MM (UDPS members – Risk on return)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Senior Immigration Judge Goldstein |
| Judgment Date | 13 March 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] UKAIT 23 |
| Court | Asylum and Immigration Tribunal |
| Date | 13 March 2007 |
[2007] UKAIT 23
Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE Goldstein
DESIGNATED IMMIGRATION JUDGE French
Mrs G Greenwood
For the Appellant: Mr R Claire, Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr J Jones, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer
MM (UDPS members — Risk on return) Democratic Republic of Congo CG
Despite indications from recent political events in the DRC that the UDPS is perceived as less of a threat than previously, the guidance given in AB and DM Democratic Republic of Congo CG [2005] UKAIT 00118 and confirmed in MK DRC CG [2006] UKAIT 00001 remains correct.
The Appellant, born on 23 December 1962, is a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). He appeals against the decisions of the Respondent, respectively dated 18 and 25 May 2006, refusing to him the grant of asylum under paragraph 336 of HC 395 (as amended) and leave to enter the United Kingdom.
The brief immigration history of the Appellant is that he arrived in the United Kingdom on 31 March 2006 and claimed asylum on arrival.
The Appellant's claim, at its most extensive as revealed in his various accounts, can be summarised as follows. He was born in Kananga in the Province of Western Kasai, where he subsequently undertook a course in Nursing for a period of three years.
The Appellant is a Christian whose ethnic group is Muluba.
The Appellant met and married his wife according to traditional custom in 1995. She was from the same Province. The couple have three children. The Appellant's parents are now deceased. The Appellant's wife and children and two siblings, a brother and sister, were still living in the DRC at the time that he left the country.
He claims to be a member of the Union for Democracy and Social Progress (UDPS). He became involved with the UDPS's activities as a supporter in 2003 and became a member in 2005. As a supporter, his role involved taking part in various peaceful demonstrations to express his political views to the Government and the rest of the country.
It is the Appellant's claim that once he became a member in 2005, his role changed, in that he was involved in running a Party cell and that he was offered the post of Secretary of one of the Parties' local sub-cells, because he had the appropriate “militant” skills and was able to deliver what the Party expected. His role as a Secretary involved compiling reports on sub-cell activities of the Party in the Bandundu Province.
In that regard, the Appellant had moved from Western Kasai to Idiofa Territory, part of the Kawilu District, Bandundu Province in 1999, because his studies were more affordable in Bandundu.
The Appellant described his role as educating the population and Party sympathisers about political developments in the country and the Party's position in relation to the actions of the government in the DRC at the time. He also organised meetings and was involved in promoting the Party through speaking to people, as there were insufficient resources to pay for leaflets and other materials.
The Appellant claimed to have carried out his role within the Party until 30 June 2005, when he was arrested by agents of the authorities whom he believed were posing as policemen. He was making his way towards the meeting point of the demonstration that he claimed had received official sanction, when stopped by these agents. It was the Appellant's account that he and others were detained and arrested and he was forced to lie down inside a car. He had no clear idea as to how long he was detained or where he was being sent because the authorities:
“… had changed me from one cell to another every week or so”.
It is the Appellant's account, that whilst in prison, he was told that he had no rights because he was disrupting the peace of the country. He was only allowed to have meals every other day and would on occasions go for days without food. Further, access to water was very limited. He was deprived of using the toilet when he needed it. Many of his colleagues were tortured and beaten to death.
The Appellant claims that on 15 January 2006, he escaped from prison and he described the circumstances of the account in his statement of 12 April 2006 as follows:
“On 15 January 2006 when I escaped from the prison, another prisoner tried to escape but was caught. The guards then came and asked, who did not have family in Kinshasa and as I did not and had also been a good prisoner, they assigned me to look after the others. This is because they believed that I would not cause any trouble like the other prisoners.
On the same day, I was asked by a guard to go and buy some drinks. The place where I was detained was just down the road from the shop where the guard wanted me to go. When I got there just by the kiosk, there was a man waiting for me who told me he was one of my people, from my political party. After querying where I was from, he took me to a car and we left towards a house where I was to spend the night.”
The Appellant crossed the Congo River and ended up in Brazzaville where he stayed for one and a half months, during which time:
“I could not get out of the house and I was told to be discreet”.
The Appellant left Brazzaville with the same person who had brought him there, and flew to Benin. At his Screening interview, the Appellant explained, that after a few days in Benin, he was taken on another flight to the Cote d'Ivoire where they stayed for about seven days before travelling to Tunisia. After remaining in Tunisia for a few hours he and the agent travelled to London.
It was the Appellant's account that he tried to find out why he was being helped and who was providing the assistance with which he was provided. He was told he was better off not to ask any questions.
On arrival in the United Kingdom on 23 April 2006 the Appellant claimed asylum.
The Appellant claimed that if returned to the DRC, he feared that he would be killed by the DRC authorities as a member of the UDPS.
In his Letter of Refusal dated 18 May 2006, the Secretary of State stated that the numerous irregularities with regard to the Appellant's account of events led him to believe that he had not come to the adverse attention of the DRC authorities and was not detained by them prior to travelling to the United Kingdom. Such irregularities were largely predicated on what the Secretary of State mistakenly believed, (see post), was the Appellant's claim to have attended a UDPS march on 30 June 2005 in Kinshasa that the Appellant had wrongly claimed had the permission of the local Kinshasa authorities. The Secretary of State did not accept that the Appellant was a high profile active member of the UDPS or that he was involved with the UDPS in the manner he had claimed. This strengthened the Secretary of State's belief that the Appellant was of no interest to the DRC authorities due to his claimed political activities.
The parties agreed it would be appropriate to consider the position as to the risk to UDPS members/supporters in light of the recent elections in the DRC. The run-off was due to take place on 29 October 2006 and it was thus agreed that we would proceed to hear the oral evidence, following upon which, the hearing would be adjourned part-heard for submissions only, for which purpose the Panel would sit at Field House and the parties would address us by video link from Birmingham. In this regard, we directed that the parties serve upon the Tribunal and each other, no later than twenty one days before the restored hearing, further skeleton arguments and any additional objective material on which they sought to rely, arising from the aftermath of the run-off elections in the DRC.
We informed the parties, that we would prepare a typed contemporaneous record of the day's hearing with copies provided to each Panel member, so as to ensure that our memories were fully refreshed of the day's proceedings prior to the reconvened hearing.
The Tribunal heard the oral evidence of the Appellant and subsequently at the reconvened hearing at Field House on 11 January 2007, oral submissions from both representatives, all of which are fully set out in our Record of Proceedings.
The Tribunal also took account of the following documents placed before us:
- The Respondent's bundle, which is described at PF.1; 2. The Appellant's bundle, and a further bundle with updated background material served upon the Tribunal by the Appellant's solicitors with their letter of 21 December 2006 including; letters with translations purportedly from the UDPS and the Appellant's friend, respectively dated 15 July 2005 and 5 May 2006 together with certified translations; a further letter from the UDPS in London, dated 25 September 2006; 3. Country of Origin Information Reports (COIR) on the Democratic Republic of Congo dated April and 27 October 2006. 4. Tribunal determinations in: VL (Risk-Failed Asylum Seekers) Democratic Republic of Congo CG [2004] UKAIT 00007 AB and DM (Risk Categories Reviewed – Tutsis Added) DRC [2005] UKAIT 00118 MK (AB and DM Confirmed) DRC CG [2006] UKAIT 00001.
We drew to the parties' attention copies of recent documents comprising:
The International Crisis Group Report ‘Securing Congo's Elections: Lessons from the Kinshasa Showdown’ dated 2 October 2006.
A Freedom House Report ‘Freedom in the World: Congo, Democratic Republic of (Kinshasa)’ dated 6 September 2006.
US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants Report ‘World Refugee Survey 2006: Congo-Kinshasa’ dated 14 June 2006.
The Amnesty International Report 2006 for the DRC dated 23 May 2006.
Two BBC News Reports dated respectively 25 July and 5 September...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2015-06-02, [2015] UKUT 293 (IAC) (BM and Others (returnees – criminal and non-criminal) (CG))
...one of the risk categories identified by the Upper Tribunal in MM (UDPS Members – Risk on Return) Democratic Republic of Congo CG [2007] UKAIT 00023. Those belonging to this category include persons who are, or are perceived to be, leaders, office bearers or spokespersons. As a general rule......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2023-10-24, UI-2022-003389
...00118, endorsed in MK DRC CG [2006] UKAIT 00001 and re-affirmed in MM (UDPS members – Risk on return) Democratic Republic of Congo CG [2007] UKAIT 00023, as far as it relates to the risk of persecution of UDPS members and activists, should no longer be (iii) Leaders, members and activists a......
-
BM and Others (returnees – criminal and non-criminal)
...one of the risk categories identified by the Upper Tribunal in MM (UDPS Members – Risk on Return) Democratic Republic of Congo CG [2007] UKAIT 00023. Those belonging to this category include persons who are, or are perceived to be, leaders, office bearers or spokespersons. As a general rule......
-
CNK v Minister for Justice and Equality
...one of the risk categories indentified by the Upper Tribunal in MM (UDPS Members – Risk on Return) Democratic Republic of Congo CG [2007] UKAIT 00023. Those belonging to this category include persons who are, or are perceived to be, leaders, office bearers and spokespersons. As a general ru......