Petition Calling for the Protection of the Rights of Refugee's seeking Asylum in the UK.

The rights of an individual to be given safe refuge from persecution in a country other than that of his birth is the established Human Right of Asylum as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect that due consideration should be given to the effect of the process of asylum, the reasons and circumstances in which asylum has been sort, the psychological effect of this process on the claimant, and the effect on the mental health of the individual while his or her claim is being considered.

We believe that it is also reasonable for the officials working within the various departments that deal with Immigration Law and overseeing the Asylum process to have a working understanding of the situation on the ground in the country from which an individual has escaped.

1 Million Zimbabwean Voices has discovered through representation of several Zimbabwean Asylum Seekers in the United Kingdom , that glaring instances of violations of the ECHR Human Rights Act in several instances through the asylum process. This petition serves to call on the British government to consider the presentation of the facts in this document, and undertake to enforce measures to protect the lives and future of people that are still very much in a dangerous and vulnerable position.

In addition to this call we actively encourage the UK Home Office to reconsider its position on the return of Zimbabwean Asylum Seekers to Zimbabwe based on documented comments made by the Hon Theresa Makone, The Home Affairs Minister of Zimbabwe, who stated at a meeting of MDC Officials in Leeds that “I have personally advised my daughter who is resident in Britain not to come home now because the situation is critical. Despite being a minister myself, I have gone into hiding, running away from the very police who report to me. If I am forced to hide away, then what about my daughter?” We challenge the British Government on the basis that if it is alright for the daughter of a Zimbabwean Minister to seek refuge in the United Kingdom and be allowed to stay, then so should average Zimbabwean Asylum Seekers.

Through the following points of law we call on the Home Office to consider its position on Zimbabwe , and reconsider the treatment of asylum seekers being made to suffer an intolerable process to gain their papers in the UK , and to also reconsider its program of returning failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe where many face a clear and present danger.

In Common Law, the state is required to treat people humanely. More than 200 years ago the UK courts stated – “ As to there being no obligation for maintaining poor foreigners before the statutes ascertaing the different methods of acquiring settlements, the law of humanity, which is anterior to all positive laws, obliges us to afford them relief, to save them from starving. ”. [1] 

We hold evidence of Zimbabwean Refugee’s living in the United Kingdom who’s status is yet to be resolved through the process of seeking asylum, who are living on the brink of poverty while not being allowed to seek employment to sustain themselves through this process, with little assistance in legal matters, and being ineligible for public benefits.

The following points are essential if the fundamental rights of the individual are to be protected in accordance with the ECHR Human Rights Act.

A person who is unable to meet his/her “Essential” living arrangements is destitute. [2] If a failed asylum seeker was to require services from a medical practitioner, were to travel to Croydon for any section 4 interview, were to require warm winter essentials, were to have a roof over their head, were to require legal assistance/advice whilst taking into account the level of confidentiality needed in respect to such cases, the asylum seeker were to require food for basic habitable needs, reality is they would fail to do this. They have no money and no means of supporting thierself. [3] Destitution has affected them mentally and physically. The complexity of the application forms, and the constant need of seeking accommodation instead of life enhancements, exasperates them intimately. This continues to affect them as they feel the social exclusion from the community. They are not whole.[4] Had they been given permission to work, they would not have become destitute, and made themselves subject to the desperation they now find themselves under. IF they were to obtain temporary tights to work for meeting their leaving essentials, this would bring innumerable benefits to the public purse. Evidence currently does not support the UKBA’s position that granting work permission will act as a “pull factor” to other immigrants.[5]

Our research uncovered that the Joint Committee on Human Rights issued instruction regarding the Treatment of Asylum Seekers recommended the introduction of a ‘coherent, unified, simplified and accessible system of support for asylum seekers, from arrival until voluntary departure or compulsory departure.[6]

Indeed the committee saw ‘no justification’ for providing asylum seekers and refused asylum seekers by having different support systems in place. A single system whereby all asylum seekers (including pending/refused asylum seekers) receive the same support could bring substantial resource savings by eliminating administration and review costs in a time and place where the government is seeking to cuts costs.

In addition, a single system could encourage asylum seekers to maintain contact with the UKBA rather than the current system which provides little incentive to asylum seekers to retrain from going ‘underground’ if their applications are refused. Furthermore, the proposal to introduce additional distinctions is hardly in keeping with the simplification ethos currently being pursued with the Immigration Simplification Bill 2009. We call on the Government and the Home Office to follow the letter of its own law and address this issue.

In Court [7] it was asked that the judge extend the same reasoning as used in HJ ( Iran ) that an individual found to hold genuine political beliefs should not be required to modify their behaviour or deny their beliefs in order to avoid persecution. An appellant should not be required to pretend that they are loyal to the Mugabe regime, when they are not, in order to avoid persecution. One cannot be expected to lie about their true political beliefs, or lack of them. This must be understood against the background that in the particular case of Zimbabwe, even a lack of political beliefs is dangerous, since those at risk on return to Zimbabwe are no longer restricted to people who are perceived to be members or supporters of the MDC but include anyone who is unable to demonstrate support for or loyalty to the regime of Zanu PF. [8]

In this instance the Court found that a person with no political profile, but who had claimed asylum in the UK , and had been absent from Zimbabwe for a lengthy period of time, should be entitled to asylum, if he is generally credible. 1 Million Zimbabwean Voices has evidence of UK Judiciary involved in the decision of asylum cases stating in their summation in a final appeal for asylum, that they could not understand why loyalty to the Zanu PF regime should be a problem.

We ask for the Home Office to consider different countries; political cultures; political atoms; environmental cultures and aspects; variance in social differences of different countries as well as cultural and social integration and interpretation of political policy. We ask for individual cases not to be dealt with using British common sense as opposed to Zimbabwean common practise. A working understanding of the Political Environment present in Zimbabwe is paramount to understanding and giving each case the due diligence it deserves.

The UKBA Policy on Instruction for Discretionary Leave states that “ It is without doubt that discretion is an essential part of law […] it is not possible to anticipate every eventuality that may arise, so there remains scope to grant Discretionary Leave where individual circumstances, although not meeting any of the other categories, are so compelling that it is considered appropriate to grant some form of leave .” [9]

We believe that a number of fundamental conclusions in the RT warrant consideration in closer detail when considering Zimbabwean asylum claims. [10]

The general proposition is that returnees cannot be expected to lie about their background and circumstances when asked by the authorities. This means that if they have been politically active, they should be entitled to asylum if going home would result in them being forced to hide their opinions in order to avoid persecution. Even someone with a low political profile should also be entitled to asylum since he falls in the category of people who would be unable to demonstrate loyalty to the Mugabe regime. Further, even someone without any political profile should not be expected to lie about the absence of their political beliefs to avoid persecution, as they would be unable to prove loyalty to the Mugabe regime. Credibility remains the critical issue. If someone is generally credible about other aspects of their case, they should be entitled to asylum, even if they have no political profile.

A recent CAB Report found that the quality of decision making within the asylum support process is poor. The report shows that 70% of the asylum claim decisions are overturned for represented applicants. [11] This only highlights the need for continued access to an independent adjudicator. Until there is a substantial imporovement in the quality of decision making, it follows that UKBA is not justified in limiting appeal rights.

1 Million Zimbabwean Voices is particularly alarmed by the punitive measures asylum seekers are made to endure, under a functioning democracy. From the evidence we have seen, asylum seekers have been reduced to data, mere statistics, and sub brackets. Their cases are not being dealt with on individual merit be it from past dealings to date. We fear that the UKBA continues to ignore consideration to the spectre of destitution and the long term negative it has on individuals, dependants, charities and wider organisations. To sate the fact, this whole procedure has costed many relationships, dignity and self respect. The whole process only serves to depress and cause great distress on individuals already vulnerable with the weight of isolation on their shoulders. All too often this has lead to the ultimate sacrifice of life as asylum seekers realise they have no place left to turn, and the prospect of being forcefully returned to the hell from which they have escaped is more than they can bare. Whilst all this is happening, the law was supposed to protect and provide for them. [12]

We call on the government to address the matters we address in this petition. Zimbabwean people are entitled to seek asylum in the country of their choice, and while we do not object to the application process we do feel that the complexity and severe nature of the process has a vastly negative impact on the applicant and the people around them. Further to this, our fundamental Human Rights entitle us to adequate protection and support whilst a refugee seeking safe harbour. This in itself does not suggest we believe that Zimbabwean Refugees should be given an easy ride, nor even that we seek access to benefits on their behalf, but that serious and due consideration is given to the extensive research that has been undertaken to allow refugees the right to work to support themselves while resident in the UK. The benefits to person, the economy and society we believe will be measurable and marked, not only in reward to the public purse, but to the betterment of refugees of all walks of life. We further believe that it is essential for continuous and serious consideration be given to the situation in Zimbabwe . What was the basis for the proposed return of asylum seekers to Zimbabwe two years ago, is most certainly not the case currently. It is a well documented fact that Zimbabwe will not stabilise immediately. Activists are still detained, peaceful protesters are still being beaten, and the rule of law does not seem to be functioning. There are real fears that a humanitarian disaster is looming and with Zanu PF still the ruling regime in Zimbabwe , we have deep rooted concerns that asylum seekers being returned to Zimbabwe are facing real danger of persecution for their failure to support the ruling party. We ask that the UKAB establish a dialogue with Zimbabwean agencies that can advise on individual cases, undertake research on their behalf and advise on the aspects of certain cases in order that claimants are dealt with on a free and fair basis, and not treated as a statistic on a page of figures aimed at meeting targets.

Yours sincerely

The Director

1 Million Zimbabwean Voices

for and on behalf of

The people of Zimbabwe and their Supporters signed below.

Footnotes and reference material.

[1]      (1803) 4 East 103, 102 ER 769 at 770.

[2]      Still Human, Still Here. Briefing paper on destitute refused asylum seekers. 2009.

[3]      ICAR. ‘Destitution amongst refugees and asylum seekrs in the UK .’ 2006.

[4][5] Equality Impact Assessment, page. See Home Office Research Sudy 243 (2002)

Block, A, (2004)Making in work; Refugee Employment in the UK Asylum and Migration Working Paper 2, London IPPR, Refugee Council, Chance or Choice.

[6]      JCHR, ‘The Treatment of Asylum Seekers,’ 10^th report of 2006-07, HL 81-I/HC 60-I 30 March 2007 para. 120-122.

[7]      RT ( Zimbabwe ) & Ors v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 1285.

[8]      per paragraph 258 of RN.

[9]      Current UKBA Asylum Policy Instruction ‘Discretionary Leave’ updated November 2009.

[10]     RT Zimbabwe.

[11]     CAB evidence briefing, ‘Supporting Justice: The case for publicly-funded legal representation before the Asylum Support Tribunal. 2009.

[12]     RN ( Zimbabwe CG) [2008] UKAIT 00083. & ECHR 1950/Human Rights Act 1998.

View Signatures without signing