FK (Shekhal Gandhershe)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | H J E Latter,Vice President |
| Judgment Date | 04 June 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] UKIAT 127 |
| Court | Immigration Appeals Tribunal |
| Date | 04 June 2004 |
[2004] UKIAT 127
IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Mr H J E Latter (Vice President)
Mr M E A Innes
For the appellant: Miss I Sibic of Counsel.
For the respondent: Mr M Blundell, Home Office Presenting Officer.
FK (Shekhal Gandhershe) Somalia CG
The appellant, a citizen of Somalia, appeals against the determination of an Adjudicator, Mr R J Manuell, who dismissed his appeal against the decision made on 20 August 2003 giving removal directions following the refusal of his claim for asylum.
The appellant arrived in the United Kingdom on 16 October 2001 using a passport to which he was not entitled. He applied for asylum on 26 October 2001. On 9 January 2002 he was interviewed about his claim to be from Somalia. He said that he was a member of the Shekhal clan and the Gandhershe sub-clan. He submitted a statement of evidence form with a further written statement dated 21 January 2002. He was interviewed about his claim on 21 March 2002. In the reasons for refusal letter dated 6 August 2003 the Secretary of State indicated that it was his view that the appellant would not be subjected to persecution from the USC militia as the Shekhal were not a minority clan but were associated with the Hawiye. He also doubted the credibility of the account given by the appellant of the events in Somalia which had led him to leave. It was the Secretary of State's view that the appellant did not qualify for asylum or humanitarian protection.
The Adjudicator heard the appeal against this decision on 11 November 2003. The Adjudicator summarised the appellant's written claim as follows. He was from the Gandhershe clan, a sub-clan of the Shekhal tribe which was an ethnic minority. He had been attacked by members of majority clans on three occasions. In 1994 members of the Hawiye put a gun to his head and demanded money. The second incident was in 1999 and the third time he was attacked was in 2001. On that occasion he had been detained in a hole in the ground of an old house. He had managed to escape during a gun battle between two factions. Some days later his wife was raped. He could not continue living in that manner and decided to flee to Kenya from Somalia. He could not remain in Kenya because he did not have the necessary documents granting him permission to live there. His wife and family had fled to Ethiopia.
In his oral evidence before the Adjudicator the appellant was asked to clarify the circumstances surrounding the rape of his wife. He said that he and his wife were abducted on the same day. He was picked up from his shop and his wife was picked up from their house. He had been asked for money. He had forgotten lots of things and sometimes could not say what had happened to him the previous day. He could not recall each and every incident. He had made a mistake in his second witness statement. His wife had been raped in 2001. He was asked whether he believed that he had been targeted because he was rich or whether he thought there was some other reason. The appellant replied that rich people within the minority clans were targeted because people thought they were unprotected. He had not sought protection from the majority clans because they were the attackers. Although his clan bore the same name as the Shekhal majority clan they were not of the same ethnicity.
The Adjudicator commented that the broad outline at least of the appellant's testimony was plausible. The appellant had placed greater emphasis on the clan involvement in his second witness statement. In the Adjudicator's view his knowledge of his own clan was limited. He suggested he had been targeted because he was a wealthy member of a minority clan but it seemed to the Adjudicator that in any lawless environment the “haves” will always be at the mercy of the “have nots” or simply the greedy. In respect of the incident in 2001 it seemed that two factions were at war with one another which was how the appellant had been able to escape. The incident appeared to be no more than random or opportunistic violence.
The Adjudicator found that the appellant had suffered the three incidents which he claimed but they were not persecutory incidents based upon his membership of a minority clan. They were instances of lawlessness or of the tide of a civil war. He regarded the appellant's account of his clan membership as vague and substantially embellished. The appellant was the victim of a civil war who first fled to Kenya where he gave no instance of any problem other than lack of documentation who then came to the United Kingdom seeking better living conditions. The October 2003 CIPU Assessment indicated no deterioration in the general situation in Somalia with basic law and order the norm in most locations but with sudden changes possible as was inevitable when no final peace settlement had been agreed and when large numbers of weapons remained in private hands. The Adjudicator was not satisfied that the appellant had proved that he had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. He was fortified in those conclusions by the appellant's resort to illegal entry to the United Kingdom and his delay in claiming asylum following his arrival.
In the grounds of appeal it is argued that the Adjudicator was wrong to find that the appellant had been the victim of indiscriminate attacks. He had not made a finding that the appellant did not come from the Shekhal tribe when the Secretary of State had been satisfied that he did. The central issue was whether...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2008-01-28, [2008] UKAIT 22 (HH and Others (Mogadishu: armed conflict: risk))
...southern Somalia. (12) Subject to what is said above, NM continues to be country guidance. However, FK (Shekal Ghandershe) Somalia CG [2004] UKIAT 00127 is not to be relied on as authority for the proposition that all members of the Sheikhal Jasira or the Sheikhal Ghandershe are as such ent......
-
HH & others (Mogadishu: armed conflict: risk)
...southern Somalia. (12) Subject to what is said above, NM continues to be country guidance. However, FK (Shekal Ghandershe) Somalia CG [2004] UKIAT 00127is not to be relied on as authority for the proposition that all members of the Sheikhal Jasira or the Sheikhal Ghandershe are as such enti......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2004-06-04, [2004] UKIAT 127 (FK (Shekhal Gandhershe))
...{ font-family: "Arial", sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; so-language: ar-SA } KH Heard at: Field House FK (Shekhal Gandhershe) Somalia CG [2004] UKIAT 00127 On: 15 April 2004 Prepared 15 April 2004 IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL Date Determination notified: 4 June 2004 Before: Mr H J E Latter (Vic......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2016-09-16, AA/10566/2015
...material aspects of her case. Conclusions Country guidance status was withdrawn from the decision of FK (Shekhal Gandhershe) Somalia CG [2004] UKIAT 127 on 18 March 2008 upon the promulgation of HH and Others (Mogadishu armed conflict risk) Somalia CG [2008] UKIAT 00022. The decision of AM ......