![]() |
[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 >> MD (Internal flight, Point of Return) Afghanistan [2004] UKIAT 00296 (13 October 2004) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIAT/2004/00296.html Cite as: [2004] UKIAT 00296, [2004] UKIAT 296 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
MD (Internal flight- Point of Return) Afghanistan
[2004] UKIAT 00296
Date of hearing: 17 September 2004
Date Determination notified: 13 October 2004
Secretary of State for the Home Department | APPELLANT |
and | |
MD | RESPONDENT |
Given what the objective material indicates about the difficulties encountered by those seeking to relocate within
Afghanistan
, as summarised above, and given also the destruction, both economically and physically in
Afghanistan
after 23 years of war, I accept that it would be unduly harsh for the appellant to relocate to another part of the country.
2. The grounds of appeal focus on the adjudicator's finding that Pashtuns from northern
Afghanistan
who have attempted to settle in Pashtun villages and other areas of the country have not been accepted by the local communities. It is arguable that the adjudicator was in error in paragraph 6.15 of the determination when she decided that the objective material did not indicate that all Pashtuns face persecution, it demonstrated that many do and, taken together with his brother's history, the claimant was at particular risk.
We have set all this out at such length because Mr Jaisri sought to argue that the Home Office were precluded by the terms of the grant of permission from challenging the adjudicator's conclusions on internal flight. As the vice-president carefully set out the claimant's case on this point at § 1 of the grant, and the Home Office's focus on it in the grounds in the first sentence of § 2, it could not be clearer that he was aware that this was what the appeal was essentially about.
a) the adjudicator did not specifically consider the "internal flight alternative" to Kabul, the point of any forced return toAfghanistan
from this country; and
b) she did not follow the general approach of the Tribunal to questions of internal flight toAfghanistan
.
In our view it is pointless to consider the internal flight alternative in this case of someone presently outside his country of origin, without taking a view on whether he would be at real risk at the point to return to it. If yes, then a claimant's appeal falls to be allowed with no more ado; if no, then one goes on to consider whether it would be unduly harsh, in terms of Robinson [1997] Imm AR 568 as explained in AE & FE [2003] EWCA Civ 1032, for him to have to return either there, or anywhere else in the country where he would be at no real risk. If this is right, it is not necessary for us to consider the general jurisprudence of the Tribunal on internal flight to Afghanistan
; nor how far failure to follow it might raise a point of law.
UNHCR Kabul have, however advised that the availability of the personal and social networks is vital for a person's ability to live I a given area. The Danish Report says that the support of the government is required for the settlement of an ethnic group in another area and notes that the crucial issue in connection with resettlement is access to resources. UNHCR Kabul is stated to have said that Pashtuns from northern
Afghanistan
who have attempted in Pashtun villages and other areas of the country have not been accepted by the local communities.
Home Office appeal
John Freeman
(approved for electronic distribution)
Note 1 see § 101.1; not an error of law, as in § 101.2, relating to appeals from the Tribunal, pace the Court of Appeal, though in practice it may not make much difference [Back]