Update - Zimbabwe

Well, this is the first blog of 2009. What the year will hold for us all, we do not yet know. I start the year optimistically and hope that my high spirits will continue throughout the year. Obviously, I have a number of resolutions, but we will see how long I last with those.

My attempt at blogging has had a slow start. I am conscious that I do not blog regularly. My main problem is that everything I would like to blog about is controversial. The current hot topic is the Middle East, but that is for another day.

I thought I would briefly update interested parties on how the courts are treating the Zimbabwe situation after the recent caselaw. My last entry referred to the case of RN. It has been adopted by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal as a Country Guidance case. It now has the citation RN (Returnees) Zimbabwe CG [2008] UKAIT 00083.

The Home Office (I should say the UK Border Agency) quite correctly decided not to appeal the decision. This in itself is a good result and the Agency ought to be congratulated on taking such a common sense approach to the issue. One day after the decision, I had an Zimbabwean appeal which the IJ allowed on the basis of RN in that the Appellant could not demonstrate loyalty to the current regime. In this regard, the AIT are also taking a very sensible approach to Zimbabwean cases listed to be heard there. Again, they ought to be given credit for this.

UKBA is now conducting a review of all Zimbabwean cases waiting to be heard in the courts. My experience is that many Zimbabweans are now being recognised as refugees on the back of the case of RN and I have had some notable results. The approach being taken on Zimbabweans by both UKBA and the AIT is one which ought to have been taken quite some time ago. However, better late than never and credit ought to be given where credit is due. Let us all hope that this kind of thinking can be applied across the board.

To finish off, I noted in my last posting that an Immigration Judge (IJ) had refused one of my Zimbabwean appeals on the basis that Mugabe was no longer in control. On appeal, a Senior IJ (SIJ) found this approach to be "perverse". We are now waiting for the case to be re-listed.

Let us enter 2009 full of fighting spirit and optimism. Perhaps I should do blogging "requests". If anyone has ideas for topics or anything that they would like to hear my views on, then please let me know. Otherwise, you will be stuck with international politics and legal affairs.

RN (Zimbabwe)

At last, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal have recognised the problems in Zimbabwe. A new decision has just been issued which recognises that those who are not loyal to the regime of President Mugabe may face a real risk of persecution on return to Zimbabwe. This is supported by all the objective evidence and is the view of the leading experts on Zimbabwe. It is also something that I and many other lawyers have been arguing for some time now, without any success.

The decision will affect thousands of failed Zimbabwean asylum seekers who have had their cases rejected and who have been told that they would not face mistreatment should they be returned to Zimbabwe.

The decision is truly a victory for, least of all, common sense. Whilst we have various statements from numerous Government Ministers in both the Commons and the Lords on how bad the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe is, the Secretary of State for the Home Department has always maintained before the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal that those who ask for protection in the United Kingdom do not require it. The decision at paragraph 135 describes the Home Secretary's position in this litigation as:

“irreconcilable with the public statements of the senior ministers. Where such statement have been made in Parliament, they must it is said, be taken to represent the position of the Government”

It would be interesting to see the figures in relation to how many people claimed asylum from Zimbabwe in the recent years. From first hand experience, I can tell you that the numbers would be high. It would also be interesting to see from the SSHD how many of those claims were rejected. I can also tell you that this would be an extremely(!) high proportion. Let us not forget the role of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. It cannot be blame-free. For example, I had a decision last week which stated that the individual concerned would not face persecution on return to Zimbabwe because “the Mugabe regime is no longer in control” Where this came from, goodness only knows. Needless to say, this is currently being appealed. However, decisions of this calibre do not help matters.

It is about time that the Home Office sorted the mess out. There are thousands of Zimbabweans who have failed claims. They are not entitled to benefits and they are not permitted to work. They are not provided with accommodation and are forced to support themselves. Many Zimbabweans I know are on the verge of destitution. They cannot be sent home to Zimbabwe because the SSHD recognised some time ago that the country is so bad that no-one can be returned there. Most other European countries (Sweden, Denmark, Germany etc) also adopt a no-returns approach. The outcome? Limbo.

This case would give the SSHD the opportunity to clear up many of those who deserve status - the families, those in relationships with British nationals, those with British children, those who are politically active in the various exiled opposition groups (with the largest in Britain being the MDC).

MDC UK has active branches across Britain with large groupings in Glasgow, Birmingham and Edinburgh. Many of those activists can be seen at street stalls in the town centres on a Saturday afternoon attempting to raise awareness of what is happening in Zimbabwe. Many of these organisers have been told that they can go back to Zimbabwe without the prospect of facing problems from the CIO (Central Intelligence Organisation) or Mugabe's militia etc. Hopefully this case will turn the tide.

I would like to end this post on an optimistic note. However, knowing the Home Office, I doubt very much whether this case will have the impact it ought to.