BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 7849/12
R.O.
against the United Kingdom
lodged on 6 February 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant entered the United Kingdom on 17 February 2007 with a false passport and claimed asylum upon arrival. The basis of his claim was that he had been politically involved with the Kurdish cause in Syria and had suffered problems with the authorities as a result. His asylum claim was refused on 19 March 2007 and his appeal against the refusal of asylum was dismissed on 11 May 2007. He sought reconsideration of the appeal determination but this was refused on 7 November 2007. He made further representations on 28 May 2008, which were rejected as not amounting to a fresh asylum claim on 20 June 2008.

The applicant left the United Kingdom voluntarily and travelled to Germany on 23 May 2009. It is presumed that he subsequently returned to the United Kingdom, as he made further representations on 24 June 2009, which were rejected on 28 June 2009. He made representations on 23 July 2009, which were accepted as amounting to a fresh asylum claim, but refused. His fresh claim was based on his claim that he had been participating in sur place activities in the United Kingdom, such as demonstrations outside the Syrian Embassy in London, and that his family in Syria had been targeted as a result. He claimed that his father had been interrogated by the authorities and had died as a result of his injuries. He was granted a right of appeal against the refusal of his claim.

The applicant’s second appeal was heard by the First Tier Tribunal on 9 April 2010. The Immigration Judge noted that the applicant’s account of events prior to his departure from Syria had been decisively disbelieved by the judge who had dismissed the applicant’s first appeal, and that the applicant had no appeal rights remaining as regards these events. The only new evidence relating to events which predated the applicant’s arrival in the United Kingdom was arrest warrants that the applicant claimed had been issued in respect of his previous activities. However, only one of two alleged warrants had been submitted and the applicant’s expert report did not mention the warrants, let alone authenticate them, and the Immigration Judge therefore did not consider that he could accept the one warrant which he had seen as genuine.

As to the applicant’s claim about his family being targeted as a result of his activities in the United Kingdom, the Immigration Judge found that the applicant’s evidence was vague and unspecific and there was no independent evidence to support his claim. The applicant had not stopped his activities in the United Kingdom or become more discreet in order to protect his family. With regard to the applicant’s sur place activities, the judge found that any attendance by him at any demonstration had been entirely opportunistic. Photographs submitted by the applicant did not necessarily show that he had demonstrated outside the Syrian Embassy in London as he claimed, and given the previous adverse credibility findings and the judge’s own conclusions as to the applicant’s evidence, his own uncorroborated word could not be treated as determinative. There was no evidence that the applicant had been photographed or filmed by Embassy staff. It was not accepted that he would have come to the attention of the Syrian authorities by reason of sur place activities in the United Kingdom, and it had been previously found that he had had no existing political profile when he left Syria. As such, he had not made out a claim to face a real risk upon return.

The applicant made further representations 27 May 2011, which were rejected as not amounting to a fresh claim for asylum on 7 June 2011. None of the information submitted by the applicant was found to advance his claim. He had submitted no evidence to support his claim to be suffering from depression and anxiety. The applicant was taken into immigration detention on 19 January 2012 and directions were set for his removal.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Would the applicant, if removed to Syria, face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention by reason of the general situation of violence prevailing in that country at the present time?

2.  Of what relevance is the fact that other European States, such as the Netherlands and Sweden, have suspended removals to Syria?