AZ (Trafficked women)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Kekiæ,Freestone |
| Judgment Date | 26 January 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] UKUT 118 (IAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Date | 26 January 2010 |
[2010] UKUT 118 (IAC)
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
The Immigration Acts
Senior Immigration Judge Kekiæ
Immigration Judge Freestone
For the Appellant: Ms M Brewer, Counsel
For the Respondent: Ms H Akbar, Home Office Presenting Officer
AZ (Trafficked women) Thailand CG
-
1. Whilst former victims of trafficking in Thailand constitute members of a particular social group, not all will be at risk of serious harm on return; the risk will depend upon a number of factors and must be assessed on a case by case basis.
-
2. Relevant factors will include the age, marital status, domestic background, educational level, qualifications and work experience of the appellant. The availability of employment and a familial or other support network will also be significant factors.
-
3. Although anti-trafficking legislation has been implemented, the involvement of corrupt officials with traffickers and/or criminals has weakened the steps taken by the government to combat trafficking.
This is the reconsideration of the determination of the Tribunal (Immigration Judge Drummond-Farrall) dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State to remove the appellant from the UK as an illegal entrant under section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The appellant is a Thai citizen born on 16 August 1983 in Nong Khai Province, in the north east of Thailand.
The core of the appellant's claim is accepted by the respondent. It is that she was trafficked to the UK in early 2006 and forced into prostitution until her escape from her captors in September 2006. When attempting to leave the UK on a false passport, the appellant was stopped by the immigration authorities at Heathrow Airport and arrested. She was subsequently convicted for using a false document and sentenced to four and a half months in prison. What the respondent disputes, and what we must assess, is whether a victim of trafficking is a member of a particular social group, whether the appellant's trafficker acted alone or as part of an organised gang and whether the appellant would be at risk on return from those who trafficked her.
The appellant has painted a picture of a deprived and abusive childhood which has not been challenged by the respondent. She grew up with her paternal grandparents (now deceased), her mother having abandoned her when she was just one year old. There was little contact with her father and no reference to any maternal relatives. The appellant had six years of schooling following which she worked until the age of 15 when she left home. She became pregnant but then discovered that her boyfriend was married. He disputed paternity and the appellant attempted suicide. She spent a week in hospital as a result and then returned to work. She sent her child, then aged 9–10 months to be looked after by her paternal aunt and cousin as she was unable to work and care for the child at the same time. She continued to financially support the child.
In 2004 the appellant moved to Pattaya. It was there she met the man who was responsible for her trafficking — M. She described him as British but “Arab looking”. The appellant was working in a bar/restaurant at the time. A relationship commenced and when M suggested a holiday to the UK, the appellant agreed. She used her own passport and M arranged a visa. It would appear that she went to the British Embassy with M and signed some forms but was not interviewed and did not apparently have to adduce any documentary evidence. The appellant left her child with her aunt. When passing through Bangkok airport she heard one of the immigration officials indicate to another that M was one of “theirs”. Although she did not understand the meaning of that at the time, she later believed it to mean that M had connections with Thai Immigration. The appellant's passport was taken from her by M during the journey. Having arrived in London, they stayed at M's friend's house and did some sightseeing. A week later M took the appellant to another house and it was then that the appellant's troubles began.
The appellant was told she had to repay M for the investment he had made in her by bringing her to the UK and she was kept in three brothels on a rotating basis where she was forced into prostitution for the next eight months. She was afraid to refuse as M threatened to harm her and/or her child if she resisted. She was also transported to hotels for sex. She endured anal intercourse, was made to perform oral sex and to act out perverse sexual fantasies. She was injected with drugs. She was frequently whipped. She was made to behave like a dog. Condoms were not always used and she could not object. She continued to work during menstruation. If she refused to carry out any of the acts men desired, she was sent to another house where she had to work twenty hours a day and service 20–30 men. On one occasion when visiting a hotel she tried to escape but was caught and beaten with a gun. She was punished by being locked up in a small dark room without food. M then slapped her and threatened to kill her. She met a few other women also working in the houses with her. She said that the houses were guarded and that there was always an escort when they were taken to other houses or to hotels. She was given no money for her work.
In September 2006 the appellant was able to escape with the help of a regular client. The appellant had a passport that M had given her for identification purposes when she visited hotels. She then attempted to return to Thailand using that document. There followed the prosecution already referred to. On 19 February 2007 removal directions were set but cancelled when the appellant informed a prison officer that she was afraid to return. The appellant was transferred to Yarl's Wood Detention Centre. On 21 February 2007 the appellant disclosed her true identity to the authorities. On 3 March 2007 she was referred to the UK Human Trafficking Centre (UKHTC). On 5 March 2007 she was placed in a safe house run by the Medaille Trust, a charity founded by Catholic nuns, brothers and priests with the aim of helping women, young men and children who have been freed from sex-trafficking. On 7 March 2007 removal directions were set again but cancelled when the appellant refused to comply.
The appellant claimed asylum on 15 July 200She claimed that if returned to Thailand she would be hunted down by M's gang. She believed that M had links with Thai immigration. She claimed that the Thai police were corrupt. On 26 July 2007 she was referred to the Poppy Project. Their initial assessment took place on 15 August 200The substantive asylum interview took place on 26 September 200On 10 October 2007 the Poppy Project accepted the appellant's account of being trafficked and forced into prostitution.
The application was refused on 17 October 2007 and a decision to remove the appellant from the UK was made on the same date.
The Secretary of State decided that “due to your level of consistency and detail bearing in mind the trauma you have experienced, your age and your level of education, that your account will be largely accepted. In particular, it is accepted that you were trafficked to the UK and forced into prostitution during which time you were beaten and mistreated by your traffickers and you escaped and attempted to return to Thailand”.
The Secretary of State did not accept, however, that “women who had been sexually trafficked in the past in Thailand” constituted a social group. He found that there was no social recognition of this group as distinct from the rest of society. He considered that if the appellant faced persecution it was not because of her membership of that group but because she was specifically wanted by her traffickers.
The Secretary of State did not accept that M was part of a well organised criminal gang with connections to the Thai immigration service. He considered that if M had been part of a gang, he would not have become the appellant's boyfriend and would not have brought her to the UK and spent a week with her before forcing her into prostitution. He also considered that if the appellant believed that M was connected to Thai immigration, she would not have tried to return to Thailand in October 2006 and would have sought asylum earlier.
The Secretary of State considered that the appellant could prevent being re-trafficked by ensuring “that you do not return to a situation that would result in you being economically driven back into prostitution” (paragraph 33). He was of the view that even if it was accepted that the appellant faced persecution, there was a sufficiency of protection available. He noted that the Thai government announced the formation of a national committee in 2005 to assist victims of trafficking and to crack down on trafficking gangs. He considered the appellant had the support of her aunt and cousins. He also considered that the option of internal relocation would be open to the appellant.
The Secretary of State noted that the appellant had used a false visa to enter the UK and had attempted to leave on a false passport. He considered this adversely affected her credibility.
He did not consider that the appellant could benefit from the Human Rights Convention and found that she was not entitled to Discretionary Leave. He considered that the appellant's medical problems could be treated in Thailand.
The appellant gave notice of appeal under s. 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 on 29 October 2007.
The appeal came before an Immigration Judge at Taylor House on 25 January 2008....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R K v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...v SSHD [2010] UKUT 80 (IAC), SB (PSG, Protection Regulations, Reg. 6) Moldova CG [2008] UKAIT and AZ (Trafficked Women) Thailand CG [2010] UKUT 118 IAC. The difficulty with this submission, however, is that Article 14 of the Trafficking Convention only applies to people who have been traffi......
-
AA (Unattended Children) Afghanistan
...CG [2010] UKUT 378 (IAC) 17. HM and Others (Article 15(c))) Iraq CG [2010] UKUT 331 (IAC) 18. AZ (Trafficked women) Thailand CG [2010] UKUT 118 (IAC) (extracts) 19. AM and BM (Trafficked women) Albania CG [2010] UKUT 80 (IAC) (extracts) 20. TK (Tamils – LP updated) Sri Lanka CG [2009] UKAI......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2020-06-05, [2020] UKUT 223 (IAC) (DH (Particular Social Group: Mental Health))
...qualify as a PSG. 5. SB (PSG – Protection Regulations – Reg 6) Moldova CG [2008] UKAIT 0002 and AZ (Trafficked women) Thailand CG [2010] UKUT 118 (IAC) not followed. DECISION AND REASONS The appellant is a citizen of Afghanistan born on 23 January 1993. He appealed the decision of the Secre......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2020-06-05, HU/10178/2017
...CG [2008] UKAIT 0002, PO (Trafficked women) Nigeria CG [2009] UKAIT 00046 at [69] and [72], and AZ (Trafficked women) Thailand CG [2010] UKUT 118 (IAC) which are criticized for adopting what he considers to be an incorrect approach to assessing whether a person is a member of a SB (Moldova)......