EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Iran
Keywords: Country of origin information, Credibility assessment, Membership of a particular social group, Political Opinion, Religion, Well-founded fear
The appellant claimed that the Tribunals in their determinations had failed to give adequate reasons for their conclusions, in particular that the appellant had not demonstrated well-founded fear. The Court considered the grounds for this claim and found that since we should ‘avoid a requirement of perfection’ (para 26) they were not sufficient to establish that the tribunals had erred, nor that the claimant was at risk of persecution.
Date: 12-10-2017
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Persecution (acts of), Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Political Opinion, Refugee Status, Well-founded fear
There is a real risk that by virtue of his predicted employment in the media sector the Appellant will be persecuted for political opinion and/or that a breach of his rights under Articles 2 and 3 ECHR will occur.
The Appellant is not to be denied refugee status on the ground that it would be open to him to seek to engage in employment other than in the journalistic or media sector.
Date: 05-06-2015
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Zimbabwe
Keywords: Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Political Opinion, Persecution (acts of)
The rationale of the decision in HJ (Iran) (see separate summary in this database) applies to cases concerning political opinion. Consequently an individual cannot be expected to modify their political beliefs or deny their opinion in order to avoid persecution. The situation in Zimbabwe was exceptional. At that time, the country guidance held that those who were unable to demonstrate their loyalty to the regime were at risk of persecution. Thus, those with no...
Date: 18-11-2010
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Turkey
Keywords: Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Membership of a particular social group, Political Opinion, Persecution (acts of)
The 1951 Refugee Convention does not provide protection in respect of claims of conscientious objectors who feared imprisonment for their refusal to undertake military service where there is no alternative service offered in national law. This was the position even if that objection is to all forms of military service and is absolute. The right to conscientious objection was not yet protected in international human rights law and was yet to emerge as a principle of customary international law. A claim may succeed if the applicant would be required, in the course of military service, to...
Date: 23-03-2003
Country of Decision: United Kingdom
Country of Applicant: Colombia
Keywords: Membership of a particular social group, Persecution Grounds/Reasons, Political Opinion
In assessing claims based on political opinion, a broad approach needed to be adopted to ensure that the object and purpose of the 1951 Refugee Convention was met. Political opinion could be actual or imputed and had to be assessed in the context of the society that the applicant had fled. Political opinion should not be restricted to issues relating to party politics nor, in the context of persecution non-state actors of persecution, was it helpful to identify those who were on the side of the forces of “law and order”.
Date: 03-10-2000
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- (-) Remove Political Opinion filterPolitical Opinion
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 4
- Membership of a particular social group 3
- Persecution (acts of) 3
- Well-founded fear 2
- Country of origin information 1
- Credibility assessment 1
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 1
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 1
- Refugee Status 1
- Religion 1
Filter by country of decision
- (-) Remove United Kingdom filterUnited Kingdom
