Where the applicant for asylum could show that members of his family had been killed or persecuted by the authorities, the level of proof required that he would be under threat was not the normal civil standard of proof, but that of a reasonable degree of likelihood of persecution, and not the usual civil balance of probabilities. The same standard of proof should apply when considering whether internal relocation or flight was a reasonable alternative for the applicant. The issues for a decision-maker are questions not of hard fact but of evaluation. The person considering an applicant’s claim for asylum must reach his decision by making an assessment in the light of all the available material in the case.
Citations:
Gazette 03-Feb-2000, Times 16-Feb-2000, Gazette 09-Mar-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 11, [2000] 2 All ER 449
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Sivakumar HL 20-Mar-2003
The appellant sought asylum. He had fled Sri Lanka. He was a Tamil and feared torture if he returned. His application had been rejected because the consequences flowed from his suspected involvement in terrorism, and that was not a Convention . .
Cited – Hysi v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 15-Jun-2005
The claimant appealed an order to be returned to Kosovo.
Held: As the son of a gypsy mother and and an Albanian father. As such, he would face persecution if returned if his mixed race parentage became known. If order to return he would be . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AH (Sudan) and others HL 14-Nov-2007
The three respondents had fled persecution in Darfur. They sought asylum which was refused, and they now appealed. It was argued that whilst they had a well founded fear of persecution in Dhafur, that would not apply if they returned to Khartoum. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135989
