Latest on RT (Zimbabwe) case

Latest on RT (Zimbabwe) case

Latest on RT (Zimbabwe) case

This case concerned appellants of Zimbabwean origin who having claimed asylum in the UK, were refused by the Home Office. Their appeals were subsequently dismissed by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunals by reference to the guidelines in the case of RN (Zimbabwe CG) [2008] UKAIT 00083.The appellants in this case were not political activists in Zimbabwe; nor were they politically active in the UK. They did not support the ruling ZANU-PF regime and could not demonstrate their loyalty to the party. The basis of their asylum claims were that, they would be at risk of return as a result of the length of time they had been absent from Zimbabwe. The question was ultimately, whether their rights would be breached if forced to join the ruling party on return to Zimbabwe. The Courts considered whether Zimbabwean asylum seekers should have to pretend that they were supporters of ZANU-PF on return.

The key point in the case of RN was that, it was not necessary to demonstrate that the asylum seeker was a perceived member or supporter of the MDC. The fact that the asylum seeker could not show his/her positive loyalty to the regime or the ZANU-PF would suffice to render that person at risk.

The Court of Appeal looked at the recent Supreme Court case of HJ (Iran) v SSHD [2010] UKSC 31; [2010] 3 WLR 386. In this case, the Supreme Court held that, they could not compel a homosexual person to pretend they were heterosexual. It held that this would be in violation of the person's fundamental right to be as he is. Therefore, the court concluded that if an asylum seeker is forced to hide his/her sexuality in order to escape persecution, the asylum seeker should be granted refugee status.

In the present case, the court was asked to apply the same reasoning to the facts of this case. Extending the same logic, a person should not be expected to profess a loyalty to a regime which he does not possess in order to avoid being persecuted.

The Court held that none of the four appellants in the case were political refugees in the ordinary sense and whilst in most contexts, their asylum cases would be rather weak, the situation in Zimbabwe was so exceptional so as to warrant consideration. The court applied the guidance in the case of RN and allowed the appeals in the case of appellant known as RT. Two appellants' cases were remitted to the Upper Tribunal. The fourth appellant, whose appeal was dismissed, had not been accepted as a credible witness.

Although the Court specifically referred to the exceptional' conditions in Zimbabwe, it is believed that the underlying principle as established in the case of HJ (Iran) should be applied in similar cases of Countries governed by authoritarian states. The Supreme Court made it clear that asylum seekers should not have to take such measures to avoid offending their persecutors.

Whilst RN country guidance remains good law at present, it is subject to review and may be changed very soon.

POST COMMENT

Teams With The Best Chance Of Playing In The 2011 Rose Bowl HANOI -HALONG BAY - HUE- HOIAN - MYSON - NHATRANG - HOCHIMINH -MEKONG 13 DAYS A photovoltaic system Cap for a corked glass bottle Mma Gear For The Fighter In You Nibiru 2012 your guide to revelation CNS Lymphoma Explained The Fact of Hypnotism The process of producing a sand casting Your Guide to JML Halogen Oven Earned citizenship policy will no longer be introduced IPO of MJL Bangladesh Limited, MI Cement Factory Ltd, Salvo Chemical Know Ways To Hire The Perfect Transmission Aurora Company