No-Deportations - Residence Papers for All

                                        News & Views - Monday 9th December to Sunday 15th December 2013

Jeyaseelan Thirukkumaran Won't be Flying This Afternoon

If I am being very honest I will admit that I did not think there was any chance that we could stop Jeyaseelan's deportation. His lawyers had given up all hope and were no longer fighting the case. The legal aid team said that there was so little chance of success that they were not willing to fund further action, and Jeyaseelan could not afford private counsel. And for a multitude of reasons our campaign was launched too late and it just seemed that time was not on our side.

However, after the alert for Jeyaseelan went out, two incredible individuals came forward to offer their legal services Pro-Bono, and this morning they were able to stop the deportation. We are still waiting confirmation of precisely what happened, but we believe that they obtained an emergency injunction. What has been confirmed is that Jeyaseelan will not be deported this afternoon.

I'd like to thank you for all your help and pressure, the Emails you the public send really do make a difference in how the Home Office view the case and how hard they fight. And above all we would all like to thank the lawyers who, in their own time, achieved incredible things, overcame impossible tight time-frames, and saved Jeyaseelan from the Sri Lankan Government.

I spoke to Jeyaseelan several times yesterday and he was incredibly anxious (as you would expect). While he is delighted not to be returned to S.ri Lanka, the psychological torture of having been that close to deportation back to the country where he suffered so terribly, and back to the tormentors who were clearly still waiting for him, was immense. It is worth remembering how incredibly difficult, cruel, and unfair the UK asylum system is for everyone caught up in it.

But for now Jeyaseelan is safe, and for that I would like to thank all of you.

Kind regards,

Fred Carver / info@srilankacampaign.org


Very Urgent only 20 Hours to Save Jeyaseelan Thirukkumaran

Jeyaseelan is a survivor of torture and horrific abuse who fled Sri Lanka for the UK in 2009 - as he had a valid student visa at that time he did not feel the need to claim asylum. However he knew that it would not be safe for him to return to Sri Lanka, a fact that was confirmed when his sister was detained in 2010 and aggressively questioned about his whereabouts. Therefore when his visa expired he attempted to claim asylum. That claim has now been turned down and he is due to be deported at 2pm on Saturday. That is tomorrow.

New Home Office guidance accepts that there is a well founded risk of torture, abduction, and murder for Tamil asylum seekers who are returned from the UK if they are thought to have been connected to the Tamil Tigers (the LTTE). Jeyaseelan was involved with the LTTE briefly in 2006. The Home Office is arguing that this involvement is too brief for him to qualify. But this argument ignores the fact that it is clear that the Sri Lankan Government do not feel that way, as was demonstrated by the manner in which they tortured him and questioned his sister.

Please contact the Home Secretary and Qatar Airways and ask them to use their discretion not to deport Jeyaseelan.

The Home Office chose not to believe Jeyaseelan because of the timing of his claim, and - initially without legal representation - he was unable to persuade them otherwise. But it seems very very likely that if he is returned on Saturday he will be subjected to more of the abuse he has already received.

Please email the home office pscorrespondence@cabinet-office.gsi.gov.uk,
Privateoffice.external@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
and CITTO@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk) and demand that this deportation be stopped.

Please also contact Qatar Airlines and demand that they use their discretion not to fly him. You can contact them on tell-us@qatarairways.com.qa or 0333 320 2454.

Kind regards,

Sri Lanka Campaign

Model letter:

Dear Home Secretary/Qatar airlines

Please use your discretion not to remove Mr Jeyaseelan Thirukkumaran. He is currently slated to be removed on flight QR004/QR658 via Doha to Colombo at 14:15 tomorrow, the 14/12/2013.

Mr Jeyaseelan is a survivor of torture and horrendous abuse. His ordeal, and the questioning of his sister, show that he remains a person of interest to the Sri Lankan Government. While the Home Office may feel that his involvement with the LTTE was fleeting and inconsequential, it is clear from the actions of the Sri Lankan Government that they do not feel that way.

Please do the right thing and make sure Mr Jeyaseelan is not on that flight. If he is then you will be responsible for what happens next.

Kind regards,

etc...

From: F Carver <info@srilankacampaign.org>

The Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice
<http://srilankacampaign.org>http://srilankacampaign.org


Busani Zondo to Court of Appeal
Mr Zondo, a Zimbabwean national, pleaded guilty to possessing an improperly obtained false instrument with intent contrary to s25(1), (2) and (6) of the Identity Cards Act 2006 at Manchester Crown Court in March 2008. He was sentenced to ten monthsÕ imprisonment.

He applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission for a review of his conviction in August 2012. Having considered the case, the Commission has decided to refer Mr ZondoÕs conviction to Court of Appeal because it considers that there is a real possibility the Court will quash the conviction.

The referral is made on the basis that Mr Zondo, who was granted refugee status in 2013, took legal advice to plead guilty when in fact he was entitled to a defence under section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in circumstances where that defence would probably have succeeded.


UKBA: Operational Guidance Note: Nigeria
This document provides Home Office caseworkers with guidance on the nature and handling of the most common types of claims received from nationals/residents of Nigeria, including whether claims are or are not likely to justify the granting of asylum, humanitarian protection or discretionary leave. Caseworkers must refer to the relevant asylum instructions for further details of the policy on these areas.
Published on Refworld, <> 09/12/13

UKBA: Operational Guidance Note: Albania
This document provides Home Office caseworkers with guidance on the nature and handling of the most common types of claims received from nationals/residents of Albania, including whether claims are or are not likely to justify the granting of asylum, humanitarian protection or discretionary leave. Caseworkers must refer to the relevant asylum instructions for further details of the policy on these areas.

1.2 Caseworkers must not base decisions on the country of origin information in this guidance; it is included to provide context only and does not purport to be comprehensive.
< >Published on Refworld: 10/12/13


UKBA: Operational Guidance Note: Jamaica
This document provides Home Office caseworkers with guidance on the nature and handling of the most common types of claims received from nationals/residents of Jamaica, including whether claims are or are not likely to justify the granting of asylum, humanitarian protection or discretionary leave. Caseworkers must refer to the relevant asylum instructions for further details of the policy on these areas.

1.2 Caseworkers must not base decisions on the country of origin information in this guidance; it is included to provide context only and does not purport to be comprehensive.
<>Published on Refworld: 10/12/13

 

MS / FZ (Anonymity Order Made) & SSHD

The appellants' appeals are dismissed on asylum and human rights grounds (Articles 3 and 8 ECHR). The appellants are not entitled to the grant of humanitarian protection.

In relation to a country which is in a state of emergency affecting the life of the nation and which takes measures strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, its ability to afford adequacy of protection under Directive 2004/83/EC (the Qualification Directive) is to be assessed by reference to its general securement of non-derogable rights as set out in the ECHR.

Country guidance

1. Notwithstanding that there is inadequate state protection of Coptic Christians in Egypt, they are not at a general risk of persecution or ill-treatment contrary to Article 3, ECHR.

2. However, on current evidence there are some areas where Coptic Christians will face a real risk of persecution or ill-treatment contrary to Article 3. In general these will be (a) areas outside the large cities; (b) where radical Islamists have a strong foothold; and (c) there have been recent attacks on Coptic Christians or their churches, businesses or properties.

3. On the evidence before the Upper Tribunal, the following are particular risk categories in the sense that those falling within them will generally be able to show a real risk of persecution or treatment contrary to Article 3, at least in their home area:

(i) converts to Coptic Christianity;

(ii) persons who are involved in construction or reconstruction/repair of churches that have been the target for an attack or attacks;

(iii) those accused of proselytising where the accusation is serious and not casual;

(iv) those accused of being physically or emotionally involved with a Muslim woman, where the accusation is made seriously and not casually.

4. Coptic Christian women in Egypt are not in general at real risk of persecution or ill treatment, although they face difficulties additional to other women, in the form of sometimes being the target of disappearances, forced abduction and forced conversion.

5. However, depending on the particular circumstances of the case, Coptic Christian women in Egypt aged between 14-25 years who lack a male protector, may be at such risk.

6. If a claimant is able to establish that in their home area they fall within one or more of the risk categories identified in 3 (i)-(iv) above or that they come from an area where the local Coptic population faces a real risk of persecution, it will not necessarily follow that they qualify as refugees or as beneficiaries of subsidiary protection or Article 3 ECHR protection. That will depend on whether they can show they would not have a viable internal relocation alternative. In such cases there will be need for a fact-specific assessment but, in general terms, resettlement in an area where Islamists are not strong would appear to be a viable option.

7. None of the above necessarily precludes a Coptic Christian in Egypt from being able to establish a real risk of persecution or ill-treatment in the particular circumstances of their case, e.g. if such an individual has been the target of attacks because he or she is a Coptic Christian.

Published on Refworld, <> 09/12/13


Last updated 14 December, 2013