Tribunal decisions

The decision

Heard at Field House

APPEAL NO HX 03902-2002
On 21 August 2002

IP (Risk-Maoist) Nepal CG [2002] UKIAT 04038

IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL

Date Determination notified:

...29.08.2002.......

Before:

Mr P R Moulden (Chairman)
Mr R. Hamilton

Between

INDRAMAN KHORJA PUN

APPELLANT

and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

RESPONDENT

DETERMINATION AND REASONS

1. The Appellant is a citizen of Nepal who has been granted leave to appeal the determination of an Adjudicator (Ms C. J. Wright) dismissing his appeal against the Respondent's decision to refuse to grant him leave to enter the United Kingdom and to refuse asylum.

2. Ms S. Sharma of Counsel instructed by Davies Blundon and Evans appears for the Appellant. Mr S. Walker a Home Office Presenting Officer represents the Respondent.

3. The Appellant arrived in United Kingdom on 13 May 2001 and claimed asylum. The notice containing the decision against which he appeals is dated 24 June 2001. The Adjudicator heard the appeal on 3 April 2002 and leave to appeal was granted on 24 June 2002.

4. The Adjudicator found that the Appellant was a credible witness. She accepted, in paragraph 10 of her determination, that he was a farmer in Nepal, married with four young children, who had never been a member of a political party. The Maoists had tried to recruit him. In February 2001 a group of them came to his home to try and persuade him to join them and to obtain a gun, which he kept. He handed this over. He and his family were threatened and intimidated. The Appellant went to the police, even though the nearest police station was four hours walk away. There was no vehicular access to his area. The Appellant was able to identify one of the men who came to his house and the police arrested that man. Subsequently, a group of Maoists went to the Appellant's home, but he was not there. They told his wife that if they caught him they would take revenge because he had informed on them. The Appellant decided to leave, fled to India, and worked there for approximately two and a half months before making arrangements to come to the United Kingdom with financial help from his uncle. His wife and four young children remain in Nepal.

5. The Adjudicator went on to find that the Appellant came from an area where the Maoists were not in control. He was not particularly targeted by them and did not face any greater risk than an ordinary citizen of Nepal. He could move to another part of Nepal, particularly one not controlled by the Maoists, and resume a normal life. He might be difficult for him to find a job, but he had been able to find a job when he spent time in Delhi. He would not be at risk of harassment or persecution by the Maoists if he returned to a part of Nepal other than his home area. The Adjudicator dismissed the human rights and Refugee Convention appeals.

6. Mr Walker submitted that the Maoists in other parts of Nepal would not know that the Appellant was an informer. He had never been a Maoists and had provided them with his gun when they demanded it. It was not likely that they would identify him in another part of Nepal. Mr Walker conceded that the Adjudicator did not specify which part of Nepal the Appellant could go to. He also accepted there were Maoists throughout Nepal and the country information showed that they took revenge on informers.

7. The Adjudicator did not make a specific finding that the Appellant would be at risk of persecution or infringement of his human rights in his home area. However, her other findings imply that she did in fact reach this conclusion. She found that the Maoists in his home area had threatened the Appellant. She found that they targeted suspected informers (paragraph 10 (c) of the determination). She went on to consider internal flight to another part of Nepal, which would not have been necessary had she not decided that the Appellant was not at risk in his home area. She found that the police would not be able to provide him with a sufficiency of protection in his home area. She would not have needed to consider sufficiency of protection if he was not at risk.

8. To make clear that which the Adjudicator did not make clear; we find that the Appellant would be at risk from the Maoists in his home area. The country information shows that they take revenge on informers. In the light of the Adjudicator's findings of fact, they would regard him as an informer. In his home area he has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, namely perceived political opinions contrary to those of the Maoists, and he faces a real risk of infringement of his human rights under Article 3. The country information shows that the Maoists are likely to be violent and severe in exacting revenge.

9. It appears that the Adjudicator went on to consider whether internal flight would be unduly harsh, although she does not specifically refer to the appropriate test. We agree with her conclusion that it would be difficult for a farmer to find a job in another part of Nepal. The fact that the Maoists did not find him when he was working in Delhi is not particularly relevant to the question of whether they would find him in Nepal. The observation that the Appellant is not likely to be at risk in another part of Nepal because the Maoists have already got his gun flies in the face of the Adjudicator's other conclusions, that they were looking for him because he had informed on one of their colleagues and that Maoists exact revenge on those they regard as informers.

10. The country information shows that there are Maoists throughout Nepal. They are well organised and numerous. They are likely to be looking for him in his home area, where he would be at risk. Against this background there is a real risk that he would be identified and targeted by them in any part of Nepal. We find that he is at risk throughout Nepal. Even if we are mistaken in this regard, in all the circumstances we find that it would be unduly harsh to expect him to relocate.

11. The Appellant has established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason and that his Article 3 human rights are likely to be infringed.

12. We allow the appeal.

…………………………………….
P. R. Moulden - Vice President