Aaza (Yemen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Hearing date: 14 May 2025

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.00am on 6 June 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

The Appellant, who was born on 2nd May 2000, is a male citizen of Yemen.

On 6th February 2020 the Appellant made an application for asylum and humanitarian protection in the United Kingdom. The basis of the Appellant's claim was that he feared the Houthi rebels and the general situation in Yemen and also feared the Chinese authorities. The Appellant had resided in China with his family since he was 1 year old but did not have Chinese nationality and, as previously indicated, was a citizen of Yemen.

The Respondent considered the Appellant's application and refused the same on 25th November 2020 for the reasons set out in a Reasons for Refusal letter also dated 25th November 2020.

The Appellant appealed against the Respondent's decision by an appeal lodged on 8th December 2020. The Appellant in his appeal claimed that removing him from the United Kingdom would breach the UK's obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and in addition would breach the UK's obligations in relation to persons eligible for a grant of humanitarian protection.

The Appellant claimed asylum under the 1951 Refugee Convention and by implication also claims humanitarian protection by virtue of the EU Council Directive 2004/83/EC on the minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals (“the Qualification Directive”) as incorporated in the Refugee or Persons in Need of International Protection (Qualification) Regulations 2006 (“the 2006 Regulations”).

Following a hearing in the First-Tier Tribunal at Bradford on 9 July 2021, at which the Appellant gave evidence and was represented by Ms Ferguson, Judge O'Hanlon, in a reserved decision promulgated on 19 July 2021, dismissed the Appellant's appeal on asylum grounds, allowed his appeal on humanitarian protection grounds with regard to Yemen, but dismissed the appeal on humanitarian protection and human rights grounds with regard to China.

Pursuant to permission to appeal granted on 4 October 2021 by First Tier Tribunal Judge Moon, the Appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal. A hearing before Judge Hanson took place at Bradford on 22 July 2022. In a decision signed on 28 July 2022 but apparently not promulgated until 3 November 2022, Judge Hanson found no material error of law in the First Tier Tribunal decision and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

An application was made on 4 November 2022 to the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal to this court. Nearly a year later, on 11 October 2023, Judge Hanson refused the application. This delay has not been explained, but it does not affect the merits of the appeal before us. It does not appear that the Appellant or his legal representatives were at fault.

By an application notice with grounds of appeal and a skeleton argument in support settled by Ms Ferguson, the Appellant sought permission for a second appeal. On 10 April 2024 Asplin LJ granted permission on all grounds. She wrote:

“The 10 grounds of appeal are all interlinked. They are all concerned with reliance on the Applicant being able to return to China, the burden of proof in that regard and the risks relating to such a return. They have a real prospect of success and there is a compelling reason why the appeal should be heard given the risk to the Applicant”.

On 8 October 2024 the substantive appeal was listed before the Vice President, Underhill LJ, and two other members of the court. The result, although no formal order appears to have been issued, was that the appeal was adjourned and the parties directed to submit further skeleton arguments on the following questions:-

“(i) the safety of return to China including the risk of refoulement;

(ii) the inconsistency between the rules and the Qualification Directive comprising a procedural and substantive part:

a) Should the appellant be permitted to raise this where it did not form part of his argument before the FTT.

b) Substantive argument, including whether the Directive had direct effect.”

Each side then filed a supplementary skeleton argument in accordance with the court's directions.

On 8 April 2025, the Appellant lodged a further witness statement in which he says that:-

“Sadly it has been around three years since I lost contact with my family. The last thing I heard about them was my father was forcefully deported back to Yemen.”

Ms Ferguson did not seek formally to adduce this statement as fresh evidence. Our task, like that of the Upper Tribunal Judge, is to decide whether, on the evidence before her, the First Tier Tribunal Judge made any error of law when she dismissed the Appellant's appeal against the decision of the Home Office dated 26 November 2020.

The parties' cases before the First Tier Tribunal

I gratefully adopt Judge O'Hanlon's account of the cases as they were presented to her. As to the Appellant's case she said:-

“24. The Appellant's case, based upon his screening interview, asylum interview, further representations, skeleton argument and oral evidence at the hearing, can conveniently be summarised as follows:-

a) The Appellant is a national of Yemen, born 2 May 2000. He was born in Bangkok, Thailand where he lived for a year prior to moving with his family to China where his father ran an import/export business.

(b) The Appellant's family do not have settled status in China, his father having to renew his residency every year. Since the Appellant turned the age of 18 he is only able to reside there on a student visa in his own right.

(c) The Appellant's family includes his father, mother and two siblings, born 2003 and 2004 respectively.

(d) The Appellant received his education in China. He commenced university studies in 2018 at Changsa Human University and in his second year studied at Changsa Central University.

(e) Although the Appellant has lived in China for the majority of his life, he has not been granted citizenship.

(f) The situation in Yemen has continued to deteriorate since the war commenced in 2014.

(g) On 4th December 2019 the Appellant's father and other Yemeni citizens residing in China organised a conference where Yemeni nationals resident in China raised money and provided clothing to support displaced and vulnerable citizens of Yemen.

(h) During the conference those who attended also raised the problem of the Igor (Uighur) Muslims in China. This a taboo subject for the Chinese authorities.

(i) The Appellant's role was to distribute leaflets during the conference to generate awareness about the Yemeni war and the negative involvement of the Saudi-led coalition. The Appellant's father was a chief organiser and was in charge of money raised during the conference.

(j) On 11th January 2020 the Appellant arrived in the United Kingdom to continue his higher education. Whilst he was checking in his luggage for departure from China his passport was taken by Chinese airport security and retained for fifty minutes. The Appellant was questioned by Chinese airport security. The Appellant's passport was returned to him. When the Appellant arrived in the United Kingdom he became aware of the rumours that the Chinese government had begun arresting Yemenis who had attended the conference

(k) On 25th January 2020 the Chinese intelligence and local police visited the Appellant's father's place of work. He was questioned by the Chinese security forces about his work and his family in China and abroad. He was physically and verbally abused during the interrogation and asked to surrender his Yemeni passport.

(l) The Appellant's father was informed that he had organised a conference which was not licensed or approved by the Chinese government. He was released after several hours.

(m) Since he made his application for asylum the Appellant's family in China have been constantly harassed by the Chinese government.

(n) The Appellant's father has been diagnosed with a heart condition and his mother is suffering from depression. His siblings have had their education interrupted. They have been unable to enrol for education as the Appellant's father's residency in China is unconfirmed as the Chinese authorities took his passport. The Appellant's father has been interviewed on several occasions and he is required to attend the local police station on a weekly basis.

(o) The Appellant believes that his family is to be removed to Yemen but that is not possible at present.

(p) The Appellant's visa application and copy passport demonstrate that his residency permit in China expired on 20th July 2020. He is no longer enrolled on a course of study there and in view of the developments with his family and his own connection to it, it is unlikely that he would obtain another visa/residence permit.

…

28. The Appellant's Representative made the following submissions:-

(a) She relied upon the skeleton argument.

(b) The Appellant has not been given humanitarian protection in effect. It was recognised he should be if it were not for the question of an alternative country of return.

(c) It is baffling to say that China is a reasonable destination for the Appellant when the Appellant has no visa. He is not Chinese and...