Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2006-01-23, [2006] UKAIT 12 (HM (Risk Factors for Burmese Citizens))
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr D K Allen, Mr P R Lane, Rt. Hon. Countess of Mar |
| Status | Reported |
| Date | 23 January 2006 |
| Published date | 04 April 2006 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |
| Hearing Date | 29 November 2005 |
| Subject Matter | Risk Factors for Burmese Citizens |
| Appeal Number | [2006] UKAIT 12 |
Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
HM (Risk factors for Burmese citizens) Burma CG [2006] UKAIT 00012
THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
|
Heard at Field House |
Determination Promulgated |
|
On 29 November 2005 |
|
|
Prepared |
23 January 2006 |
Before
Mr D K Allen, Senior Immigration Judge
Mr P R Lane, Senior Immigration Judge
The Rt. Hon the Countess of Mar
Between
Appellant
and
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr S Cox, Counsel instructed by IAS
For the Respondent: Mr S Ouseley, Home Office Presenting Officer
The following comprise general guidelines in assessing risk on return to Burma of a Burmese citizen:
(1) A Burmese citizen who has left Burma illegally is in general at real risk on return to Burma of imprisonment in conditions which are reasonably likely to violate his rights under Article 3 of the ECHR. Exit will be illegal where it is done without authorisation from the Burmese authorities, however obtained, and will include travel to a country to which the person concerned was not permitted to go by the terms of an authorised exit. We consider it is proper to infer this conclusion from the effect in the Van Tha case of the employment of Article 5(j) of the Burma Emergency Act 1950, either on the basis of the application of that Article in that case or also as a consequence of a breach of the exit requirements we have set out in paragraph 83.
(2) A Burmese citizen is in general at real risk of such imprisonment if he is returned to Burma from the United Kingdom without being in possession of a valid Burmese passport.
(3) It is not reasonably likely that a Burmese citizen in the United Kingdom will be issued with a passport by the Burmese authorities in London, unless he is able to present to the Embassy an expired passport in his name.
(4) If it comes to the attention of the Burmese authorities that a person falling within (1) or (2) is a failed asylum seeker, that is reasonably likely to have a significant effect upon the length of the prison sentence imposed for his illegal exit and/or entry. To return such a person from the United Kingdom would accordingly be a breach of Article 33 of the Refugee Convention. Whether that fact would come to the attention of the authorities will need to be determined on the facts of the particular case, bearing in mind that the person is highly likely to be interrogated on return.
(5) It has not been shown that a person who does not fall within (1) or (2) above faces a real risk of persecution or Article 3 ill-treatment on return to Burma by reason of having claimed asylum in the United Kingdom, even if the Burmese authorities have reason to believe that he has made such a claim, unless the authorities have reason to regard him as a political opponent.
DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. The appellant is a citizen of Burma. She appealed to an Immigration Judge against the Secretary of State's decision of 29 January 2005 refusing leave to enter the United Kingdom. The Immigration Judge dismissed her appeal. Reconsideration was ordered by a Senior Immigration Judge on 8 June 2005.
2. On 13 September 2005 the Tribunal concluded that there was an error of law in the Immigration Judge's determination on the following basis. It was held that there was a material error of law in the failure by the Immigration Judge to take into account the argument in paragraph 19 of the skeleton argument before her concerning problems experienced by the appellant previously in Burma and the failure to make findings on what she said happened to her in Burma between October 2004 and January 2005. A full reconsideration was ordered.
3. The hearing took place before us on 29 November 2005. Mr S Cox for the IAS appeared on behalf of the appellant, and Mr S Ouseley appeared on behalf of the Secretary of State.
4. The appellant arrived in the United Kingdom on 29 January 2005 and asked for asylum. At a screening interview she said that she had arrived in the United Kingdom from Thailand. She had been there for two nights after leaving Burma. She said that she did not have her own passport, having given it to an agent after they left the plane. Her passport was a genuine one. She had not destroyed it, the agent had taken it. She was able to give the passport number and said that she had a copy of the passport on her. She said that that was because in Burma people always copied important documents. She was asked what the point of handing the passport to the agent was and she said she did not know what to do after she left Burma so the agent looked after her. While she was pushing the trolley along the corridor she said someone asked her for her passport and she handed it over as she had been instructed to do so. She said that she gave the passport to the agent as she walked along a corridor and did so because she was instructed to do so.
5. She had previously obtained by official means a marriage visa to go to the United Kingdom. The purpose of this was to get married to a Burmese man living here. She had also been successful in obtaining a visa to go to Thailand and on each occasion she had used her own name.
6. It transpired that, shortly before obtaining the visa to go to Thailand, she had been refused a visa and she said that this was because she had bought a single ticket to Bangkok and was told that she should hold a return ticket. Therefore a return ticket was then purchased. With regard to the previous visit to the United Kingdom, she said that she had gone to get married but she had had a row with her fiancé and she had to go home. She had come back because she had had problems in Burma since she had returned previously. She said that she was followed by the authorities constantly and she needed help.
7. In her asylum interview she said that she feared the government in Burma because she had been involved with someone who was a politician and this was her former fiancé. The engagement was now off. Her former fiancé had no party but had demanded democracy by himself. She herself had never belonged to a political party and nor had she ever been arrested in her country.
8. She had met her former fiancé when he was a teacher in Burma and that was when she was about fourteen years old and they had kept in touch thereafter. They had got engaged unofficially in March 2004. Her fiancé had demanded democracy when in the United Kingdom when the civil uprising in Burma started in 1988. He had gone to the United Kingdom in 1978. In the meantime she had seen him whenever he visited Burma and he had done so frequently including coming several times in 1996.
9. They had not married when she came to the United Kingdom previously because they had irreconcilable differences. She was asked why her fiancé had never been arrested when he returned to Burma to visit her and she said he was visited constantly and was interrogated and before he visited Burma he signed a form promising that he would not do any politics in Burma and that was why he was allowed in. She did not marry him then as she did not love him enough then. She thought that it was in 2001 or perhaps 2002 that he was not allowed in at the airport and had to return and that was why he had sent for her in 2004 instead of visiting Burma.
10. She was asked in more detail about why the marriage did not take place and she said that they did not see eye to eye. She said that when they were walking in the street for example when she walked slowly he shouted at her and said she was walking slowly. She did not know how to cook and he had told her that she was useless and told her it was like looking after a five year old.
11. She was asked what happened when she returned to her country from the United Kingdom. She said that the government had suspicion and wondered why she had come back so quickly and suspected that she was to contact someone and that she had some documents and suspected that she was a spy. When she arrived at the airport they did not let her go and they interrogated her. It was the day when the Prime Minister and the Military Intelligence had been purged and this led the authorities to be more suspicious. She had been held for two days, not all the time at the airport but she was taken somewhere else and detained there. They had asked her what she was doing there and who was she going to meet and who had asked her to contact whom and they wanted to look at her papers.
12. She was asked how she was treated while detained and she said that they interrogated her all the time. She was asked whether she was harmed physically and said no, but they threatened her verbally and hit the table and frightened her and said that they would arrest her.
13. She was asked what happened when she was released from detention and she said she had bribed them. This was why she was released. She said that the members of the Intelligence Corps treated her worst, but she met members from other groups who detained her and she was detained by other groups who were not very strict. As to what happened after her release she said that they always asked her and telephoned her and asked her where she was going and to tell them the places she was going...
To continue reading
Request your trial