HE (Bidoon – statelessness – risk of persecution)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Senior Immigration Judge Allen |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] UKAIT 51 |
| Court | Asylum and Immigration Tribunal |
| Date | 21 June 2006 |
[2006] UKAIT 51
Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE Allen
DESIGNATED IMMIGRATION JUDGE McCarthy
Mr A Smith
For the Appellant: Ms A White, Counsel, instructed by Freemans Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr I Neale, Home Office Presenting Officer
HE (Bidoon — statelessness — risk of persecution) Kuwait CG
Though there has been some progress in their situation, stateless Bidoon remain at risk of persecution and breach of their Article 3 rights in Kuwait. There has been no material change since BA and Others (Bidoon – statelessness – risk of persecution) Kuwait CG [2004] UKIAT 00256 was decided.
The appellant is a stateless Bidoon from Kuwait. He appeals to the Tribunal against the Secretary of State's decision of 11 January 2006 refusing leave to enter the United Kingdom. The hearing before us took place on 22 March 2006. Ms A White, instructed by Freemans, appeared on behalf of the appellant and Mr I Neale appeared on behalf of the Secretary of State.
The appellant arrived in the United Kingdom on 18 September 2005 and claimed asylum on that day. A screening interview took place on 19 September 2005 and an SEF was completed on 22 September 2005. That included a detailed statement. The appellant was interviewed on 20 October 2005, and he has also provided a further statement dated 17 February 2006 which formed part of the bundle.
At the hearing the appellant confirmed the truth of the contents of the two statements. Both had been interpreted to him in Arabic. However, although he recalled going to the Home Office for the interview, it had not been interpreted back to him so he did not know, he said, what was on the record.
Ms White referred him to documents which it was said he had produced on arrival in the United Kingdom. Copies of these were to be found in the Home Office bundle. He confirmed that the documents referred to at A8 to A10 were the relevant documents, and translations of these were to be found at C24 onwards. With regard to the attendance card document at C27 and C28, headed Executive Comittee for Illegal Residence Affairs that was not any form of residence card. C26 was a translation of that document and was headed ‘Executive Committee for Illegal Residence Affairs’. He said it meant that they were not resident in a legal way and were illegal. The card expired on 5 May 2003. He had only shown these documents to the Home Office at the short interview and not any other identification papers.
As to how he had obtained the attendance card [as the Executive Committee for Illegal Residence Affairs document was headed], he said that the government had made an announcement and invited all Bidoon people to apply to be provided with such cards. He did not remember exactly when that was but thought it was about five years ago. His father had gone and applied and after his father had died the appellant personally had contacted them. He was given the card a year before its expiry date of 5 May 2003. The card was valid for one year. It was the only card that he had from the Kuwaiti government.
He was asked what he had used the card for and he said it was for nothing. It was a trick by the Kuwaiti government to trap them.
He was next referred to the document described as a summoning order, at C29 and C30. He said that a while after he left the house one of his friends had visited the house and found this document behind the door and he had taken it with him and told the appellant about it. The appellant could not remember where he was then. He himself had the original. He had not brought it into the United Kingdom but it had been posted to him and he produced an envelope and said it was on 24 September 2005. He was asked how it was that he was able to show this document to the Home Office on 19 September 2005 if that were the case, and he said that what he had shown to the Home Office was a photocopy and he had had the photocopy with him and this had been the instruction of the agent. He was asked whether he recalled when and where he photocopied it and he had said that he had not photocopied it, but the agent had done it from the original and he had kept the photocopies with him. He was asked why he had not brought the original with him to the United Kingdom and he said he did not know and he had been instructed by the agent to do so. He had only seen the document when the agent gave it to him on the plane. He was asked when he had first seen the original document and he said that his friend showed it to him and his friend got it at the house. He had brought the originals of the documents with him to court today. He also produced the letter from his GP which was at A4 of his bundle.
When cross-examined by Mr Neale the appellant was asked how he got his birth certificate originally. He said that it was issued by the Ministry of Health and it generally delivered a duplicate, but it had not been delivered to him as he was not a Kuwaiti. If you were a Kuwaiti you could go and be issued with one or if you had good contacts. He said that this was a duplicate. He was asked whether he was saying it was not issued to him officially, and he said that persons who were Bidoon could not have official birth certificates, but they gave them duplicates. He had got it approximately two years ago. He was asked why he had got it then and he said that he had not personally chosen the time but he had a friend who had offered to help him and had advised him to get it done and to keep it with him. The document was not recognised as an ID by the Kuwait authorities, but his friend had told him it would benefit him to have it. There was no apparent reason for that but they had been talking and his friend had suggested it to him.
He was asked why he thought the attendance card was a trick by the Kuwaiti government. He said that when Bidoon like him were invited to come and obtain IDs they were pleased about this, but when they got them they found out it was done only to have their details. Previously they were not registered and the authorities did not have their addresses or details. Now their task was easier and they could come and get them and arrest them. It was clear from the card that it could not be used as an ID. He was asked what they had said the purpose for which it was issued and he said they had not told them anything but just asked them to come and register and they would be given IDs.
As regards the address on it, he was asked who owned the house he lived in and he said it was rented and it was an extension, not a house, and was rented privately. People who helped those in need were paying the rent. It was the case that Kuwaitis who carried ID cards were also required to register their details with the authorities.
He was asked about the Medical Foundation letter. He had kept the appointment referred to on that day. They had not provided a report. He then said that he had not chosen to go on that day. He had gone on 18 October 2005 but he did not instigate the appointment. A nurse had come to him at his previous accommodation and had seen him and said that she would send him somewhere. He had not been examined by the Medical Foundation on 18 October 2005. He had not seen a doctor. A lady had talked to him for a while and told him to go home and they would send him some details and later he got a letter from them saying that his treatment was available from his GP's surgery so he had gone there and got treatment.
With regard to paragraph 17 at C22, this being his first statement, the people who had paid money into the fund from which the agent was paid were friends. It had been done through a friend of his who was Kuwaiti and it was likely the money had come, in turn, from other Kuwaitis, as the Bidoon did not have money. But he did not know definitely how the friend had managed to get the money.
As regards what he had said at paragraph 13 about selling items on the streets, he said that this was earrings and rings and similar items which somebody in the market owned. Bidoon like him would sell them and take him the money and get commission. In Kuwait it was necessary to have a permit to sell goods in the street and he had not had one. He had sold goods anywhere in the street but not in the market. He did not know the procedure so he did not know whether he would have invited prosecution in the court. It would apply also to Kuwaitis that if they sold goods without a permit on the street they would be prosecuted. However, he said that the authorities were particularly after the Bidoon. Bidoon like him moved from place to place to avoid them.
Ms White had no re-examination.
In his submissions Mr Neale emphasised that the appellant had arrived in the United Kingdom unlawfully and with a forged French passport and this was of relevance to the application of s.8 of the 2004 Act and credibility. He had also had what he said were copies of a birth certificate and what appeared to be an ID card which was explained to be an attendance card. The birth certificate, he had said, could be obtained by any Bidoon with influential friends, but that was what one would expect him to say. The evidence of that document showed that he was documented and registered by the state. There was no evidence that such documents could readily be obtained unlawfully and its very existence indicated that the appellant as a Bidoon was registered with the state.
As regards the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2013-07-22, [2013] UKUT 356 (IAC) (NM (documented/undocumented Bidoon: risk))
...depends, is the security card, rather than the “civil identification documents” referred to in the previous country guidance in HE [2006] UKAIT 00051. To that extent the guidance in HE is amended. (2) The evidence relating to the documented Bidoon does not show them to be at real risk of pe......
-
NM (documented/undocumented Bidoon: risk)
...depends, is the security card, rather than the “civil identification documents” referred to in the previous country guidance in HE [2006] UKAIT 00051. To that extent the guidance in HE is amended. (2) The evidence relating to the documented Bidoon does not show them to be at real risk of pe......
-
Ahmed Rezq For Judicial Review Of A Determination Of The Upper Tribunal (asylum And Immigration Chamber) Dated 4 July 2013 Etc. And Answers For The Advocate General Fot Scotland On Behalf Of The Secretary Of State For The Home Department
...seen to form a particular social group.” This country guidance was endorsed in HE (Bidoon–statelessness–risk of persecution) Kuwait CG [2006] UKAIT 00051 and remained authoritative until 24 July 2013 when the guidance was qualified by the CG case NM (documented/undocumented Bidoon: risk) Ku......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2015-03-19, AA/06381/2014 & AA/06069/2014
...that the Judge failed to consider the guidance given by the Tribunal in relation to Kuwait in the cases of BA [2004] UKIAT 00256, HE [2006] UKAIT 00051 and NM (documented/undocumented Bidoon: risk) Kuwait CG [2013] UKUT 00356 (IAC). It is further contended that the Judge failed to give adeq......