zim asylum

[chibage]

= ,,,.....

[VictoriaS]

I am afraid that I am not able to advise on asylum applications. I recommend that you try the Immigration Advisory Service.

Victoria

[Decus et Tutamen]

Yes, you can claim asylum, but you have to have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinon, religion, race, social group etc.

It isn't meant as an expedient way of avoiding leaving the UK. Indeed, from the information you posted here, your fear is actually of the British authorities, rather than the Zimbabwean. How you can then seek the protection of the British government when it is their own agents you fear, defeats me.

If you were to claim asylum, it is likely that the claim would be rapidly dismissed and such claim would only defer the inevitable for a matter of months.

[VictoriaS]

Be careful - if you claim asylum without good grounds then a refusal may effect future applications within the rules, such as your spousal application.

Consult a reputable advisor who knows about asylum and spousal visas before doing anything.


Victoria

[JAJ]

Be careful - if you claim asylum without good grounds then a refusal may effect future applications within the rules, such as your spousal application.

Consult a reputable advisor who knows about asylum and spousal visas before doing anything.

Especially as previous application was apparently refused due to fake documentation.

[jimquk]

Decus et Tutamen wrote:

If you were to claim asylum, it is likely that the claim would be rapidly dismissed and such claim would only defer the inevitable for a matter of months.

As things stand, such a claim, while likely to be refused, would possibly impede a removal to Zim, as current policy is not to return failed asylum-seekers to Zim. However, I would not recommend this course of action, as life for a refused person is likely to be extremely hard in the future, and there would be little prospect of a regularisation for many years, if at all. A failed, basically abusive, application, would merely add to what you seem to admit was use of a forged document in your previous application.

I have to say that your circumstances look very difficult. People are currently being refused spouse visas merely for overstaying, without added factors such as false documentation.

Look for a good and experienced immigration specialist; be prepared for a long struggle; and perhaps be ready to face the possibility of failure. Would you and your partner be prepared to go to Zim to live? Is there any other country you could live together in? Others here can comment on how things might work out if you married in Zim, and then went to live in another EU country (as UK citizen and dependent spouse).

[avjones]

I agree with Jim's advice, whcih is very good.

However, it might well be worth applying to stay on the basis of your marriage, on the grounds that return to Zimbabwe is not reasonable. You'd need specialist advice, including the inevitable judicial review, on this aspect.

[chibage]

delet

[VictoriaS]

As Amanda has said, you may have a chance of an in country application, but it may be a struggle, and there are no guarantees at this stage. You need specialist legal advice.

Victoria

[chibage]

thanks victoria, are you able to help me with this matter. if so can i email you?

[VictoriaS]

You can e-mail on victoria.sharkey@medivisas.com but I am not able to advise on the asylum side of things, which I why I suggest you contact the Immigration Advisory Service.

If they say you have no claim for asylum, then by all means come back to me.

Victoria

[avjones]

Chances of fighting within the UK is something you need specialist advice about.

[chibage]

delete

[Decus et Tutamen]

As an overstayer, there is always the risk that you will be encountered by the Immigration Service. It's just a question of how actively they come looking.

Your marriage, per se, will not avail you of the "right" to stay in the U.K. and in the absence of any compelling circumstances, the Home Office could refuse an application made to them on such a basis, insisting that you return to Zimbabwe in order to seek entry clearance. As already mentioned, however, it is always possible that they are not enforcing removals to Zimbabwe because of the general turmoil there.

You do really need specialist assistance.

[chibage]

Thanks will seek specialist advice

[suzyq]

Firstly, a poor immigration history will only affect visa applications that are not for settlement purposes. Therefore, if you are a failed asylum seeker, who has got married during your time here after entering illegally, as per Mahmood you will be required to return to your home country and "join the entry clearance queues."

What needs to be considered in spouse applications is whether or not the immigration rules are satisfied. Paragraph 281 lists the requirements, this includes the need for entry clearance. As long as these are satisfied, in my professional experience, it has made no difference that a person has had a messy immigration history. If the immigration rules are satisfied then Article 8 will come into play.

The question is: Do you return to Zimbabwe? It is implied from your wish to claim asylum that you fear returning. Why? If you have a genuine subjective fear from returning to Zimbabwe, then depending on the circumstances you may be able to claim asylum. You may alternatively be able to claim that a forced return would breach your Article 3 rights, that is to say, if you were returned, what would happen to you upon arrival at Harare airport would be torture, inhumane, degrading or humiliating treatment.

Being away from Zimbabwe for a couple of years is unlikely to generate any suspicions from the CIOs upon voluntary return though.

Whilst making an application outside of the rules based upon your marriage is always a possibility, the decision making process is not always that quick and the Home Office may rely on Mahmood and state you should return for Entry Clearance.

If you have no real fear of returning to Zimbabwe, and have family there, and if you did return would have no real personal security issues, it may be quicker to return and make the correct application.

It is unclear whether you are married or intend to marry. If you have not married, you will need to apply for a Certificate of Approval, (unless you or your spouse attend the Church Of England, in which case you can request that your priest marries you without the need for the COA.)

By your spouse/partner exercising European Free Movement rights different sets of rules come into play. Some useful cases include Baumbast and Surinder Singh. If you are married, and your EU partner decides to look for work in France, and you go with him; the French authorities should grant you both Residence Permits. If you both look for work and make real efforts to settle, but after a period say six months return to the UK because of difficulties, the UK authorities ought to allow you back into the UK. Have a read of those cases, they is interestin' .

Regards,

SuzyQ

[avjones]

Firstly, a poor immigration history will only affect visa applications that are not for settlement purposes.

SuzyQ

Hi Suzy - I'm afraid that's no longer true. I've seen a lot of refusals recently under para 320 where spouse visas have been refused because of previous immigration histories.

[4444]

i thing it will be very hard now to claim asylum since the new published coutry guidance for zimbabwe make it now possible for the home office to return failed asylum seekers. have a look at this

Asylum and Immigration Tribunal

HS (returning asylum seekers) Zimbabwe CG [2007] UKAIT 00094


THE IMMIGRATION ACTS


Heard at Field House
23rd – 26th July 2007




Before

Mr C. M. G. Ockelton, Deputy President of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
Senior Immigration Judge Storey
Senior Immigration Judge Southern

Between

HS
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Respondent
Representation:

For the Appellant: Mr M. Henderson, Counsel instructed by the Refugee Legal Centre.
For the Respondent: Mr S. Kovats, Counsel instructed by the Treasury Solicitor.


Failed asylum seekers do not, as such, face a risk of being subjected, on return to Zimbabwe, to persecution or serious ill-treatment. That will be the case whether the return is voluntary or involuntary, escorted or not.

The findings in respect of risk categories in SM and Others (MDC – Internal flight – risk categories) Zimbabwe CG [2005] UKIAT 00100, as adopted, affirmed and supplemented in AA (Risk for involuntary returnees) Zimbabwe CG [2006] UKAIT 00061 are adopted and reaffirmed. The Tribunal identifies one further risk category, being those seen to be active in association with human rights or civil society organisations where evidence suggests that the particular organisation has been identified by the authorities as a critic or opponent of the Zimbabwean regime.

The process of screening returning passengers is an intelligence led process and the CIO will generally have identified from the passenger manifest in advance, based upon such intelligence, those passengers in whom there is any possible interest. The fact of having made an asylum claim abroad is not something that in itself will give rise to adverse interest on return.

The Tribunal adopts and reaffirms the findings in AA in respect of the general absence of real risk associated with any monitoring of returnees that might take place after such persons have passed through the airport and returned to their home area or re-established themselves in a new area.

Country conditions have continued to deteriorate but are not generally such as to bring about an infringement of Convention rights for returnees or to require the grant of humanitarian protection.


DETERMINATION AND REASONS


Introduction and scope of reconsideration

In this determination the Tribunal reconsiders the country guidance given in AA (Risk for involuntary returnees) Zimbabwe CG [2006] UKAIT 00061 in the light of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in AA (Zimbabwe) v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 149 and the additional evidence the parties have chosen to submit.

The appellant, who was born on 23rd June 1965, is a citizen of Zimbabwe. She arrived in the United Kingdom in May 2002 and was granted leave to enter as a visitor for six months. Just before that leave expired she applied unsuccessfully for leave to remain as a postgraduate (medical) doctor. She then applied for leave to remain as a highly skilled migrant. When that application was refused she claimed asylum. This was on the basis that she was at risk on return to Zimbabwe because she had attracted adverse attention from the authorities while working at a state hospital both by participating in a strike and by taking photographs of the injuries of a patient who had been attacked by government supporters and because of her father’s claimed involvement with the MDC.

Reconsideration has been ordered of the decision of the immigration judge who, by a determination dated 31st March 2006, allowed the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the respondent made on 13th February 2006 that the appellant should be removed from the United Kingdom after her asylum and human rights claims had been refused.

The immigration judge rejected as untrue the whole factual basis of the appellant’s claim to be at risk on return to Zimbabwe and, at the first stage reconsideration hearing on 1st March 2007, the appellant’s representatives did not seek to challenge those findings. The immigration judge gave clear and cogent reasons for disbelieving the appellant’s evidence. She referred, as she was bound to, to the then binding country guidance case AA (Involuntary returns to Zimbabwe) Zimbabwe [2005] UKAIT 00144 CG ( “AA(1)â€

[4444]

sorry the ruling is long,this is the other bit
infringement of her rights under article 3 of the ECHR if she were required to return.

Article 3 of the European Convention provides that:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.â€

[4444]

or supporters of ZANU-PF.

It is said on behalf of the appellant that involuntary returnees from the United Kingdom will be seen as a danger or threat to the regime in Zimbabwe when voluntary returnees are not. In order to justify such a conclusion there would have to be evidence that the Zimbabwean authorities believe that the United Kingdom allows friends of the regime of President Mugabe (whose regime, it is said, the United Kingdom opposes) to travel freely but throws out of the United Kingdom those who are its own friends (i.e. enemies of President Mugabe’s regime). There is simply no evidence to that effect. We deal with this in more detail below.

Procedures at the airport: W5 and W6

Of these two witnesses who gave oral evidence before us, we heard first from W6, who has provided evidence at each stage of the AA litigation. He has made a number of witness statements. In this determination we refer mainly to two of them, as those have been relied upon by the parties. The first statement made in July 2005 was prepared for the purpose of the judicial review proceedings. Where we refer to his second statement we refer to one signed on 7th July 2007.

W6 has a military background. Importantly, he served as a sergeant with Military Intelligence, being part of a team based at the old Harare international airport for a period of two and a half years between 1993 and 1996 before coming to the United Kingdom where he has been granted refugee status. Before joining Military Intelligence he served in the army in other capacities. In his first statement made in July 2005 he said that in 1980 he was seconded as a soldier holding the rank of private to the President’s Regimental Institute. In his second statement he said that this posting was as an accounts clerk. By the time he gave oral evidence before us he felt able to say that he worked with that Institute as an accountant.

The written evidence adopted by W6 was in line with his evidence in AA(2). Indeed, he incorporates into his statement in this appeal most of what he said in his statement put before the Tribunal in AA(2). The Tribunal in AA(2) summarised that evidence as follows:
“
The next witness, Witness 6, who has also been granted refugee status in the United Kingdom, was a sergeant or section leader with the military intelligence branch of the CIO based at Harare airport for two and a half years until 1996. His role was to check upon passengers passing through the airport. In the witness statement which he adopted as part of his evidence he began by saying this:

“I set out below in outline, the procedures that applied (and that, I believe, still apply) when a Zimbabwean citizen is deported back to Zimbabwe from another country. These are standard and longstanding procedures. I am in regular touch with former colleagues who still work at the airport, and I have no reason to believe that these procedures have changed significantly. These procedures would also apply where a person had been identified from the passenger manifest and was of interest.â€

[4444]

leg and the detention, although we appear to be invited to assume some connection. We have no idea of what, if any, activities R19 has involved himself since his return to Zimbabwe. This response needs to be considered in the context of the exchange as a whole but that context is not before us.

This is not, in our view, clear evidence to support the proposition that failed asylum seekers returned to Zimbabwe face a real risk of being ill-treated at the airport.

Ms Harland’s fresh comments concerning Returnee 21 (R21) throw up further concerns about this part of the evidence generally.

The adjudicator dismissed R21’s appeal because he was found to have “embellished and exaggerated his storyâ€

[4444]

A Third of Population Could Starve – Financial Gazette 6.6.07
Transcript: ‘Running from Mugagbe’ BBC2 broadcast 7.6.07
Zimbabwe’s terror: How I raped and tortured for Mugabe The Independent 7.6.07
Mugabe to banish opposition from rural areas, Zim Online 7.6.07
Hospital Strike Compounds Healthcare Crisis – IWPR 8.6.07
Zimbabwe in Darkness – Ohmynews 10 Jun 2007
Police arrest hundreds in protests against ec. Hardships 11.6.07
Ruling Party Holds seat – intimidation alleged – VOA 11.6.07
Shock for lawyers in Zimbabwe – BBC News 11.6.07
Mugabe extends olive branch.. – VOA 12.6.07
In Africa, a desperate stampede – Chicago Tribune 12.6.07
State Security Agents on the Prowl – The Zim Situation 12.6.07
Zimbabwe lawyers face campaign of vilification – Yahoo news 12.6.07
Church leaders in trouble for distributing sweets – Zim Online 12.6.07
Mugabe regime accursed of using brainwashing – Indian Catholic 12.6.07
AG sent on forced leave – zimbabwejournalists.com 13.6.07
Aid agencies contemplate doomsday scenario – IHT 13.6.07
Controversial security law advances in Zimabwe – Reuters 13.6.07
How Robert Mugabe plans to win the 2008 elections – The Zimbabwe Situation 14.6.07
Cops recruit Green Bombers – The Zimbabwean 14.6.07
Kunonga’s land grab – The Zimbabwean 14.6.07
Farm tools used to buy votes – The Zimbabwean 14.6.07
Former army boss says does not care if villagers do not vote for him – Zim Online 14.6.07
Parliamentary committee says health delivery has collapsed -Zim Online 14.6.07
Hospital almost closed – The Herald (Harare) 14.6.07
Zimbabwe ‘collapse in six months’ - BBC News 14.6.07
Zambia to export food to needy Zimbabwe – AFP 14.6.07
Councils face collapse – The Zimbabwe Situation 14.6.07
Wheat stocks run out – The Zimbabwe Situation 14.6.07
Zimbabwe ‘will collapse in 6 months’ The Times 14.6.07
ZANU PF coerces youths to register as voters – Zim online 15.6.07
50 NCA activists missing, six detained after Harare demo – SW Radio Africa 15.6.07
Coup ‘plot’ feeds Zimbabwe political tension, The Times (London) 16.6.07
Slavery has been ‘legalised’ – IRIN 18.6.07
Zim opposition activists murdered – Zim Online 18.6.07
No help for HIV patients in Zimbabwe – The Zimbabwean 19.6.07
Coup claim made to ‘mask Mugabe party split’ – Telegraph 19.6.07
Transcript: ‘Mugabe’s reign of terror’ – Channel 4 - broadcast 20.6.07
Crackdown on student leaders intensifies – SW Radio Africa 20.6.07
Economic collapse worsens food crisis – SW Radio Africa 21.6.07
Zimbabwe inflation ‘to hit 1.5m%’’ The Guardian 21.6.07
Mediation doomed to fail – Association of Zimbabwe Journalists 22.6.07
Sliding into a totalitarian state – The Zimbabwe situation 22.6.07
Petrol stations reject cash as currency becomes worthless The Times 22.6.07
Zimbabwe in meltdown as currency halves The Telegraph By Sebastien Berger, Southern Africa Correspondent 22.6.07
Zimbabwe's Dollar Plummets 67 Percent; Retailers Stop Trading Bloomberg 22.6.07
Waiting for the hard rain of culpability Business Day 22.6.07
Mugabe faces pressure as currency crashes, Yahoo News By Nelson Banya (Reuters) 22.6.07
Petrol stations reject cash as currency becomes worthless, The Times 22.6.07
Zimbabwe: 'Green Bombers' to enforce price controls, Munyaradzi Shonhayi Zimdaily.com 23.6.07
Mugabe faces dollar disaster, The Times 23.6.07
Zimbabwe slams US envoy over Mugabe comments – Reuters 24.6.07
Treat Zimbabweans humanely, Tsvangirai tells UK – zimbabwejournalists.com 25.6.07
Pakistani military experts strengthen Mugabe’s army – The Independent 11.1.07
Mbeki’s rehabilitation of Zanu PF 7.7.07
Food a Political Tool? – IPS news 25.6.07
Rights activists say torture on the rise in Zimbabwe – Zim online 26.6.07
The Corrosive Power of Hate Speech – The Zimbabwe Situation 26.6.07
Zim health service collapses – Health24 28.6.07
Zimbabwe general linked to coup ‘murdered’ – The Independent 28.6.07
Coup plot bogus – The Zimbabwe Situation 29.6.07
‘We only want your food’ – FinGaz (no date)
Army on high alert – FinGaz (no date)
Someone might be listening – IRIN 29.6.07
Zimbabwe’s top cleric urges Britain to invade – The Sunday Times, UK 1.7.07
Refugees flood from Zimbabwe – The Guardian 1.7.07
Zimbabwe Price Controls Cause Chaos 3.7.07
Shops emptied as panic grips Zimbabwe – the Guardian 5.7.07
Zimbabwe’s silent genocide, Sunday Times (UK) 8.7.07
Lunch with a Dissident Minister, The Times Online (UK) 8.7.07
Secret Lives, The Observer (UK) (incl photos) 8.7.07
Gwanda Chief Threatens Village Heads Over MDC – Zimbabwe Standard 8.7.07
Robert Mugabe critic ‘raped’ – Telegraph 9.7.07
NGOs under probe for Hoarding – The Herald 9.7.07
Safe Migration Zimbabwe – IOM, Harare 2005
Canada suspends deportations to Zimbabwe – CBC news 30.1.02
Country Fact Sheet: Zimbabwe – Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada May 2007
Temporary Suspension or Reinstatement of Removals to Countries in Crisis: Submission Guidelines (Factors for Considerations) – Citizenship & Immigration Canada Current
Australia – Refugee Review Tribunal – Decisions by country– 2006/07


Appellant’s Volume B


Document Date
Report by Witness 66 24.6.07
Expert report by Professor T. Ranger 25.6.07
Case specific report by Professor T. Ranger 25.6.07
Report of Norma Kriger (approved by email) 8.7.07
Report of Witness 67 (approved by email) 9.7.07

Respondent’s Volume C


Document Date
IOM report 1 August 2006 to February 2007
IOM questionnaire database August 2006 – February 2007
Memorandum of Understanding respondent & IOM August 2006
Draft amendment of MOU Undated
Series of interview reports with NGOs and others collected by British Embassy Harare
Agence France Presse “Britain wins right to deport failed asylum seekers to Zimbabweâ€

[suzyq]

Firstly, a poor immigration history will only affect visa applications that are not for settlement purposes.

SuzyQ

Hi Suzy - I'm afraid that's no longer true. I've seen a lot of refusals recently under para 320 where spouse visas have been refused because of previous immigration histories.

Refusals due to past immigration histories usually occurs where there has been clear deception and false representations. This would therefore cast doubts over the genuineness of the marriage. The usual stance of the Home Office/ECO being "you have lied before, so why should we believe you now?"

Therefore, if an applicant has a particularly dodgy immigration history and has lied before, and really has little in terms of evidence to support the proposition that their marriage is genuine and subsisting, then yes, of course, past immigration history can lead to a refusal.

However, the poster of this thread does not seem to have misled or lied to the immigration authorities before, and if her marriage is genuine and subsisting, she will be able to satisfy the immigration rules, despite overstaying.

I recently represented a couple who had blatantly lied to the ECO in two separate applications. When they came to me, I asked them to tell the truth and put their hands up to the deception. The ECO refused the third application, stating (in effect) "you are capable of deception, so why should we believe you now?"

We appealed and won. I submitted evidence that demonstrated that the rules were satisfied, despite their poor previous conduct, and that was what was required. Article 8 would stand or fall with the immigration rules.

So, I guess it depends on how you argue your client's case.

Suzy Q


What constitutes a genuine and subsisting marriage depends on all of the circumstances GA GHANA. (http://www.ait.gov.uk/Public/Upload/j1 ... arred.doc)

[suzyq]

4444 thanks for the heads up. Sheesh. What a decision. Just out on Thursday. Wow.

Perhaps there will be a material error in law within the decision....

Suzy Q

[avjones]

Firstly, a poor immigration history will only affect visa applications that are not for settlement purposes.

SuzyQ

Hi Suzy - I'm afraid that's no longer true. I've seen a lot of refusals recently under para 320 where spouse visas have been refused because of previous immigration histories.

Refusals due to past immigration histories usually occurs where there has been clear deception and false representations. This would therefore cast doubts over the genuineness of the marriage. The usual stance of the Home Office/ECO being "you have lied before, so why should we believe you now?"

Not any more. Overstayers are being refused on that basis ALONE. I've seen 10 in the past month, and more posted on this board.