Resource: Country guidance commentary

Image via Wikipedia

Source: Fahamu Refugee Legal Aid Newsletter

Mike Kaye is the Advocacy Manager for Still Human Still Here, a coalition of more than 40 organisations that are campaigning to end the destitution of refused asylum seekers in the UK.

Still Human Still Here believes that many asylum seekers who should be granted some form of protection in the UK are being refused and subsequently end up destitute. In 2010, it was estimated that around 70 percent of destitute refused asylum seekers in the UK came from just eight countries, all of which were either in conflict or had serious and widespread human rights violations. These countries were Zimbabwe, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Eritrea (Still Human Still Here, At the end of the line: Restoring the integrity of the UK’s asylum system, 2010, p. 38).

Still Human Still Here’s contention that the Home Office incorrectly refuses many asylum seekers any form of protection in the UK is supported by a review of the number of decisions which are subsequently overturned on appeal. In 2010, 27 percent of appeals were allowed. That is to say that in more than one in four cases the UKBA got the initial decision wrong.

For some of the nationalities highlighted above, however, the overturn rates on appeal were significantly higher. For example, 50 percent of Somalis won their appeals in 2010 and 36 percent of Eritreans and Zimbabweans were also successful. During 2011, asylum seekers from these and other countries have continued to have an extremely high percentage of their appeals allowed. For example, 57 percent of Eritreans, 53 percent of Somalis, 38 percent of Sri Lankans and 31 percent of Zimbabweans won their appeals in the third quarter of 2011. These cases alone affected 218 individuals, causing them unnecessary anxiety and wasting considerable amounts of taxpayers’ money by forcing them to go to appeal when in many cases they could have been granted refugee status at the initial determination.

While the appeals process works for some refugees, it should be stressed that success at appeal is largely dependent on having good quality legal advice and representation and this is in increasingly short supply, particularly since the closure of both Refugee and Migrant Justice and the Immigration Advisory Service.

One way in which Still Human Still Here believes refugees could be better identified at the initial determination would be through improvements to the Operational Guidance Notes (OGNs). The OGNs outline conditions and risks to particular groups in various countries and are used by case owners as a key resource when deciding on individual asylum applications.

Several OGNs contain country of origin information and references to case law which are outdated. For example, the current OGN on the DRC was issued in December 2008 and relies heavily on the Country of Origin Information Service DRC Country Report from May 2008, which is now more than three-and-a-half years old. Since the beginning of 2009, more than 500 new applications for asylum have been made by individuals from the DRC. Decisions will have been reached on these applications on the basis of information which, at best, was seven months old. In this context, it is not surprising that the percentage of DRC appeals that are successful has risen to 34 percent in 2011 (up to October).

There are currently 30 OGNs published on the countries from which the UK receives the most asylum applications. Those countries from which there are lower numbers of applications tend to be updated with even less frequency. For example, the most recent OGN for Rwanda was issued in March 2009 and generally relies on country of origin information which was published in November 2008.

Even where OGNs are updated regularly, Still Human Still Here considers that many have inconsistencies and omissions between their conclusions and currently available country of origin information and/or case law.

For example, before an update on 15 December this year, the Somalia OGN cited a UKBA fact-finding mission as reporting ‘travel within Al-Shabaab controlled areas of southern and central Somalia was common and considered relatively safe’. It further noted that ‘everyone can move freely in south central’ and that given ‘the relative ease of travel within many areas of Somalia, it will be feasible for many to return to their home areas from Mogadishu airport as most areas are accessible’ (paras. 2.4.3 and 2.4.6).

This assessment appeared to ignore various reputable sources which note that checkpoints operated by armed militias and groups associated with Al-Shabaab inhibit passage and expose civilians to rape, violence, extortion and forced recruitment. Indeed, the United Nations Report of the Secretary-General on Somalia, 30 December 2010, noted that ‘[i]nternally displaced persons and refugees fleeing southern Somalia continued to report abuses by militias manning checkpoints before they reached safe areas, including rape, beatings and looting’ (para.33).

In order to draw attention to these sorts of inconsistencies, Still Human Still Here has published OGN commentaries, including 2011 commentaries on the most recent OGNs for Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Jamaica, Zimbabwe, Iran, Eritrea and Sudan. These commentaries are intended as tools to assist legal practitioners in preparing appeals; we hope they will help ensure that individuals who may be at risk of persecution or other serious harm in their country of origin have a reasonable chance of getting protection in the UK.

Related articles

• Is the UK's asylum system sexist? (madikazemi.blogspot.com)

Iranian asylum seeker hunger strikers win UK asylum

Source: Croydon Advertiser

Three Iranian asylum-seekers who staged a 37-day hunger strike have won their battle to remain in the UK.

The men demonstrated outside Lunar House, the UK Border Agency's headquarters in Wellesley Road, for nearly five weeks after their initial applications for asylum were turned down.

Keyvan Behari and brothers Mehran and Mahyar Meyari starved themselves in a desperate attempt to prevent deportation to Iran, where they feared torture and death for taking part in anti-Government protests.

But that prospect ended last week when the Home Office, presented with fresh evidence of torture, officially recognised the group as refugees.

Their lawyer Hani Zubeidi, head of immigration at Fadiga and Co, said "common sense" had prevailed.

He said:

"After months of waiting it took just a few short interviews for the Home Office to recognise these men would be persecuted if sent back to Iran. Any other outcome would have been preposterous."

Keyvan, 30, Mehran 20, and Mahyar, 17, are members of Green Wave Voice, a political movement in Iran which formed after the re-election of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009.

Keyvan was beaten by Iranian police after he was arrested during pro-democracy demonstrations.

Mayhar was 16 when he was arrested and raped, as the authorities cracked down on protesters.

After escaping from prison, the pair fled from Iran and across into Turkey, and then travelled across Europe, hidden in a truck for 17 days, before entering the UK.

But when they arrived, a legal representative supplied by the Home Office failed to provide evidence of their injuries to a judge.

When their applications were rejected Keyvan and Mahyar set up a tent outside Lunar House and stitched their lips together, refusing to eat.

After living on just sugar and water for 37 days, Mr Zubeidi took up their cases. He said:

"Their claim was based on their involvement in protests against the regime, but the way in which this was presented meant the Home Office didn't believe they were in genuine danger.

"One of the hunger strikers has a huge scar on his back that was never shown to the immigration judge."

"Out of desperation they were then forced to conduct a hunger strike. They should never have had to go through that."

After publicity of their cause by the Advertiser, Croydon Central MP Gavin Barwell intervened, describing their case as "compelling".

He said:

"It was quite clear from the evidence on their bodies that they had been the victims of maltreatment.

"From the evidence I saw I believe justice has now been done."

Holding UK Border Agency to account

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Source: Open Democracy

Medical Justice, a charity that arranges for independent doctors to visit immigration detainees, convened a meeting 28 November to examine Parliament’s ability to monitor and hold to account the UK Border Agency and its contractors.

The first Children’s Commissioner for England and the medical colleges representing GPs, paediatricians, psychiatrists and public health professionals, have repeatedly warned the UKBA that the conditions for those held in immigration detention centres are severely damaging and may be life-threatening. Medical Justice, End Child Detention Now and many other public interest groups and faith groups have sought to raise awareness. But little acknowledgement - and still less action - has been forthcoming.

The meeting sought to debate and agree on ways to redress this inaction. The ultimate aim was to gather support to call for a robust inquiry into the inhuman, degrading and potentially lethal conditions of detention and deportation. It was chaired by Labour MP for Islington North, Jeremy Corbyn, who sponsored a draft Early Day Motion, circulated to attendees. A similar draft NGO declaration from the meeting was also tabled.

Attendees heard an emotional appeal for justice from Adrienne Makenda Kambana, widow of Jimmy Mubenga, as she cited the obstruction of inquiries by the UKBA and private contractors G4S. Deborah Coles, of INQUEST, who has assisted the Mubenga family, noted that the culture of secrecy within the UKBA is a huge concern and has inhibited the family’s pursuit of information and justice.

Police investigations are usually held in isolation from each other and there are often no relatives available in the UK to carry them forward. The main challenge is to ensure that these problems are properly debated in parliament.

Other speakers included Harmit Athwal, editor of the Institute of Race Relations News Service and Dr Ben Robinson, Medical Justice Trustee. Athwal noted the rarity of legal representation for deceased detainees, yet the Home Office, medical staff, and private companies to whom detention work is outsourced are always represented.

Read more »

Report shows dire fate of refugees returned to Congo

Image via Wikipedia

Source: Open Democracy

By Catherine Ramos

Congolese people who had sought sanctuary in the United Kingdom and had their applications for protection refused found friendship and acceptance within the communities of Middlesbrough and Stockton in the north east of England. As they settled into the communities it became clear that these were men and women of integrity, who, whilst awaiting the outcome of their asylum claims, were making valuable contributions to our schools, churches and voluntary groups. When a Congolese man, who had been accepted on to a Skilled Workers’ Programme which would enable him to migrate to Canada, was removed with his young family back to The Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2007, many residents in the Tees Valley were appalled.

Tees Valley residents did not sit back and think they could do nothing to help. They campaigned relentlessly for the family and for others threatened with removal and they maintained contact with those removed. The ten individuals who were returned to DRC between 2006 and 2009 had all been clients of the charity Justice First. They trusted the integrity of those associated with Justice First sufficiently to confide details of their post-return experience and these are recorded in a new report, 'Unsafe Return', from Justice First.

A pattern of imprisonment and ill treatment emerged which was corroborated by similar reports from other UK civil society groups that had maintained contact with clients. The post return experience of only fifteen out of seventeen adults is documented, as two returnees are missing. A visit was made to DRC in 2011 by the report author in order to verify the current situation of the returnees still living there. At least six returnees had fled the country and others were found to be still living in hiding, fearful of re-arrest and unable to live with their families because of threats. One person was living under an assumed identity. They wanted the truth of their situation to be made known so that others might be protected.

A Congolese Immigration official interviewed in 2011 explained that, when UK Immigration passed on the names of those to be removed, the files in the possession of the Immigration authorities were studied to see if the returnee had a ‘problem’ with the state, such as breach of state security. If he or she had, the secret services would be alerted.

Men and women allege they were arrested and interrogated about their activities in the UK. They were told they had to be punished because they were from the UK, home to the spearhead of Congolese resistance to the regime of President Kabila. Three returnees were tortured to make them confess to their involvement in an attack on one of President Kabila’s ministers in London in 2006 and to name others involved. The refused asylum seekers were considered to be traitors who had not only betrayed their country but also their president by talking about the human rights violations they had suffered before they had fled the DRC.

The methods used to extract information amounted to torture: severe beating, electrocution, rape and sexual abuse. Returnees were held without access to a lawyer or to visitors in prisons where conditions are recognised as breaching human rights conventions.

It's was an awful experience: very bad condition of life because have to pee and to eat, to sleep at the same room and on the floor. No food was been given and sometimes we were forced to drink our own human urine and were beating [sic].” (Male returnee)

Read more »

Immigration detention to feature at UN human rights review of UK

Image by rich_w via Flickr

Source: Detention Forum

In a move that has been welcomed by many detention NGOs, national human rights bodies such as Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and British Institute of Human Rights (BIHR) have highlighted immigration detention as one of the key human rights issues in the UK in their submissions to the Universal Periodic Review of the UN Human Rights Council.

Immigration detention was one of the 22 human rights issues covered by EHRC’s UPR submission.  The submission states that EHRC is “concerned with safeguards of the detained fast track system for individuals pending asylum decisions and the length of time people can spend in detention awaiting removal.”  It goes on to mention a wide range of problems such as provision of mental health and interpretation services and detention of vulnerable people.

BIHR’s voluntary-sector-wide submission cited data from Yarl’s Wood Befrienders: the group assisted 32 women claiming to be victims of torture or trafficking detained at Yarls Wood Immigration Removal Centre in 2011. It was endorsed by a number of supporters of The Detention Forum.

A large number of detention NGOs, such as Gatwick Detainee Welfare Group, Dover Detainee Visitor Group, Association for Visitors to Immigration Detainees, Bail for Immigration Detainees, Detention Action, Yarl’s Wood Befrienders and Campaign to Close Campsfield, also provided submissions which often dealt with some of the specific detention issues in depth.

Detention featured prominently in other human rights NGOs’ submissions. The Equal Rights Trust focussed on detention of stateless persons, while René Cassin recommended a strict time limit on detention to reduce long-term detention. Freedom from Torture raised their concern that victims of torture are routinely detained despite the safeguards put in place by the UK Border Agency and called for the abolition of the Detained Fast Track.

The Universal Period Review’s oral examination of the UK Government will take place in May 2012.

Related articles

• In UK, immigration detainees 'losing faith in the legal system' (madikazemi.blogspot.com)

Video: Protest locks down Glasgow UKBA reporting centre

Source: NCADC

On Monday, NCADC joined the Unity protest in Glasgow against the resumption of dawn raids on asylum-seeking families in the city. Unity had called the protest after two lone parent mothers were raided the week before, including Nigerian mum Funke Olubiyi and her five year old son Joseph, residents of Govan.

NCADC walked to the protest with refugees and volunteers from Govan and Craigton Integration Network, and supporters from No Borders North East, up from Newcastle for the day. At Brand Street we met our friends from Unity, Justice and Peace Scotland and Glasgow Campaign to Welcome Refugees.

The protest had begun at 7am, when three activists chained themselves to the gates of the reporting centre, while one scaled a scaffolding tripod, blocking the gates and making sure that no dawn raid vans would leave the UKBA car park that day. They were soon joined by about 100 or so supporters, including many asylum seekers who spoke of the fear they feel every time they have to report, and now the fear of being raided at home.

There was music and drumming and singing of African and Scottish songs and hymns. After a couple of hours the three chained to the gates were removed, but the man on the tripod stayed in the air for an impressive 10 hours, finally coming down at 5 o'clock.

The point had been made, and the media coverage helped spread the word: people in Glasgow still believe that dragging mothers and children from their beds to detention and deportation is totally unacceptable. The practice was stopped in Glasgow in 2006, following a long campaign of protests, direct action, campaigning and lobbying. It appears that a new campaign is starting in the city.

Related articles

• In UK: Border hostilities: Passport to the media-policy merry-go-round (madikazemi.blogspot.com)

In UK: Border hostilities: Passport to the media-policy merry-go-round

Image via Wikipedia

Source: NCADC

You have most probably heard about the latest scandal at the Home Office. Basically it was about a pilot scheme to replace the blanket checks on passports of people visiting the UK with a more targeted approach, and whether the Home Secretary knew the extent to which this was being implemented by her Border Force directors.

There was the inevitable media outrage that so many of these visitors, who obviously include in their number untold illegal immigrants, terrorists etc, did not have to queue for hours at the start of their holidays, business trips, asylum/terror sprees.

Of course, media hostility to migrants is nothing new. Over at the Migrants Rights Network blog this week, John Perry reviews Malcolm Dean’s new book, Democracy Under Attack, which looks at the role of the media in driving social policy. Perry highlights the section on how policy on asylum and migration has been driven by the press.

In it’s manifesto of 1997, Labour hardly mentioned immigration as an issue. By 2002, as asylum seeking numbers peaked dueto conflict in places like Iraq and Somalia, the press began to refer to people seeking sanctuary as ‘this scum’ ‘asylum cheats’ and ‘illegals’. It was a “hostile…one-sided, often wildly inaccurate…press campaign of vilification”, according to the former editor of the Mirror. The Labour government, with a massive majority, could have resisted, but government policy followed the media line, legitimising further public hostility (perhjaps reaching it’s nadir when Phil Woolas was found guilty of deliberately setting out to stir up and exploit racial hatred in the last election campaign). And so it goes around, the media-policy merry-go-round.

Interestingly, the Theresa May passports affair has resulted in a remarkably sensible blog at the Telegraph, of all places, where Mary Riddle warns that dangerous misinformation and misguided policy statements are fuelling the next stage of a political ‘immigration war‘. It’s an interesting read. Riddel believes that much of the anti-immigrant rhetoric is built on lies, the policies unworkable, and that this will come back to bite both May and prime minister Cameron

It looks as if Theresa May will survive this row and keep her job for a while longer. It appears that she is winning, in this row at least, with the dual-argument of it wasn’t that big a deal, and anyway, it was someone else’s fault. Ironically, an argument she was very much against a few years ago when she demanded a ministerial resignation over a passports row. In 2007 Ms May was “sick and tired of government ministers who simply blame other people when things go wrong”. The Political Scrapbook blog has helpfully dug up the quotes, and remarks that the Minister in question, Beverley Hughes, did indeed resign, 21 days later.

Meanwhile, it’s business as usual for refugees seeking sanctuary who face a culture of disbelief with dwindling access to legal help. No investigations or resignations looming over the sometimes 50% error rate in asylum decisions, or the public money wasted on legal fees righting UKBA wrongs. More families are divided by ever-harsher knee-jerk immigration controls barring entry, and more children are ending up in lone parent families when a parent is deported. Not to mention the proposal to recreate in Britain the notorious migrant worker exploitation of the German Gastarbeiter programme.

In the political war over migration control, the real casualties are not government Ministers or civil servants on £60,000 a year pensions. It is the refugees, the families, the workers who suffer. The racism and xenophobia that is pervading mainstream politics, highlighted last week by John Grayson at IRR, affects our whole society.

An anti-immigrant war of words affects us all, and we all have a role to play in resisting it. As the saying goes: if you don’t like the news, go out and make your own…

Related articles

• 1, 2, 3 scandals hit UKBA (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• The real 'immigration debate' (irr.org.uk)
• Play the politics of immigration, and you'll only get your fingers burnt (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)

Is the UK's asylum system sexist?

Source: TrustLaw

By Katie Nguyen

It should have been a happy time.

In 2008, Sanaa* (not her real name) left Iraq to join her British husband and start a new life in southeast England. But from the moment she set foot in her new home, she was beaten and verbally abused by her husband, also of Iraqi origin.

He raped her several times and controlled every aspect of her life. Not only was she locked out of the house every time he left their home but she was refused any money.

When she flew back to Iraq to visit family, her husband cancelled the visa on which she had been sponsored and spread rumours among her family in Iraq that she had been unfaithful.

Hunted down by a paternal uncle and her own brothers, Sanaa fled first to an aunt's house and then back to the UK.

Under threat of being killed in Iraq and feeling unsafe living with her husband, Sanaa sought asylum after arriving back in Britain in 2009.

Yet her application was turned down by the Home Office (interior ministry).

The domestic violence she suffered was dismissed, despite evidence from medical and police reports. Her explanation for not returning to Iraq because of the danger she faced at the hands of her family was rejected.

But an immigration judge who heard Sanaa's appeal four months later decided she was telling the truth and overturned the original ruling rejecting her asylum claim.

Sanaa's experience is all too common in the UK, where women seeking refugee status often seem to fare worse than men, activists say. Not only do they face discrimination for being asylum seekers but also because of their gender, campaigners say.

"The UKBA (UK Border Agency) consistently makes the wrong decisions for women seeking asylum, which then have to be corrected by immigration judges," according to London-based Asylum Aid, which provided Sanaa’s case study.

It said her story reflects the wider trend of discriminatory treatment towards women asylum seekers in the UK.

INHERENT UNFAIRNESS?

Women account for about one third of the people applying for asylum in their own right, not as wives or other dependants.

Research published earlier this year by Asylum Aid showed that women in 87 percent of the cases it examined were initially refused asylum by the UKBA, the government agency that controls migration to Britain.

However, 42 percent of those decisions, some involving women who had been raped, trafficked and beaten, were overturned on appeal - far higher than the average of 28 percent for all asylum cases.

The disparity was something Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg seized upon in a speech to the UK Refugee Council in May.

" ... why do far more women have their case overturned at appeal?" he said. "Is there an inherent unfairness built into the system?"

It would appear so, according to Debora Singer, policy and research manager at Asylum Aid, a London-based campaigning charity that also offers legal representation to asylum seekers.

She criticised the "institutionalised and systematic" culture of disbelief within the UKBA.

"We identified that the quality of decision-making was woeful. Women simply weren't believed," Singer told TrustLaw. "It is shocking but, unfortunately, the women and the people who work in this sector would say, not unexpected."

Although Asylum Aid's findings related to a small number of cases, they were confirmed by the UKBA's internal data for 2010.

Asylum Aid said UKBA figures -- released in response to Asylum Aid's study -- showed 35 percent of asylum refusals issued to women were overturned on appeal within six months of their application for asylum.

This number rose to 41 percent when the decision took more than six months, whereas the comparable rate for men was 26 percent, irrespective of how long it took for the asylum ruling.

"Many of the UKBA's decisions proved to be, in the words of an immigration judge examining one of the cases included in this research, 'simply unsustainable'," Asylum Aid said in its report.

THE IMAGE OF A REFUGEE

So, why is this happening?

At times, case owners -- officials who deal with every aspect of an asylum application -- failed to understand the nature of the persecution from which women may have been fleeing, and so doubted the accounts they heard, Asylum Aid said.

For example, at one asylum interview, the case owner admitted to never having heard of the term, "female circumcision". Yet female genital mutilation (FGM), marital rape, forced sterilisation, physical and sexual violence are some of the key reasons women seek refuge abroad.

Another problem is how to interpret the U.N. Refugee Convention as it relates to many women's asylum claims.

The Convention defines a refugee as someone with a "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion", who receives no state protection.

Experts say when the treaty was drawn up in 1951 its architects had in mind the stereotyped image of the male political activist escaping persecution by Soviet-backed regimes of the Cold War era -- and not a woman fleeing persecution in the home.

"There's a number of hoops women have to go through to fit the definition of a refugee," Asylum Aid's Singer said.

"There are many situations which force women to flee persecution abroad, but some women are fleeing because of the harm done to them, not by the state, but by their family or their community. It could be FGM, honour crimes, forced marriages, trafficking."

Although the Convention does not explicitly recognise persecution due to gender as a ground for establishing refugee status, it does refer to persecution due to membership of a "particular social group".

However, case owners either did not consider that argument at all or did not consider it appropriately in cases based solely on gender-related persecution, Singer said.

LESS INTRUSIVE INTERVIEWS

Cases were also weakened by being passed from one case owner to another, a lack of knowledge about an asylum seeker's country of origin and the use in some instances of out-of-date case law, Asylum Aid said.

"One decision-maker relied upon an article from the American gossip website www.gawker.com when refusing an application from a lesbian who feared the death penalty if returned to Uganda," the report said.

"No reference was made to the country of origin report detailing the persecution for gay people in Uganda", it noted.

In recognition that women face a tougher struggle to prove their refugee status, the Home Office, Britain's interior ministry, adopted gender guidelines in 2004 which were then revised in 2007.

Last year, the UKBA appointed a Gender Champion, Matthew Coats, to oversee work on gender as a whole.

"We are reviewing gender sensitivity in the asylum process as part of our overall Asylum Improvement Project," said a UKBA spokesperson, adding that a number of steps had been taken to make asylum interviews for women less "intrusive and invasive".

"We have introduced measures to ensure that female interviewers and interpreters are now available for female applicants. We have also introduced provisions for women to bring a friend or other companion with them to the interview to provide emotional or medical support," the spokesperson told TrustLaw in emailed comments.

In Sanaa's case, the judge who heard her appeal was critical of the fact that although she had mentioned being raped in a statement to officials before her asylum interview no further questions about this were asked at the interview.

* Sanaa asked to use a pseudonym because she was afraid of the consequences of revealing her true identity

Related articles

• Breakthrough: UK to record sexuality-based asylum claims (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• Want to lodge a UK asylum claim? Good luck with that (madikazemi.blogspot.com)

Audio: LibDem MP slams record on LGBT asylum

LiberalDemocrat MP Mike Hancock has slammed the record of the government on LGBT asylum.

Hancock is the MP of Robert Segwanyi, a gay Ugandan asylum seeker who was saved from removal at the last moment last month. Segwanyi has a fresh judicial hearing November 3.

He is also the MP of a gay Iranian whose asylum case Hancock is supporting.

Speaking to Gaydar radio's Scott Roberts, Hancock said of the government's commitment to LGBT rights globally, championed by Prime Minister David Cameron this weekend, in the light of these asylum cases, "they say one thing and do another." Hancock charged that these cases had been "mishandled" and that others had also been.

Hancock's comments came on the eve of the attempted removal of another gay Ugandan, Kenneth, only stopped because he fought all the way on to the plane and a couple of weeks after the removal of gay Ugandan David, who has subsequently disappeared.

Related articles

• 'Obviously gay' Ugandan asylum seeker faces removal by UK Wednesday (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• How the Home Office is misusing law in gay Ugandan asylum seeker case (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• UK's removal of gay tortured, imprisoned Ugandan stopped at last moment (madikazemi.blogspot.com)

Audio: LGBT asylum in UK: LibDems 'not happy', Labour 'ashamed'

By Paul Canning

The political party conference season has ended in the UK, marking the return to full time politics after the summer break. The season hosted a number of forums where LGBT issues were discussed, and this included LGBT asylum.

At two events, Labour representatives derided their record in government - one called it 'shameful'. The LGBT+ Liberal Democrat was fed up, "not happy, of having to lobby for individual cases. And the Conservatives? One attacked Labour's record, another said the whole system needed overhauling.

At the Labour Party conference LGBT fringe event, the Chief Executive of Stonewall Ben Summerskill, highlighted three things that had gone well over the first year of the Conservative-LiberalDemocrat government. One was "LGB+T asylum seekers not being sent back to countries where they face persecution".

On a round table for BBC Radio Manchester, LGBT+ LibDem Chair Adrian Trett said that LGBT asylum was a "key plank" of their work and that he was far too often lobbying in individual cases. Kevin Peel of LGBT Labour said that the previous government's record "is to Labour's utter shame" and said that his group had "attacked [the previous] government" over the issue. He 'would like to think we would have changed' if Labour had been re-elected in 2010. And he attacked the Coalition's record. The Conservative's Sean Anstey attacked Labour's record and professed his faith in Immigration Minister Damian Green.

There was no reporting of LGBT asylum being raised at the Conservative conference, save from Ben Summerskill (I assume) repeating that it was a Coalition success, however it did feature on the conference floor when Home Office Minister Theresa May's infamous #catgate mistake happened - which involved a gay immigrant, although that became clear only after the event.

Writing for Freedom From Torture, Camilla Jelbart-Mosse said that 'rational discussion' on asylum trumped hysteria at the Conservative conference, but she said that questions were left unanswered for refused asylum seekers living in limbo. Speaking to the conference Damian Green warned party members not to confuse protection via the UK's asylum system with general immigration before reminding everyone that asylum numbers have fallen dramatically in recent years.

Adrian Trett, James Asser (Labour), Matthew Sephton (Conservative) with special guest Claire Mooney answered a question on LGBT asylum at the Lesbian and Gay Foundation's 'Queer Question Time' in Manchester 2 October (audio below).

Trett said "I'm not happy" several times, noting that he was aware that week of one case of a gay Ugandan being removed. He said that the Coalition Agreement commitment - 'not to remove LGBT asylum seekers to danger' - was "not being enforced".

Asser said that the system is "rotten" and one reason why was because all parties are "pretty rotten" on and "run a bit scared" of asylum issues. "My party wasn't very good," he said. He said that training of civil servants remains a problem. Expanding this point in correspondence after the event, Asser said:

"It [isn't] just about the policy it .. also about implementation and the need for better training for and understanding from the people who have to administer the system and the rules."

Sephton said that the asylum system is "in chaos". He claimed that over the past decade there had been "numerous" people falsely claiming asylum and that people who deserve asylum were not getting it and the whole system needed "overhauling".




In none of the comments from party representatives on LGBT asylum which I have either heard or read were serious policy suggestions advanced on how the system could be improved. This contrasted sharply with detailed policy in other areas.

Perhaps most surprisingly, neither of the Coalition's representatives mentioned one substantial and potentially far-reaching change which the government has enacted to its credit - and which they are only the second government in the world to do - namely, recording sexuality-based asylum claims so we will have data on the level of refusals and removals, who they are, where they are from and why.

Related articles

• UK LGBT asylum activists react strongly to Ugandan activist comments (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• Voice of LGBT asylum seekers raised at Manchester Pride (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• Gay Burundian wins UK asylum after eleven year battle (madikazemi.blogspot.com)

Iraqi parliament condemns deportations from Europe

Image via Wikipedia

By Paul Canning

The President of the Iraqi parliament has backed the campaign to stop forcible deportations of Iraqi refugees from the UK and Europe, the International Federation of Iraqi Refugees said yesterday.

Speaking at a meeting organised by the Iraqi Embassy in London 14 October, 0sama al-Nujaifi questioned how European Governments could send people back to Iraq by force when the country was clearly unsafe, with regular bombings and other attacks.

The President and the other MPs present agreed to demands raised by the International Federation of Iraqi Refugees to back a motion through parliament not to accept deportees into Baghdad airport. Iraq has previously refused to accept some refugees sent back to Baghdad airport on individual flights but this move would make this a policy.

Another MP, Ali Abdullah, said a delegation from the parliament had told British government representatives they would not accept Iraqi people deported by force in the future.   

Forcible deportations from the UK to Baghdad are currently suspended at least until November pending a legal challenge questioning the safety of the region. The last attempt to remove asylum seekers was in June. The United Nations has repeatedly said that Iraq remains unsafe.

The International Federation of Iraqi Refugees has reported previously that:

“Many of those who have been deported to Iraq in the past are now living in hiding, in fear of the persecution they originally left Iraq to flee. Some have been assassinated. Others have committed suicide only days after being deported or have been kidnapped and killed, while others have had mental breakdowns. Many more have had to leave the country and become refugees again.”

Deportations to the northern, Kurdish region of Iraq have been suspended since early last year after the government there refused to accept any deportees.

In September Switzerland opened an enquiry into why thousands of Iraqi asylum requests were ignored by the Federal Migration Office over the years.

Between 2006 and 2008 Swiss embassies in Syria and Egypt received some 7,000-10,000 requests for asylum from Iraqi citizens, which were put to one side by the migration office.

Related articles

• Documenting the lives of Iraq's gay refugees (madikazemi.blogspot.com)

Canada accused over visa denial to Kenyan lesbian activist

Source: thefreedominspeech

Video of Kate by Freedom In Speech, the Kenyan LGBT website for which she is a contributor.

Picture Kate Kamunde

By Paul Canning

The Canadian government has twice denied a visa to a established Kenyan lesbian activist - despite a detailed appeal from her sponsoring organisation.

Kate Kamunde was invited to join a rights training session organised by the Women’s Human Rights Education Institutes (WHRI) in Toronto. She is a poet and founded Artists For Recognition and Acceptance (AFRA-Kenya) in November, 2008.

LGBT Asylum News understands that denials of visas to activists from the 'global south' invited to conferences, to give speeches or attend training sessions like the one in Canada are becoming increasingly common as Western governments 'tighten' visa regimes.

Denials of visas to artists giving concerts or having exhibitions has become a serious problem in the UK and the US.

In August the British government denied a visa to Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesra, a leading lesbian activist in Uganda and the 2011 winner of the prestigious Martin Ennals award for Human Rights.

She had been invited to open Foyle Pride in Derry, Northern Ireland.

Nabagesra has attended numerous speaking engagements around the world. The British visa was denied on the basis that it was claimed that she had not provided "evidence of financial ties to their home country which would indicate that they intend to return home at the end of their proposed visit." That is, they thought she may become an asylum seeker.

The decision was reversed after intervention behind the scenes.

In 2009 Ugandan activist Victor Mukasa was named International Grand Marshall for Toronto Pride and invited with three other Ugandan LGBTI activists. Despite sponsor appeals and having all the necessary documentation and travel support only one of them secured a visa.

Updated to add: Just after publication of this article I was informed that Naome Ruzindana of Horizon Community Association in Rwanda has been denied a visa by Belgium - despite having previously visited that country numerous times. She had been asked for the first time for a personal bank statement. She wrote:

"Am so worried that I still have to explain my status even to the [embassy] people I think knows me well. Am so confused that we can still solicit for this to our so called partners in our respective countries."

Update, 18 October: Naome has been granted a visa, following political intervention.

Similarly to Nabagesra, Kamunde's visa was denied in part because the Visa Section of the Canada High Commission in Nairobi questioned "whether the applicant would be likely to leave Canada at the end of his/her authorised stay."

Angela Lytle, the WHRI Executive Director said:

“This being Kate’s second attempt, with our support, to procure a visa to Canada for these purposes, we felt certain that the many institutions supporting her attendance should have enabled her to secure a visa. Kate had full funding from a European funding organization and she had the support of the Kenyan National Human Rights Commission in her home country, as well as our invitation for her to participate in this program."

“We cannot fathom why her visa was denied on the standard grounds that the Canadian High Commission asserts for visa denials without ever clarifying or elaborating upon how those decisions are made."

“Kate is the first Kenyan national we have worked with who has been refused her visa twice, and so we are led to wonder deeply about the grounds upon which they made their decision.”

“WHRI have been offering globally renowned training institutes in women’s human rights at the University of Toronto for eight years, with dozens of participants who have come to Toronto from around the world to participate and then subsequently returning to their home communities to share their learning within their home organizations, institutions and communities.”

Wanja Muguongo, Executive Director of the East African Sexual Health and Rights Initiative (UHAI-EASHRI), told Melissa Wainaina for Behind The Mask:

“Foreign missions need to realise that if indeed their governments are true partners in the struggle for human rights then they need to walk the talk.”

“This process seems unduly prejudiced towards sexual minorities or towards the thought that being a minority makes an applicant more risky and this should never be a factor in their appraisals as it is discriminatory in nature.”

“The missions need to come out clearly on what else they require to allow activists to travel.”

In August in relation to Nabagesra's visa denial, I asked the Home Office (who lead on foreign policy implications of visa decisions according to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office):

Is the Home Office concerned on how the denial of this visa will be perceived internationally as undermining the government's expressed support for LGBT rights in countries such as Uganda? Support which was underlined by the Prime Minister in June?

Given that she has traveled to numerous countries and returned to Uganda to continue her work there, why would the UK believe that she would abandon this and remain in the UK as opposed to any of these other countries?

A UK Border Agency spokesperson said:

"The UK’s reputation for supporting those seeking protection on the grounds of sexual orientation is not in doubt ... However, the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that they meet the immigration rules."

Related articles

• Cautious welcome, concern as UK ties foreign aid to LGBT human rights (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• UK denies leading Ugandan LGBT activist a visa (madikazemi.blogspot.com)

Why don't UKBA believe Ugandan asylum seeker Ms P is a lesbian?

Update 12 October: This article has been altered to anonymise Ms P following a judicial order.

By Karen Doyle

Like so many other lesbians in African nations where homosexuality is illegal, Ms P faced a constant pressure to conform, to marry, to have a boyfriend.

In 1996, she was pressured into a relationship with a man who became her rapist. Despite all of the pressure she had several lesbian relationships, from one with another girl in boarding school in her teens to maintaining a relationship with a woman for a year and a half in 1998.

Her sexuality had to be hidden, her relationships secret; a constant fear of discovery accompanied her daily.

UK Immigration decision makers and judges in Ms P ’s case have shown a complete disdain for lesbian relationships, in one case accusing Ms P ’s long term girlfriend of “exaggerating the lesbian aspect of their relationship”.

The original decision maker found that the fact Ms P used a contraceptive implant as proof that she must be lying about her sexuality. In fact Ms P was both terrified of being raped again and also wanted to regulate difficult periods (there are many reasons for women to use contraceptive). This sexist and demeaning view of lesbian sexuality is not just confined to Ms P ’s case; it is all too common.

Reports of judges/decision makers commenting on women's appearance as proof they are not really lesbians, refusing to accept witness statements from partners and stating that if a woman has ever had sex with men she can’t really be a lesbian. This is part of a general approach the immigration authorities have adopted in order to circumvent the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Home Office could no longer justify deporting LGBT people to countries where they face torture/imprisonment by arguing that they can live ‘discretely’.

This approach imposes extra obstacles on lesbians making asylum claims, because to survive as a lesbian in countries where you are expected to be married young, many have to live double lives, most have been raped, most have had to seek the help of men who demand payment in sex just to escape to safety. Often lesbians fall into these same abusive relationships in the UK because dealing with that kind of trauma and abuse is no easy process, believing that you are free to live as a lesbian is not easy, especially as, to survive in the UK, women often end up in the same national communities they escaped from.

In 2002 in Uganda Ms P was taken into custody following a claim of theft at the army medical centre where she worked. Held in custody for about a month, she was subjected to beatings and rape, she heard that one of her colleagues who had been taken into custody with her had died because of the severity of the beatings.

Ms P says:

“Most of the severe beatings took place when I was resisting being raped. Once I stopped resisting, the beatings became less severe and less frequent”. 

She managed to escape this nightmare with the help of a guard who took pity on her. On the run, she stayed at friends’ and relatives’ houses before managing to obtain a student visa and being able to flee to the UK in 2003.

On arrival in the UK, Ms P found herself in the grips of severe depression; when her photograph was published in a college prospectus she became fearful of discovery and left her course. At that time there was a lot of discussion and rumours in the Ugandan community about a man called Mr Guma who was a Ugandan national working at UKBA ensuring that all Ugandan asylum claims were refused. For this reason she was scared of claiming asylum and had no idea that she could apply for asylum based on her sexuality. Mr Guma was exposed, the rumours proved true and the story reached the news in December 2008.

Her hand was forced when she was discovered in a routine stop by police and taken into detention 24 April 2010. Despite an obviously very complicated case and being a victim of torture, Ms P was placed on 'Fast Track', given just days between each stage in the process.

Ms P ’s initial claim for asylum was refused with just three short paragraphs making the decision not to believe that she is a lesbian.

“You failed to disclose you were a lesbian when asked why you could not return to Uganda during your screening interview and only disclosed it during your asylum interview. This late disclose of evidence is considered to undermine your claim."

"You claim that you have been in a relationship with Miss M since 2008, however you have not provided any evidence to substantiate this part of your claim. You have provided a passport for Miss M by fax along with a witness statement, however it is considered that this witness statement could have been produced by anyone and is completely self serving."

"It must also be noted from your medical records that you have a contraceptive implant and that since you arrived in the UK in 2003 you have had four contraceptive injections a year that were administered by the NHS. It is considered that if you were a lesbian you would not have had a contraceptive injection for the past seven years nor would you have recently had a contraceptive implant.”

The appeal (held 10 days later) went even further to uphold the previous decision, despite Ms P ’s long-term girlfriend appearing as a witness.

“I am not persuaded to the appropriate lower standard that she and the appellant enjoy a same sex relationship. I accept that they are very fond of each other and meet regularly, but they do not live together for reasons that were never explained. I find Ms M was exaggerating the lesbian aspect of their friendship in order to assist the appellant.”

Ms P was scheduled for removal to Uganda 15 June 2010; she switched solicitors because she found out that the solicitor advising her throughout her claim was a central leader of the Ugandan President Museveni’s NRM party in the UK and Ireland. The NRM is the party initiating and driving through the ‘kill gays bill’. Her new solicitor was able to secure her release pending a Judicial Review claim of the decision to deport.

You would think that having had a representative of the ruling party in Uganda as your solicitor would completely undermine the Appeal Tribunal’s decision and lead to allowing a fresh claim - but no! On 2 September 2011 Ms Ms P ’s Fresh Claim was refused.

Despite 12 witness statements, including a statement from an ex-girlfriend, a bar manager who could testify that Ms P went there with her girlfriend, and many photographs of her at gay events - the UKBA still maintain their disbelief that Ms P is a lesbian.

On the question of Ms P ’s previous solicitors leading involvement in the NRM, they found that there was no evidence that he would disclose details of her claim for asylum to the Ugandan authorities. No mention was made of the fact that he did not disclose his involvement in the NRM to her and therefore it was at the very least a serious conflict of interest, compromising her case.

Ms P is appealing the decision to refuse her fresh claim, her appeal hearing is on Wednesday 12 October. She has been active in the fight for immigrant and LGBT rights as a member of Movement for Justice, and she is determined to see that other lesbians do not go through what she has gone through.

• Petition

There is a demonstration at Ms P 's next Asylum Appeal Hearing:

Wednesday 12th October 2011, 9am

Taylor House, Rosebery Avenue, London EC1R 4QU (Short Walk from Angel tube)

Related articles

• UK Home Office again saying Uganda safe to return LGBT asylum seekers to (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• How the Home Office is misusing law in gay Ugandan asylum seeker case (madikazemi.blogspot.com)

New Stonewall guide on LGB asylum in the UK

Stonewall's report last year 'No going back: Lesbian and gay people and the asylum system' revealed that many LGBT asylum seekers are not granted protection because of fundamental errors of judgement and presumptions made by UK Border Agency (UKBA) staff and judges about sexual orientation.

They have just published a guide, 'Asylum and Humanitarian Protection for lesbian, gay and bisexual people', written by City University Law School and sponsored by the Big Lottery Fund and Herbert Smith, which they hope will help those who work with asylum seekers to more fully understand the asylum process for claims based on sexual orientation.

UK Asylum Guide: Asylum and Humanitarian Protection for lesbian, gay and bisexual people

Related articles

• UK Home Office again saying Uganda safe to return LGBT asylum seekers to (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• Breakthrough: UK to record sexuality-based asylum claims (madikazemi.blogspot.com)

Want to lodge a UK asylum claim? Good luck with that

Croydon queues. Image Free Movement

Source: Guardian

By Owen Bowcott

Asylum seekers are being prevented from lodging claims for permission to stay in the UK unless their lawyers threaten legal action, according to the Law Society.

In a strongly worded criticism of shortcomings at the Asylum Screening Unit (ASU) in Croydon, south London, the body which represents solicitors complains of "degrading treatment", telephones constantly engaged or rarely answered and individuals who arrive in person being sent away.

The letter, sent to the head of the ASU and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), highlights concerns voiced by other groups about facilities in Croydon – the only place in the whole of the UK where asylum claims can be made.

Mark Paulson, head of the Law Society's family and social justice section, said that the only certain means of securing an appointment was for solicitors to send in "pre-action protocol" letters on behalf of clients announcing they were instigating judicial review proceedings.

In July, Law Society representatives met ASU officials to raise concerns about problems. The situation, they claim, has deteriorated since then: "In recent months [we have] received reports of asylum seekers who are finding it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to register their claim for asylum, or who experience what appear to be quite unnecessary difficulties ..."

"Our members' experience and others' reports … have highlighted the negative and sometimes quite degrading treatment of people on their arrival at the ASU and the appalling nature of the physical environment which they expected to be in for often prolonged and indeterminate periods of time."

Registering asylum applications as soon as possible is vital for claimants. Any delay undermines the credibility of their case. Without registering, they cannot gain access to benefits or support for accomodation.

The letter contained nine case studies. One detailed the experience of an elderly Zimbabwean woman who caught a bus at 3am in order to arrive at Croydon by 7am where she was given a letter informing her that she was too late to be seen that day.

The Law Society said there was a conflict between the UKBA's role as protector of the nation's borders – keeping people out – and its international treaty responsibilities under the 1951 UN Convention on refugees.

The coalition's commitment to reduce net migration to tens of thousands in the current parliament's lifetime meant that the first duty was being given primacy, Paulson suggested.

The UKBA's website acknowledges that it experiences delays, explaining that:

"The Asylum Screening Unit operates an appointment system and will also accept applicants on a walk-in service. If you choose to use the walk-in service, you should be aware that depending on your personal circumstances, there will be no guarantee that you will be seen. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that you book an appointment."

A number of solicitors raise similar complaints about the ASU in the latest issue of the Law Society Gazette. Alice Boyle, an immigration partner at the law firm Duncan Lewis, said:

"It always takes the whole day to get through (to the ASU) – if you manage at all. Our public law team has considered judicial reviews, but on each occasion an appointment has been secured before any further action was taken."

Alison Stanley, head of immigration at Bindmans solicitors, described her 'Kafkaesque' dealings with the ASU. She said:

"You have secretaries sitting all day pressing the redial button, but never get through, and so you turn up without an appointment. You queue for hours and then get sent away. Telephone us, they say, and make an appointment."

Russell Blakely, an immigration specialist at the law firm Wilson, said:

"The ASU has suddenly become more chaotic which, by coincidence, suits the UKBA. If it's harder to claim asylum, then fewer are going to do so – bringing the statistics down."

In response to the Law Society's letter, the UK Border Agency said:

"We are confident that the care provided to asylum seekers at the Asylum Screening Unit in Croydon is of a good standard.

"Asylum seekers are given access to interpreters and information regarding the asylum process and how to contact legal representatives. UKBA takes complaints very seriously and has processes in place for those using the unit to raise any concerns they may have."

The UNHCR said that it had been working with the UKBA since 2004 on the Quality Integration Project which is designed to improve the agency's processing of asylum claims. It declined to comment on the letter.

Related articles

• Breakthrough: UK to record sexuality-based asylum claims (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• In UK, Border Agency mistakes costing government millions (madikazemi.blogspot.com)

David Mugerwa was removed to Uganda last night

David Mugwera

By Paul Canning

The Ugandan asylum seeker David Mugerwa was removed last night. At the time of writing he is being interrogated by Ugandan Immigration Police at Entebbe airport.

We wrote about David's case on Monday.

Since Monday, new evidence establishing David's sexuality has come forward however, because of the lack of time available since we became aware of the case, although this evidence was submitted yesterday afternoon to UK Border Agency, it was too late to stop the removal. Although David resisted he was handcuffed and otherwise restrained.

His friends are trying to ensure that he is met at the airport, however David was told he was not welcome in his home area, a suburb of Kampala, and members of his family also did not want him to return.

Even if he relocates, it will be impossible for David to be openly gay in Uganda and not face threats from society and also possible arrest. Even as a closeted gay man he will face questioning and possible real threats to his life.

There are a number of disturbing aspects to this case, such as his lawyer not being informed he was detained, as well as unfortunate ones, such as David not finding or realising he did have evidence of his sexuality until too late. In many ways the case is unfortunately typical of how LGBT asylum seekers are failing to receive sanctuary, how - for whatever reasons - the system is failing them. How we are still sending them back when it is not safe to do so.

This is a complicated case but nevertheless all too typical. We hope to look in more detail about both what happened and, with David's cooperation, also look at what he now faces in Uganda. 

UK Home Office again saying Uganda safe to return LGBT asylum seekers to

David Mugwera

By Paul Canning

Another Ugandan asylum seeker is about to be removed from the UK in part because of a flawed legal process. Misquoting legal precedent, the Home Office said Uganda is safe for gay people so long as either they are discreet or they relocate.

This is the third case this year which we are aware of where a lesbian or gay Ugandan asylum claim has in part been refused on this incorrect basis. The precedent ignored by the Home Office is a 2010 High Court decision - 'SB' - which accepted a mountain of evidence from NGOs and other experts of gay men - and crucially in SB's case also of lesbians - being arrested in Uganda just because of their sexual identity and their being persecuted within society.

The case of David Mugwera was considered by Judge AW Khan in Birmingham 3 August. In his decision refusing Mugwera's asylum claim Khan quotes the Home Office saying:

As to risk of return, if the Appellant was found to be credible, he was not at risk in line with decision in JM (2008) UKAIT 0065. Matters have not changed so dramatically that one could depart from JM as a country guidance case in accordance with what was said in SI Ethiopia [2007] UKAIT 0012. One could only depart from country guidance cases in strictly limited situations. The appellant could live discreetly in Uganda out of his own choice. He had claimed asylum because of fear from his family and not from fear from the authorities. He could relocate to another part of Uganda.

The JM decision was that LGBT could be safely returned to Uganda if they relocated and lived 'discreetly' and that Uganda's sodomy law was not used to jail homosexuals. In another Ugandan case we reported in February it was Home Office lawyers quoting 'JM' and arguing that:

"while there may be disapproval of homosexuality, instances of violence and discrimination, there is no persecution."

In the case of another Ugandan, Robert Segwanyi, the Home Office repeatedly cited a decision on his case by Judge Hembrough last November, which also incorrectly quotes JM as precedent, as the reason for rejecting Segwanyi's case - and crucially the Home Office says:

"It is not considered that the treatment of homosexuals in Uganda has significantly worsened since the date of the Immigration Judge's determination" (my emphasis).

Any reference to either discretion or relocation is wrong as the 2010 Supreme Court decision specifically rules this out as a reason for rejecting LGBT asylum claims.

Although the UK Border Agency (UKBA) rejected that Mugwera was gay they did nevertheless suggest that he could relocate to the North of Uganda.

21 year old Mugwera came to the UK last year as a law student and claimed asylum before the end of his visa. His claim has been rejected, he is now without a lawyer and he is due to be removed on Wednesday 28 September at 8pm on Kenya Airways flight KQ410.

He walked in unprepared to the Croydon UKBA office in March and documents we have seen show that there is little physical evidence for his case, it almost entirely relies on his testimony.

We understand that he does not 'present' as gay.

His testimony is that his teenage relationship with another boy in Uganda was discovered and he believes that an aunt used it to blackmail his father (who has since died). When he was discovered with his boyfriend he was beaten by relatives, although this beating is not mentioned in the documents for his case (apparently because he was never asked a direct question regarding this treatment by the UKBA case officer).

His father paid for him to study law in the UK and this was also to 'keep him out of harm's way'. Mugwera had been told that he was possessed by the devil, a common occurrence in Africa. His remaining family has sent him letters disowning him and warning that he should not return. His mother's house was defaced with graffiti after his sexuality became known in the middle-class suburb of Kampala in which he lived.

Mugwera says he decided to claim asylum after receiving the threatening letters. Because of his father's death, Mugwera did not receive the fees to cover his continuing study - Judge Khan suggests that this was why he submitted the asylum claim.

Since he came to the UK he has had only one brief relationship with a married man who he is not in contact with any more. He says he went to the Hoist club in Vauxhall, London, on a few occasions.

Mugwera is not believed to be gay by UK Border Agency because of minor discrepancies in his testimony, primarily because of the dating of his relationship with the boy. He explained the difference was between when they got to know each other and when they started a serious relationship but this difference was taken to seriously undermine his credibility.

Another issue was with the letters from his family disowning him and telling him not to return, one of which had an incorrect date and in which the blackmailing aunt was not mentioned. Although explanations were offered they were not believed and this was taken to undermine his credibility by UKBA.

His previous lawyer's have pointed out that Mugwera "has not exaggerated his case and had not bolstered his asylum claim by saying that he had been to the Hoist Club on more than two occasions and that he had only one relationship in Uganda and another one in the UK."

But the Judge noted that he had not been given evidence that Mugwera had been persecuted in Uganda and that there was no evidence of the blackmail of his father.

He said that the verbal testimony of Mugwera was not enough and that he could have been to the Hoist Club "out of simple curiosity". He rejected the letters as evidence.

The Judge dismisses Mugwera's claim as "contrived". He suggested that as Mugwera would live discreetly in order to not upset his family, therefore the Supreme Court rules were invoked and protection was not needed.

Since the 3 August decision, Mugwera has submitted two letters from friends testifying to his brief relationship with a man whilst in the UK - and therefore to his sexuality - but these were dismissed 18 September by UKBA because they were not submitted with photo ID or other evidence about the friends testimony. We understand that there are others willing to testify about his sexuality.

One of those testifying was Burundian Sherinah Mukasi, whose identification we have sighted. Her sister is a friend of Mugwera's mother and she has been friends with him since he arrived. She knows he is gay and met Mugwera's then boyfriend at a party thrown by her sister.

Mugwera says that he has not been well served. He says that on making his claim he was dispersed (sent) to live in Birmingham and a lawyer provided who did not make efforts to secure evidence which could potentially have convinced a judge, as shown by Mugwera's efforts subsequent to the Immigration Tribunal appearance, by himself, to secure evidence as to his sexuality.

It is unclear from the evidence available to me that Mugwera is gay however it appears that he may not have been well-advised and has not been given a sufficient opportunity to support his claim. Both the judge's decision and the UKBA's makes assumptions about what Mugwera would provide with his claim which Mugwera appears to not realise.

Stonewall's report 'No going back' details why LGBT asylum seekers may be fearful of authorities and in interview not present a complete story. UKBA guidance (see Asylum Policy Instruction (API) published in October 2010) reflects these findings and says that consideration should be made of the traumatised state in which someone may be telling their story:

A common element in the experience of many LGBT applicants is having to keep aspects and sometimes large parts of their lives secret. This may be in response to societal pressure, explicit or implicit hostility and discrimination, and/or criminal sanctions.

Lesbian and gay applicants may feel a strong sense of shame and stigma about their sexual orientation and may feel that persecution they have experienced was caused by this identity. They may also come from cultures where they have never openly discussed their sexual orientation.

For these reasons lesbian and gay asylum seekers may struggle to talk openly about their sexual orientation. An open and reassuring environment will help to establish trust between the interviewer and the claimant, and should help the full disclosure of sensitive and personal information

The judge's decision was that Mugwera would live discreetly in order to not upset his family - therefore the Supreme Court rules were invoked and protection was not needed. The UKBA guidance states that:

If an individual chooses to live discreetly because s/he wants to avoid embarrassment or distress to his or her family and friends s/he will not be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution and will not qualify for asylum. This is because s/he has adopted a lifestyle to cope with social pressures and not because s/he fears persecution due to his or her sexual orientation. If an individual chooses to live discreetly because s/he fears persecution if s/he were to live as openly gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender then s/he will have a well founded fear and should be granted asylum.

The judgment that Mugwera would be voluntarily discreet is not based on any statement by Mugwera in documents we have sighted.

Given the serious question mark over whether Mugwera is gay and given the threats claimed from his family and community, within the context of a worsening and deadly situation for gay people in Uganda, I believe it is unsafe to remove him. He needs new advice and another opportunity to present his case.

Related articles

• How the Home Office is misusing law in gay Ugandan asylum seeker case (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• UK's removal of gay tortured, imprisoned Ugandan stopped at last moment (madikazemi.blogspot.com)
• Ugandan gay refugee recounts horror of imprisonment (madikazemi.blogspot.com)