HL (Risk –Return - Snakeheads)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | P. R. Moulden |
| Judgment Date | 13 August 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] UKIAT 3683 |
| Docket Number | CC/21125/2001 |
| Court | Immigration Appeals Tribunal |
| Date | 13 August 2002 |
[2002] UKIAT 3683
IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Mr. P. R. Moulden (Chairman)
Mr J. Freeman
Mrs L. H. S. Verity
CC/21125/2001
HL (Risk — Return — Snakeheads) China CG
The Appellant is a citizen of China who has been given leave to appeal the determination of an Adjudicator (Miss A. D. Baker) dismissing her appeal against the Respondent's decision to refuse to grant her asylum.
Mr A. Yuen, an authorised representative from Phoenix Nova, Solicitors appeared for the Appellant. Mr I. Graham, a Home Office Presenting Officer, represented the Respondent.
The Appellant left China in May 2000 and arrived in the United Kingdom on 7 August 2000. Her application was refused on 9 February 2001. The Adjudicator heard the appeal on 1 October 2001 and leave to appeal was granted on 9 January 2002. The Adjudicator dismissed the appeal on both Refugee Convention and human rights grounds. The current appeal is on human rights grounds only.
The Adjudicator found the Appellant to be a credible witness. It is clear that in doing so the Adjudicator gave the Appellant some benefit of the doubt. She had come to the United Kingdom to find work. Her passage had been arranged by snakeheads. She was a country girl and illiterate. Her family were farmers. She did not know that she had paid more than the usual fee for the package to travel to the United Kingdom. She had been told to claim that she was a member of Falun-gong, which was not true. She feared that if she returned to China she would not be able to repay her debt to the snakeheads and they would kill her. She was more concerned about the dangers to her family than for her own personal safety. She had to pay interest equivalent to the whole of her annual earnings in China each month. The interest would mount up. The Appellant refused to give the name of the family friend of her elder brother who had put her in touch with the snakeheads. She refused to say which Province or town she came from.
After reviewing the country information the Adjudicator found that the Appellant was persuaded to travel to the United Kingdom to seek a better life. Her family were very poor. Her father had been ill with liver cancer and had died before she left China. She was told to tell a false story: she had not been involved with Falun-gong. The Adjudicator found that the Appellant had not been able to obtain work in the United Kingdom. However, the situation appears to have changed. Mr Yuen informed us, on instructions, that the Appellant was working and up-to-date with her payments to the snakeheads. The Adjudicator found that the Appellant was afraid that if she returned to China she would not be able to repay the debt to the snakeheads, who would kill her. She was concerned about the dangers to her family. She was afraid that she would be attacked, lose her eyes, or have other body parts removed for transplant.
We need not deal with the Adjudicator's findings in respect of the Refugee Convention appeal against which there is no appeal. In respect of the human rights appeal the Adjudicator found that corruption was a problem in China but this did not have any effect on the risks facing this Appellant on return. There were reports of terrifying attacks by snakeheads on Chinese “illegals” in Europe but no reports of retribution in respect of failed illegal immigrants forcibly returned to China. There are reports of visits by reporters to snakehead homes of great affluence in China and interviews with those involved in human trafficking. The illegal trade had continued for many years and there was no reliable evidence of the type of punishment meted out to failed asylum seekers which the Appellant claimed to fear. The evidence relied on by the Appellant and the claim that some had been killed, related to deaths outside China, not the fate of those who returned. Reports of extortion from family members remaining in China related to those whose relatives failed to make payment whilst in foreign countries. The Adjudicator concluded that the Appellant had not made out a real risk that her human rights would be infringed.
We are grateful to Mr Yuen for the carefully prepared and comprehensive bundle. The Respondent has submitted the April 2002 Country Assessment. The Appellant's Skeleton Argument adds some further information to her account, which is helpful but does not make a material difference to our conclusions. It alleges that the Appellant fears not only snakeheads but also loan sharks. The snakeheads are the gangsters who make and often implement is the arrangements for an individual's journey to the United Kingdom whilst the loan sharks lend some or all of the money to pay the snakeheads.
We do not accept that the credibility of the evidence submitted by the Secretary of State is in issue in this appeal, except to the extent that the appeal turns on an assessment of the Appellant's circumstances in the light of the country information. We must make an objective assessment of all the country information, whether submitted by the Appellant or the Respondent. Mr Yuen's submission that we should look at the credibility of the Respondent's evidence flows from the submissions set out in paragraphs 64 and 70 of the skeleton argument that the burden of proof falls on the Respondent to establish that the Appellant's human rights will not be infringed. This is summarised in paragraph 68 in the statement, “the Secretary of State, in receipt of an application, is bound to provide protection unless he can show substantial grounds for believing that the alleged risks are not real, for it would clearly be incompatible with the underlying values of the Convention were the Secretary of State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2020-07-27, PA/02558/2018
...is ZC & Others (Risk - illegal exit - loan sharks) China CG [2009] UKAIT 00028. It found that HL (Risk - Return - Snakeheads) China CG [2002] UKIAT 03683 is applicable. HL found that the totality of the evidence does not establish that a returning failed asylum seeker who is indebted to Sna......
-
ZC & Others (Risk - illegal exit – loan sharks)
...to loan sharks will come to harm on return to China; the information on loan sharks in HL (Risk – Return – Snakeheads) China CG [2002] UKIAT 03683 is still applicable. DETERMINATION AND REASONS 1 This is the reconsideration of the appeals of the appellants, a family unit of mother and twin ......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2004-09-15, [2004] UKIAT 253 (WC (No risk of double punishment))
...the Adjudicator's assessment of risk from snakeheads was entirely in line with Tribunal cases dealing with this topic: see Lui [2002] UKIAT 03683 and C [2003] The issue of risk from the authorities : assuming re-prosecution 32. Turning to the issue of risk from the authorities, we consider ......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2009-07-20, [2009] UKAIT 28 (ZC and Others (Risk, illegal exit, loan sharks))
...to loan sharks will come to harm on return to China; the information on loan sharks in HL (Risk – Return – Snakeheads) China CG [2002] UKIAT 03683 is still applicable. DETERMINATION AND REASONS This is the reconsideration of the appeals of the appellants, a family unit of mother and twin ch......
-
Complementary Protection in Australia two Years on: An Emerging Human Rights Jurisprudence
...did not to amount to significant harm. See also comparative jurisprudence in this regard: HL (Risk – Return – Snakeheads) China CG [2002] UKIAT 03683; TT (Risk – Return – Snakeheads) China CG [2002] UKIAT 04937; X (Re), 2010 CanLII 96176 (IRB, Canada), X (Re), 2007 CanLII 80681 (IRB, Canada......