Cn (Internal Flight Alternate – Female Minor)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | C P Mather,Vice President |
| Judgment Date | 29 September 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] UKIAT 275 |
| Court | Immigration Appeals Tribunal |
| Date | 29 September 2004 |
[2004] UKIAT 275
IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Mr C P Mather (Vice President)
Mr J B Wilson
For the appellant: Mr D Seddon Counsel instructed by Bindman & Partners.
For the respondent: Mr D W Saville, Home Office Presenting Officer.
CN (internal flight alternate — female minor) Cameroon
The appellant, Charley Ngom, is a citizen of Cameroon. She was born on 11 April 1987 and is therefore still a minor.
With permission, she appeals the determination of an Adjudicator, Mr A C B Markham David, promulgated on 17 September 2003. The appellant was granted leave to remain until 10 April 2005 which is the day before her eighteenth birthday. The Adjudicator was only therefore concerned to decide whether the appellant was entitled to refugee status. Although Mr Seddon argued before the Adjudicator that he should also deal with the question of human rights, the Adjudicator declined to do so and gave his reasons. The appellant has been refused permission to appeal on that issue. The grant of permission was limited to questions arising from the Adjudicator's apparent lack of reasons for finding that it would not be unduly harsh to expect the appellant to return and relocate in YaoundÉ and the grounds assert that in making that assessment he failed to take her psychiatric condition into account.
The Adjudicator's task, and ours, is to an extent an artificial one. It is the question of determining refugee status when it is well known that the appellant will not be returned for the time being. It is slightly more difficult in this appeal than some. Not only is the question of refugee status (the real risk on return of persecution for a Convention reason) being decided on the theoretical risk of return now but also, if the respondent were to return the appellant now he would be in breach of his own policies on the return of minors. That policy is alluded to in the reasons for refusal of asylum which are set out in a letter dated 7 April 2003. In paragraph 7 of the letter the respondent indicates that he has decided to exercise his discretion and grant limited leave to remain,
“in accordance with the published Home Office asylum policy instruction on discretionary leave because you are an unaccompanied child for whom we are not satisfied that adequate reception arrangements in your own country are available”.
It is not entirely clear how we should treat the respondent's policy which means that, in the particular circumstances of this appellant, she would not be returned because of a lack of reception arrangements, regardless of any actual risk. For the purposes of this determination we have decided that the policy should be ignored because the grant of discretionary leave is not relevant and the policy was at least part of the reason for that grant.
The Adjudicator found that the appellant came from a village near Bamenda, three hours by bus from the capital, YaoundÉ. She had been living there with her father, an older brother and two younger sisters. Her mother had died in childbirth in 1990. She had left school in September 2001 because her father was an alcoholic and unable to pay the fees. The main problem which the appellant had was caused by her father and his alcoholism. In January 2003 a police inspector had been killed in the area and it was said that the appellant's father was the killer. Apparently he and the police inspector shared a girlfriend. The appellant is unable to say whether there is any truth in the allegation or not.
In early January 2003 the whole family was arrested and taken to the police station. The appellant's father was interrogated in front of them and beaten. This happened on more than one occasion. Neither the appellant nor her siblings were asked any questions at all but whilst at the police station some of the male officers undressed her and indicated they wanted to have sex with her. When her father objected he was beaten again. However, she was not subjected to rape and there was no further sexual assault. She was not beaten or otherwise molested at all. A woman called Rachel, who was her father's girlfriend, collected the appellant and her siblings from the police station and initially took them back to their own home. Some two days later the appellant's brother became ill after playing football and died the following morning. Rachel then took the appellant and her two sisters to her own house in a nearby village. The appellant said that she has no relatives on her mother's side in Cameroon as her mother was Congolese. Her father has some relatives in YaoundÉ but that is a long way from the village. The appellant told the Adjudicator that before her brother died, he told her the police inspector's family intended to take revenge on their family. He warned the appellant and her sisters not to go out.
After a short time Rachel said that the problem was getting very serious and she was going to send the appellant to her sister's. She brought the appellant to England and then abandoned her in a shop. The appellant eventually ended up being taken to a police station at Croydon. Apparently Rachel had said that she would bring the appellant to England first and her sisters later.
The Adjudicator found that there was no suggestion that the appellant's family was expected to return to the police station at any time; that her father was in custody and although there was no question of releasing him there was no evidence any intention to punish the appellant or her siblings. He was satisfied that there was no reasonable likelihood of the appellant suffering any further persecution at the hands of the authorities in Cameroon.
In dealing with her fear of the inspector's family, the Adjudicator accepted that the fear was genuine. He said it was somewhat complicated because the appellant's fear, at least to some extent, was a fear of being harmed by witchcraft. The Adjudicator had the benefit of an expert witness who said that it was likely that, in her home area, the family of the deceased police officer would try to take some form of action against her by way of revenge or to assuage the wrath of their ancestors: The Adjudicator found that in her home area, if this were to occur, there would be no satisfactory protection available from the authorities. He then went on to consider the question of relocation. He found that the appellant's sisters are both living in YaoundÉ with an aunt on her father's side. He said there was no evidence to suggest they were in any danger from the inspector's family in Bamenda, whilst they were in YaoundÉ nor that the appellant would be in any such danger. He recorded that Mr Seddon had submitted to him that it would be unduly harsh to expect the appellant to relocate there. He relied on the letter sent to the appellant by her sisters in which they complained they were not given enough to eat, they could get no medical treatment and they do all the work in the house and get scolded and told off a lot. He also noted that the appellant had spoken to her aunt in June 2003. He also found that in addition to the aunt in YaoundÉ, it appears there are some of her father's cousins there. He went on to say, “In these circumstances, I do not think it will be unreasonable, in the sense of unduly harsh, to expect the appellant to relocate there. Thus she is not entitled to refugee status.”
The factors which Mr Seddon argued make it unduly harsh to return the appellant are first, the psychological problems which he argued relate back to her persecution and are therefore not independent of it. Second, he argued that there was no evidence to demonstrate that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2004-09-29, [2004] UKIAT 275 (CN (Internal flight alternate, Female minor))
...sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; so-language: ar-SA } KH Heard at: Field House CN (internal flight alternate – female minor) Cameroon [2004] UKIAT 00275 On: 18 June 2004 IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL Date Determination notified: 29 September 2004 Before: Mr C P Mather (Vice President) Mr J B Wils......