Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2006-10-30, [2006] UKAIT 79 (WA (Draft related risks updated, Muslim Women))
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Miss K Eshun, Mr P D King, Mr R Baines JP |
| Status | Reported |
| Date | 30 October 2006 |
| Published date | 29 November 2006 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Hearing Date | 14 August 2006 |
| Subject Matter | Draft related risks updated, Muslim Women |
| Appeal Number | [2006] UKAIT 79 |
Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
WA (Draft related risks updated – Muslim Women) Eritrea CG [2006] UKIAT 00079
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
Heard at Field House |
Determination Promulgated |
|
On 14 August 2006 |
|
|
Prepared |
………30 October 2006…… |
Before
Senior Immigration Judge King, TD
Senior Immigration Judge Eshun
Mr R Baines JP
Between
WA
Appellant
and
Secretary of State for the home department
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr H Norton-Taylor, Counsel instructed by YVA Solicitors
For the Respondent:Mr J Wright, Home Office Presenting Officer
On the basis of the evidence now available, Muslim women should not be excluded from being within the draft related at risk category.The evidence indicates that Muslim women, per se are not exempt from military service. In some areas, however, local protests prevent their call up and in others the draft is not so strictly implemented. With this addition (amending para 113 of the determination), the draft related risk categories in KA (Draft –related risk categories updated) Eritrea CG [2005] 00165 are reaffirmed. In particular it remains the case that in general someone who has lived in Eritrea for a significant period without being called up would not fall within the category of a draft evader. The evidence indicates that the administration of National service is devolved to six regional commands and the degree to which recruitment is carried out varies from region to region. In considering risk on return a decision maker should pay regard to any credible evidence relating to the particular region from whence an appellant comes and the degree to which recruitment is enforced within that particular area. NB: This decision should be read with AH (Failed asylum seekers – involuntary returns) Eritrea CG [2006] UKAIT 00078
DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. The appellant is a citizen of Eritrea born on 13 June 1970. She arrived in the United Kingdom on 28 September 2003 and applied for asylum shortly thereafter. On 26 November 2003 a decision was made to refuse to grant asylum and to give directions for her removal from the United Kingdom. The refusal letter is dated 21 November 2003.
2. The appellant sought to appeal against that decision, the hearing of which appeal came before an Adjudicator, Miss S Jhirad, on 3 February 2004. The appeal in respect of asylum was dismissed as was also the appeal in respect of human rights.
3. The appellant sought to appeal against that decision. Permission to do so being granted by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal on 13 May 2004.
4. Following the commencement of the appeals provisions of the 2004 Act, the grant of permission now takes effect as an order for reconsideration by this Tribunal of the appellant's appeal.
5. The matter came before the Tribunal for hearing on 15 April 2005. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that she would be regarded as a draft evader upon return to Eritrea. It was submitted that the Adjudicator had failed to deal with the issue of her military service in sufficient detail or at all. The Tribunal found that there had been an error of law in the determination of the Adjudicator in that military service was the key issue in the appellant's claim but that had not been dealt with adequately in the determination. The full text of that decision is set out in Annex A herewith.
6. It was directed that there would be a reconsideration of that decision. All issues would be at large once again including that of credibility.
7. The matter was listed for a full reconsideration of all relevant issues and evidence. Thus it is that the matter comes before us for reconsideration.
8. The appellant is represented by Mr H Norton-Taylor of Counsel instructed by YVA Solicitors. The respondent is represented by Mr J Wright, a Home Office Presenting Officer.
9. A number of documents are presented for our attention, contained essentially in bundles A and B. In addition there were various other reports and documents which were presented to us for our attention.
10. Essentially three issues were highlighted for our attention. The first being to identify the procedure for call up to military service in Eritrea. The second being to consider the position of Muslim women and if necessary, to revisit the findings in KA (Draft –related risk categories updated) Eritrea CG [2005] 00165 in the light of more recent objective evidence. Thirdly, to consider the risk on return for this appellant.
11. The appellant was called to give evidence. She adopted her statements of the 27 January 2004 and 16 February 2006; also, her SEF statement at interview conducted with the Home Office.
12. The basis of her claim can be summarised as follows. She was born in Argodat. She married in 1991 and her daughter was born in 1993. She divorced her husband in December 1998 and her child lives with him in Eritrea. She has one sister and three brothers. The sister and a brother have been granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom and the whereabouts of her father and the other two brothers is not known.
13. Between 1972 and 1975 she lived in Saudi Arabia, returning to Eritrea in 1975 where she stayed for three years. She returned to Saudi Arabia in 1978 where she remained until 2000. In June 2000, when her Saudi Residence Permit expired, she returned to Agordat accompanied by an aunt and the aunt's family. She worked as a domestic servant until the end of January 2003, joining also an ELF secret cell. In that capacity she attended monthly meetings and made donations.
14. She was instructed to report for military service but did not. Whilst following instructions to distribute ELF leaflets to a Mr Osman in the town of Parantu, the appellant travelled towards that location but was stopped at a military checkpoint. The ELF leaflets were discovered. She was arrested and detained for five months, interrogated and beaten. She was admitted to hospital in mid-July 2003 and escaped with the assistance of a hospital guard in mid-August 2003, travelling to Sudan and then on to the United Kingdom.
15. She fears return to Eritrea, both on account of her failure to attend military service and also by reason of her political profile both in Eritrea and in the United Kingdom.
16. The appellant gave oral evidence in support of her claim and was the subject of considerable cross-examination at the hearing.
17. She gave birth to her daughter in Eritrea at the home of the family of her husband. When she divorced her husband in 1998 he was in Saudi Arabia but is now back at Agordat, having returned there in 2000. When she left Saudi Arabia in June 2000 neither her sister nor her brothers remained there. Her father and two brothers had disappeared in Ethiopia having travelled there from Saudi Arabia in 1999. They left to renew their passports but nothing has been heard of them since.
18. In June 2000 her Ethiopian passport had expired and she returned to Eritrea via Sudan. She entered without any travel documents, returning the same way as many other returnees had done. She was returned under the auspices of the UNHCR. She did not register within Eritrea until a year after arriving.
19. She spoke of her activities with the ELF. She was involved in collecting financial contributions and distributing leaflets. She would collect funds from female sympathisers and hold meetings. The meetings would be weekly with about twenty or twenty five females present. Our attention was invited to her reply to Question 22 of the interview, in which she claimed to have written articles. She said that she did write things at meetings as well as preparing leaflets.
20. She indicated that she received the call-up papers at the home of her aunt on 15 February 2003. She did not read the papers but rather tore them up as she was not willing to undertake military service. Pressed upon the issue as to why she had not even taken the step of seeing what the papers said, she indicated that the aunt's son had read it so there was no need for her to do so. She was required to report to the authorities in a week's time. She remained at the aunt's house.
21. In the light of her evidence the appellant was invited to consider the interview which had been conducted with her on 7 November 2003, in particular Question 31 and her answer thereto. She was asked expressly "have you been called up?", her answer was "no". The appellant sought to say that her understanding of the question was whether she was willing to do military service not whether she had in fact been called up.
22. She spoke of her arrest at the checkpoint on 25 February 2003. She spoke of her ill-treatment and said she had scars remaining on her back. She was in hospital for some twenty three days receiving treatment by way of injections and tablets. She continued with that treatment until she escaped. Travelling from Eritrea to Sudan took five days during which she received no medication. She received no medication or treatment in Sudan.
23. The appellant repeated that she had entered Eritrea illegally but obtained identity documents when she had registered. She had...
To continue reading
Request your trial