SM and Others (MDC – internal flight – risk categories)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | H J E Latter,Vice President |
| Judgment Date | 11 May 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] UKIAT 100 |
| Court | Immigration Appeals Tribunal |
| Date | 11 May 2005 |
[2005] UKIAT 100
Immigration Appeal Tribunal
Mr H J E Latter -Vice President
His Honour Judge G Risius, CB-Vice President
Dr J O de Barros
For the applicants: Mr I Huffer, Counsel, for first and second Applicants
Ms S Widdison, Counsel, for third Applicant
For Secretary of State: Ms L Saunders, Home Office Presenting Officer
SM and Others (MDC — internal flight — risk categories) Zimbabwe CG
There are three appeals before the Tribunal being heard together with the consent of all the parties. They raise a number of common issues of fact relating to the current situation in Zimbabwe and in particular the categories of those at real risk of persecution from the authorities, Zanu-PF members and war veterans and whether internal relocation is a viable option for those at risk in their home area. These appeals are reported as country guidance on these issues. Our conclusions are summarised in paragraph 51 of this determination.
In the first appeal the Secretary of State appeals against the determination of an Adjudicator, Mrs S M Walker, notified on 19 october 2004, who allowed the appeal by the respondent (“the first applicant”) against the decision giving directions for her removal following the refusal of her claim for asylum. In the second appeal the appellant (“the second applicant”) appeals against the determination of an Adjudicator, Mr L Saffer, notified on 18 November 2003, who dismissed his appeal against the decision made on 11 August 2003 refusing him leave to enter following the refusal of his claim for asylum. In the third appeal, the appellant (“the third applicant”) appeals against the determination of an Adjudicator, Mr J R Gibb, notified on 22 October 2004 who refused her appeal against a decision giving removal directions following the refusal of her claim for asylum.
The first applicant is a citizen of Zimbabwe born on 17 September 1972. She arrived in the United Kingdom on 21 December 2002 with a valid visit visa. She subsequently applied for further leave to remain as a student which was refused on 29 July 2003. On 28 April 2004 she applied for asylum. After attending the University of Zimbabwe in Harare, the first applicant started her teaching career in 1996 at Murewa High School in Mashonaland East province. When the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) was formed in 1999 she hoped that this would prove to be a strong opposition party prepared to turn things round for the better. She became a member of the MDC but at that stage as she had a small child she was not able to attend rallies. In May 2000 she went back to Murewa to continue her teaching career. She encouraged other teachers to become members of the MDC. One night there was a knock at her door and she was dragged from her home by four men. She was taken to an office. One of the men produced MDC cards and asked if she had anything to do with them. She denied this but she was slapped in the face and beaten up. She was then taken back to the school. They went straight to her staff house. The men went in and searched the house destroying her property in the process. She gave up her MDC T-shirt and her membership card. She was told that she had to report to a ZANU-PF office and tell them anything suspicious amongst her colleagues at the school.
The first applicant remained in the school but lived in fear of harassment. She had to watch what she was saying all the time. In April 2001 she managed to obtain a transfer to Harare and a place at a different school. She became aware that some teachers were being investigated. She was called into the Headmaster's study and was told by a man she did not know that he knew who she was and where she was coming from. He said that he had come to meet her and warn her that she should mind her own business. The following year the first applicant secured a place on a course at the University of Zimbabwe and was away for 10 months. When she returned to school she found that the teachers had gone on strike. At her school no one was working so she joined in the strike. The government then announced that all teachers who had gone on strike were fired but people thought this was a joke as the authorities could not fire all the teachers. The next day she went to the school and she was met by war veterans at the school gate. The car she was driving was stoned. When she contacted the Headmaster he said that she would only be safe if she stayed away. She was a target because of her past. He did not want any trouble at the school. Because of these problems it was suggested she should come to the United Kingdom to get away and spend some time with her mother and sister. She obtained a visitor's visa, arriving in this country in December 2002. Subsequently she had received news from home that she was no longer employed by the Ministry of Education even though she had applied for sick leave. Her younger sister had been attacked when she went back to school to collect her results because the attackers believed that she was the first applicant.
The Adjudicator accepted that the first applicant had given an honest account of her experiences in Zimbabwe. She also heard evidence from the first applicant's sister and accepted that she was a wholly genuine witness. The Adjudicator was satisfied that the first applicant had experienced persecution in Zimbabwe for her political opinions. She described her as a low key MDC supporter who had managed to avoid trouble by taking a course for 10 months when she was not the subject of unwarranted attention. However, as a teacher she was in a very vulnerable category. She could choose to try and avoid trouble as she had done in the past but as an experienced teacher she should be able to follow her career without fear of persecution and intimidation. Although it was possible that she might avoid trouble on return to Zimbabwe, the adjudicator took the view that there was still a realistic risk of persecution. In these circumstances her appeal was allowed.
The second applicant was born on 17 April 1981. His family has homes in Murewa and in Highfield, Harare. His father supported the MDC and the second applicant joined the party in January 2000. His father ran a grocery shop which was in the centre of the village and they assisted in giving out party cards, T-shirts and posters. War veterans came to the house and warned the family telling them to leave the party. His father ignored this. His mother and sister were abducted and beaten up. His father told them to move to Harare for their own safety. On a number of occasions the war veterans threatened to kill his father.
After his father's death the second applicant starting running the shop. MDC officials contacted him asking if he was willing to help. The second applicant and a few others travelled round the village on behalf of the MDC. A few weeks before the election a group of war veterans heard about this. The second applicant and his colleagues were the first targets. He was beaten up. He had to leave the area and after the election half his shop was burned down by ZANU-PF youth. The second applicant returned to Harare. In September 2002 he was abducted by ZANU-PF taken to a torture camp where he was beaten up and forced to watch the rape of a woman. He was able to escape from his captors whilst he was being moved and after making his way to Harare left for the United Kingdom in November 2002.
The credibility of the second applicant's account was challenged at the hearing but for the reasons which the Adjudicator gave he found the second applicant's story to be compelling, consistent and credible. He was satisfied that the treatment he had suffered crossed the threshold of simple harassment and amounted to persecution. The Adjudicator described the second applicant as falling fairly and squarely in the category of low level supporters of the MDC who had had problems with ZANU-PF and the war veterans, who the Adjudicator accepted were state agents of persecution given the linkage between them and the government. He went on to consider what was reasonably likely to happen to the second applicant on his return to Zimbabwe. He was likely to be questioned about why he had gone to the United Kingdom. His escape from detention was two months before he fled Zimbabwe. As he had been taken by the war veterans, there would be no record of his detention or escape. There would be no reason to stop him at the airport.
The Adjudicator was not satisfied that the Immigration authorities in Zimbabwe would have any knowledge of or interest in the second applicant. He went on to consider whether there would be a continuing risk from the war veterans and local ZANU-PF. He accepted that there was a risk that he would be of interest to them in his village and in Highfield, Harare, but said these were two very localised areas. It had not been established that it was reasonably likely that he would come to the attention of the authorities elsewhere in Zimbabwe. There were many areas controlled by the MDC where the second applicant could safely relocate. It would not be unduly harsh to expect him to do so as he was a single man in good health. The appeal was dismissed on both asylum and human rights grounds.
The third applicant was born in May 1983. She is a white woman from a farming family. She arrived in the United Kingdom on 31 August 2002 with entry clearance as a working holiday maker. She was given leave to enter for 2 years in this capacity. On 12 July 2004 she applied for asylum. Her father was a farmer in Centenary growing tobacco and maize on a farm with about 900...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AA v Secretary of State for the Home Department;
...to risks on return to Zimbabwe in the country guideline case of SM and Others (MDC – internal flight – risk categories) Zimbabwe CG [2005] UKIAT 00100. The hearing in that case had taken place on 15th February 2005, although the tribunal also admitted some later evidence in the form of a Ma......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2020-10-01, RP/00132/2016
...are akin to those categories that were set out at paragraph 43 of SM & Others (MDC – internal flight – risk categories) Zimbabwe CG [2005] UKIAT 00100, namely “those suspected or perceived of being associated with the opposition have included activists, campaigners, officials and election p......
-
The Secretary of State for the Home Department v MM (Zimbabwe)
...ill-treatment at the airport. The Tribunal in HS adopted and re-affirmed findings made in the earlier cases of SM and Others (MDC – Internal flight – risk categories) Zimbabwe CG [2005] UKAIT 100 and AA (Risk for involuntary returnees) Zimbabwe CG [2006] UKAIT 61. As was found in SM, those ......
-
CM (EM Country Guidance: Disclosure: Zimbabwe)
...appeals, re-determinations, and changes in evidence since the case of SM and others (MDC-internal flight-risk categories) Zimbabwe CG [2005] UKIAT 00100 in 18 By contrast, if we concluded that our analysis in EM remained sound and other claimants in a broadly similar position to those whose......