EM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr Justice Blake |
| Judgment Date | 14 January 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] UKUT 98 (IAC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Date | 14 January 2011 |
[2011] UKUT 98 (IAC)
Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Mr Justice Blake, President
Senior Immigration Judge P R Lane
Immigration Judge R C Campbell
For Appellants EM and JG: Mark Henderson and Alasdair Mackenzie, instructed by the Immigration Advisory Service
For Appellant COM: Shivani Jegarajah, instructed by Thompson & Co, Solicitors
For Appellant CLM: Mark Henderson and Alasdair Mackenzie, instructed by Turpin&Miller, Solicitors
For the Respondent: Eleanor Grey and Colin Thomann, instructed by the Treasury Solicitor
EM and Others (Returnees) Zimbabwe CG
1. Evaluating the position as at the end of January 2011, the country guidance at paragraph 267 of this determination replaces that in RN (Returnees) Zimbabwe CG [2008] UKAIT 00083 , as follows:
-
(1) As a general matter, there is significantly less politically motivated violence in Zimbabwe, compared with the situation considered by the AIT in RN. In particular, the evidence does not show that, as a general matter, the return of a failed asylum seeker from the United Kingdom, having no significant MDC profile, would result in that person facing a real risk of having to demonstrate loyalty to the ZANU-PF.
-
(2) The position is, however, likely to be otherwise in the case of a person without ZANU-PF connections, returning from the United Kingdom after a significant absence to a rural area of Zimbabwe, other than Matabeleland North or Matabeleland South. Such a person may well find it difficult to avoid adverse attention, amounting to serious ill-treatment, from ZANU-PF authority figures and those they control. The adverse attention may well involve a requirement to demonstrate loyalty to ZANU-PF, with the prospect of serious harm in the event of failure. Persons who have shown themselves not to be favourably disposed to ZANU-PF are entitled to international protection, whether or not they could and would do whatever might be necessary to demonstrate such loyalty ( RT (Zimbabwe) [2010] EWCA Civ 1285).
-
(3) The situation is not uniform across the relevant rural areas and there may be reasons why a particular individual, although at first sight appearing to fall within the category described in the preceding paragraph, in reality does not do so. For example, the evidence might disclose that, in the home village, ZANU-PF power structures or other means of coercion are weak or absent.
-
(4) In general, a returnee from the United Kingdom to rural Matabeleland North or Matabeleland South is highly unlikely to face significant difficulty from ZANU-PF elements, including the security forces, even if the returnee is a MDC member or supporter. A person may, however, be able to show that his or her village or area is one that, unusually, is under the sway of a ZANU-PF chief, or the like.
-
(5) A returnee to Harare will in general face no significant difficulties, if going to a low-density or medium-density area. Whilst the socio-economic situation in high-density areas is more challenging, in general a person without ZANU-PF connections will not face significant problems there (including a “loyalty test”), unless he or she has a significant MDC profile, which might cause him or her to feature on a list of those targeted for harassment, or would otherwise engage in political activities likely to attract the adverse attention of ZANU-PF.
-
(6) A returnee to Bulawayo will in general not suffer the adverse attention of ZANU-PF, including the security forces, even if he or she has a significant MDC profile.
-
(7) The issue of what is a person's home for the purposes of internal relocation is to be decided as a matter of fact and is not necessarily to be determined by reference to the place a person from Zimbabwe regards as his or her rural homeland. As a general matter, it is unlikely that a person with a well-founded fear of persecution in a major urban centre such as Harare will have a viable internal relocation alternative to a rural area in the Eastern provinces. Relocation to Matabeleland (including Bulawayo) may be negated by discrimination, where the returnee is Shona.
-
(8) Internal relocation from a rural area to Harare or (subject to what we have just said) Bulawayo is, in general, more realistic; but the socio-economic circumstances in which persons are reasonably likely to find themselves will need to be considered, in order to determine whether it would be unreasonable or unduly harsh to expect them to relocate.
-
(9) The economy of Zimbabwe has markedly improved since the period considered in RN . The replacement of the Zimbabwean currency by the US dollar and the South African rand has ended the recent hyperinflation. The availability of food and other goods in shops has likewise improved, as has the availability of utilities in Harare. Although these improvements are not being felt by everyone, with 15% of the population still requiring food aid, there has not been any deterioration in the humanitarian situation since late 2008. Zimbabwe has a large informal economy, ranging from street traders to home-based enterprises, which (depending on the circumstances) returnees may be expected to enter.
-
(10) As was the position in RN , those who are or have been teachers require to have their cases determined on the basis that this fact places them in an enhanced or heightened risk category, the significance of which will need to be assessed on an individual basis.
-
(11) In certain cases, persons found to be seriously lacking in credibility may properly be found as a result to have failed to show a reasonable likelihood (a) that they would not, in fact, be regarded, on return, as aligned with ZANU-PF and/or (b) that they would be returning to a socio-economic milieu in which problems with ZANU-PF will arise. This important point was identified in RN , and remains valid.
2. Guidance is also given on the assessment of the private and family life of a Zimbabwean national present in the United Kingdom for over 11 years with children born and/or resident most of their lives in the United Kingdom.
3. In the absence of countervailing factors, residence of over 7 years with children well-integrated into the educational system in the United Kingdom, is an indicator that the welfare of the child favours regularisation of the status of mother and children.
This determination is arranged as follows:
| A. PRELIMINARY | paragraphs 1–3 |
| B. THE FOUR APPELLANTS | 4–35 |
| Appellant EM | 4–12 |
| Appellant COM | 13–19 |
| Appellant CLM | 20–23 |
| Appellant JG | 24–35 |
| C. ZIMBABWE COUNTRY GUIDANCE CASES | 36–73 |
| Country guidance before RN | 36–48 |
| RN (Returnees) Zimbabwe CG [2008] UKAIT 00083 | 49–66 |
| RS and Others (Zimbabwe–AIDS) Zimbabwe CG [2010] UKUT 363 (IAC) | 67–73 |
| D. FACT FINDING MISSION OF AUGUST 2010 | 74–128 |
| Background | 75–79 |
| The FFM report | 80–117 |
| The seven voluntary returnees | 118–121 |
| Tribunal's summary of information given by the returnees | 122–128 |
| E. EVIDENCE EMANATING FROM FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE | 129–140 |
| Background | 130–134 |
| Appellants’ submissions | 135–140 |
| F. ASSESSMENT OF THE GENERAL EVIDENCE | 141–231 |
| Has there been a material change in the risk of persecution or other serious ill-treatment since RN? | 141–158 |
| Problems arising from the COPAC process | 159–173 |
| Geographic differences | 174–209 |
| –Eastern Provinces | 189–190 |
| – Matabeleland1 | 91–197 |
| – Harare and Bulawayo | 198–209 |
| The economy | 210–218 |
| Internal relocation | 219–225 |
| Teachers | 226–231 |
| G. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FUTURE ELECTIONS | 232–265 |
| Analysis | 234–265 |
| The Issues | 234 |
| – (i) When will elections be called? | 235–237 |
| – (ii) Protection against abuse | 238–246 |
| – (iii) The Legal assessment of future risk | 247–265 |
| H. COUNTRY GUIDANCE ON ZIMBABWE | 266–267 |
| At the point of return | 266 |
| New country guidance regarding the position after the point of return | 267 |
| I. RE-MAKING THE DECISIONS IN THE FOUR APPEALS | 268–308 |
| Appellant EM | 268–276 |
| Appellant COM | 277–283 |
| Appellant CLM | 284–298 |
| Appellant JG | 299–308 |
| – Claim to international protection | 299–307 |
| – Article 8 | 308 |
Appendix A–Summary of oral evidence
Appendix B–Summary of evidence regarding timing and consequences of elections
Appendix C — Documentary material
This is the determination of the Tribunal, to which each of the panel has contributed. In it we consider the situation in Zimbabwe in terms of the current political position and related protection issues, in order to give country guidance, some two years after the appearance of the determination in RN (Returnees) Zimbabwe CG [2008] UKAIT 00083. We do this in the context of re-making the decisions in the case of four Zimbabwean applicants for asylum, whom we shall call the appellants. The issue on which we give this country guidance is whether the circumstances in Zimbabwe as at the date of this decision are such that there is a reasonable degree of likelihood that a person who has no ZANU-PF connections will be at risk on return to his or her home area by reason of a perception of disloyalty or an inability to demonstrate loyalty.
The Tribunal sat on 18 to 25 October and 15 December 2010 and on 14 January 2011. We heard oral evidence from two of the appellants and from four expert witnesses called by three of the appellants. The oral evidence is summarised in Appendix A. The evidence regarding the timing and consequences of elections is summarised in Appendix B. We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AMM (Conflict: Humanitarian Crisis: Returnees: FGM) Somalia
...There is no formal burden on a party to show there has been any change in circumstances (see EM and Others (Returnees) Zimbabwe CG [2011] UKUT 98 (IAC) 98). PART E THE ECtHR JUDGMENT IN SUFI & ELMI AND ITS BEARING ON THE PRESENT APPEALS 55 On 28 June 2011 the Fourth Section of the European......
-
Cm (zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...(with one amendment) confirmed the Country Guidance relating to Zimbabwe inJanuary2011 given in EM and Others (Returnees) Zimbabwe CG [2011] UKUT 98 (IAC). 2 EM and Others decided that the guidance in RN (Returnees) Zimbabwe CG [2008] UKAIT 0083, which held that the risk on return included ......
-
PD and Others (Article 8 - Conjoined Family Claims) Sri Lanka
...Hale in ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4, at [20]–[21] and [35] and EM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 64, at [49]. Having regard to our predictive finding of the most likely future scenario for this family, we consi......
-
MST v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
...cited in support of her argument the observations by the former President of the UTIAC, Blake J, in EM and Others (Returnees) Zimbabwe [2011] UKUT 98 (IAC), who at [71] considered that: “The proposition that a Country Guidance case should provide the “starting point” for a subsequent case t......