent indicated above we dismiss this appeal.
Jonathan Perkins
Vice-President
7 September 2004