Di (Ifa - Fgm)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MISS K ESHUN,VICE PRESIDENT |
| Judgment Date | 27 September 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] UKIAT 4437 |
| Court | Immigration Appeals Tribunal |
| Date | 27 September 2002 |
| Docket Number | Appeal Number: HX51774-2001 |
[2002] UKIAT 4437
IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Miss K Eshun – Vice President
Mr A Smith
Appeal Number: HX51774-2001
For the Appellant: Ms J Lule of Counsel instructed by Powell & Co Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr G Saunders, Home Office Presenting Officer
DI (IFA — FGM) Ivory Coast CG
The Appellant, a citizen of Ivory Coast, appeals with leave of the Tribunal against the determination of an Adjudicator (Mrs C M Kennedy) dismissing her appeal against the decision of the Respondent on 29 November 2000 to give directions for her removal from the United Kingdom as an illegal entrant following refusal to grant her asylum.
In this case the Appellant arrived in the United Kingdom illegally and claims to have arrived on 10 October 2000. She claimed asylum on 1 November 2000. She completed an SEF and statement on 13 November 2000. She was interviewed on 1 August 2001. The reasons for the refusal of her asylum application are set out in a Home Office letter dated 2 August 2001.
The Appellant's claim to asylum is that she comes from the village of Yopougon in Abidjan. She has a young son who still lives with her partner in Abidjan. He is not the father of the child. The father works in Paris and maintains the child.
She says that it is the custom in her village for young girls between the ages of 18 and 30 to undergo female circumcision. Her mother is the head of the group of village women who perform the procedure. Parents would force their daughters to be excised on reaching 18. It was the custom for excisions to be performed between August and December each year. She said that she and her elder sister Solange were due to be excised in August 2000. They had both successfully avoided it for several years by going to live elsewhere in the Ivory Coast four, five to six months at a time. In August 2000 her sister returned to the village to attend the village feast and was caught for excision. She died as a result. The Appellant produced a death certificate. She escaped and claimed that if she returns to Ivory Coast her mother will force her to be excised.
At the hearing before the Adjudicator Counsel requested an adjournment because she said that although the Appellant was in court, she was not fit to give evidence. The appeal had previously been adjourned on 29 January 2000 with standard directions and for a medical/psychiatric report to be produced. Counsel told the Adjudicator that she had not been able to obtain a report but all other directions had been followed including a witness statement dated 23 January 2000. There were letters in the Appellant's bundle indicating that she had been receiving treatment from a psychiatrist for severe mental health problems prior to July 2001 which had been exacerbated by being removed to Bristol under the dispersal programme. Her psychiatrist had arranged for her to be re-housed back in London close to her cousin. The Adjudicator noted that there was no further medical evidence and the appeal could continue on the basis of the statement. She refused an adjournment and when the appeal was put back in the list and recalled at 2 p.m., the Appellant was present and gave oral evidence.
However the Adjudicator found the Appellant manipulative. She twice walked out of the hearing resulting in her cross-examination and the hearing being curtailed but otherwise she was composed and very well able to give evidence and reply to questions.
In dismissing the appeal the Adjudicator did not believe the Appellant's story. She did accept from the objective evidence that female circumcision was prevalent and customary and performed on young girls or at puberty as a right of passage, that since December 1998 it is a crime but eradication is proving an uphill struggle. She found it incredible that the age range is so high and especially that the sister's circumcisions would be left as long, as claimed, if her mother was the head of the group who performed the operation and it was considered such a point of honour in the family. The Appellant and her sister were able to avoid circumcision for a very considerable period of time and could have continued to avoid circumcision by living elsewhere and/or that her mother was not as determined as claimed that her daughters be excised. She found it totally incredible that her sister would be so foolish to return voluntarily to the village for no greater reason than the village feast during the very time that circumcisions were performed. The Adjudicator also found it incredible that any mother would threaten to kill her daughter if as claimed the Appellant's sister died as a result of circumcision. Furthermore the death certificate stated that the sister died as a result of violent death. The death certificate was not signed. As the original had been allegedly lost, the Adjudicator placed no weight on the photocopy. The Adjudicator also found it implausible that the Appellant's brother had witnessed his sister's circumcision in the village and also that her mother had called her uncle, with whom the Appellant was living, as an emergency when her sister had bled during circumcision and that the uncle and her brother had gone to the village together and taken her sister to hospital. The Appellant was living an independent life with her partner and son in Abidjan and such evidence mitigates her claim adversely.
Although Articles 3 and 8 of the Human Rights Convention were also raised, for the same reasons as found in an asylum appeal, the Adjudicator found no likelihood that the Appellant would be in danger if returned to the Ivory Coast.
The Grounds of Appeal submitted inter alia that the refusal to grant an adjournment for medical reports prevented the just disposal of the appeal and also took issue with the Adjudicator's credibility findings. It was also submitted that the Adjudicator failed to have regard to whether removal to Ivory Coast would be a breach of the Appellant's right to physical and moral integrity in view of her serious mental problems. It was upon these grounds that leave to appeal was granted.
Counsel told the Tribunal that she was looking for a remittal due to the Adjudicator's adverse credibility findings. Even though she accepted that the Appellant would not be able to give evidence, her cousin would be able to give evidence concerning matters that arose in relation to the Appellant's credibility. She told us that the Appellant's cousin came to the United Kingdom on 25 July 1998 and has been granted asylum. The reason the Appellant's cousin was not called to give evidence at the Appellant's hearing was that she could not find anyone to look after her three children.
Mr Saunders objected to a remittal and the Tribunal were not disposed to remitting this appeal. The Appellant did give evidence before the Adjudicator. We now had before us a psychiatric report from Dr Sinclair on the Appellant dated 18 June 2002 indicating that the Appellant has symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder relating to the death of her sister. She is currently being treated with anti-depressant medication and is waiting for specific psychological treatment. In the circumstances to remit the appeal so that the Appellant's cousin could give evidence at a time when she was available to but did not, would not serve any useful purpose. Furthermore, in the Appellant's bundle were statements from two cousins which we felt we could take into account in our consideration of this appeal.
Counsel asked us to look at this appeal in the light of Dr Sinclair's Psychiatric Report which was obtained after the hearing of the Appellant's appeal. According to the psychiatric report the Appellant gets panic attacks which might in turn affect her attention and concentration to such a degree that she would be unable to understand court proceedings. On 27 June 2001 she attempted to commit suicide. She has been offered twelve sessions with a team of psychiatrists. Counsel submitted that the Appellant did not have these problems before the death of her sister, on 25 August 2000. The Appellant told Dr Sinclair that she thinks her mother will undertake all possible efforts to get her undergo circumcision and even if she lived in a different part of the country her mother would eventually find her. She also feels that she would not get adequate treatment in Ivory Coast. Dr Sinclair was not however in a position to comment on how realistic both expectations were.
Counsel took issue with the Adjudicator's assertion that it is common knowledge that village girls marry young and that it is incredible that the age range of 18 and 30 was so high. Counsel referred us to a fact sheet issued by the UNHCR entitled “Harmful Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children”. At page 6 it states that the age at which mutilation is carried out varies from area to area. FGM is performed on infants a few days old, on children from 7 to 10 years old and on adolescents. Adult women also undergo operation at the time of marriage. Since FGM is performed on infants as well as adults, it can no longer be seen as marking the rights of passage into adulthood. She also pointed to a report at page 34 of the Appellant's bundle, the source of which is not clear, which states that some women undergo FGM during early adulthood...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2010-07-07, [2010] UKUT 215 (IAC) (MD (Women))
...The first concerned the protection available to women generally. Relying on the decision of the Tribunal in DI (IFA-FGM) Ivory Coast CG [2002] UKIAT 04437, he concluded that there was an element of protection and the authorities would be willing and able to use the law to protect her. He th......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2007-10-23, [2007] UKAIT 86 (GG (political oppositionists))
...Coast CG [2004] UKIAT 00170, heard 4 May 2004, remains valid as country guidance for the period up to that date. DI (Ivory Coast) CG [2002] UKIAT 04437 remains a relevant source of guidance on FGM-related claims. However, VG (Coup) Ivory Coast CG [2002] UKIAT 04020 and TD-K JK (Relocation o......
-
MD (Women)
...The first concerned the protection available to women generally. Relying on the decision of the Tribunal in DI (IFA-FGM) Ivory Coast CG [2002] UKIAT 04437, he concluded that there was an element of protection and the authorities would be willing and able to use the law to protect her. He th......
-
A.d. For Judicial Review Of A Decision By The Secretary Of State For The Home Department To Refuse The Petitioners Representations As Constituting A F
...that the respondent wrongly relied upon Immigration Judge Robb's reliance on the country guidance case of DI (IFA -FGM) Ivory Coast CG [2002] UKIAT 04437. [28] On assessing what an immigration judge would do the Secretary of State should proceed upon the basis that the judge would follow a ......