High Court overturns asylum and immigration ruling

The decision against an Eritrean refugee, whose application for entry to the UK was refused, has been overturned by Lord Eassie in a judgement that may smooth the passage of entry and loosen the restrictions on emigres from the Sudan.

The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal had ruled in 2005 that the applicant “N.B.E.” was to be considered as a “draft evader” rather than a refugee.  The applicant was 22 years old at the time, and therefore within the age band for being called up for military service. The IAT had made the judgement, despite the fact that call up draft papers had never been served on N.B.E.

“We have much difficulty in understanding why what was said in those paragraphs must be read as applicable only to “draft evaders” – that is to say, those who had left Eritrea after being served with call-up papers,” said Lord Eassie in his judgement.

“The UNHCR recommendation for temporary protection was made respecting failed asylum seekers generally. Moreover, what particularly weighed with the Tribunal in MA was the reported fate of those recently deported from Malta to Eritrea. The Tribunal noted that the deportees were “of draft age, and were in part at least failed asylum seekers”. Importantly it does not appear from what is narrated of the terms of the UNHCR report in question that those who were deported from Malta were to any material extent “draft evaders”.

“Counsel for Secretary of State submitted to us that since the asylum issue had been considered by the IAT on the alternative bases (cf paragraphs 6 and 20) that the applicant MA was either a draft evader or simply someone of draft age, the passages relating to her human rights claim must be read as applying only with the inclusion of the former basis, namely that of her being a person who was a “draft evader”, but to the exclusion of the latter basis. We are unable to accept that submission.” – the FIRM