FB (Risk, Class, Midgan) Somalia

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, a citizen of Somalia, arrived in the United Kingdom around 10 November 2001 and claimed asylum on 15 November 2001. The Respondent made a decision dated 31 January 2002 refusing asylum and directing removal. The Adjudicator dismissed the Appellant's appeal following a hearing on 23 July 2002. Leave to appeal was granted on 29 October 2002.

The Appellant claimed a fear of persecution in Ethiopia, where she had lived in a refugee camp, and in Somalia, particularly due to her membership of a minority social group known as the Midgen, described as an underclass outside the Somali clan and sub-clan structure. The Appellant detailed multiple incidents of violence and rape connected to her minority status, supported by medical evidence of severe injuries.

The Adjudicator accepted the material facts of the Appellant's account but concluded that the totality of her experiences did not amount to persecution and that she had not established a Convention reason for asylum. The Appellant challenged these findings on appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant's experiences amounted to persecution under the Refugee Convention.
2. Whether the Appellant's membership of the Midgen minority constituted a particular social group for Convention purposes.
3. Whether the Appellant faced a real risk of persecution or infringement of Article 3 human rights if returned to Somaliland or Somalia.
4. Whether internal relocation within Somalia or Somaliland was a reasonable alternative to removal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant suffered persecution due to her membership of the Midgen minority, a socially and ethnically distinct underclass.
• The Adjudicator erred in finding that the Appellant's delay in leaving the refugee camp weighed against her claim, as the delay was reasonably explained by financial hardship.
• The Appellant faced a real risk of persecution if returned to Somaliland or Somalia, including risk to her human rights under Article 3.
• Internal relocation to Mogadishu or Puntland was not a reasonable or safe alternative due to lack of family support and vulnerability as a Midgen woman.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent contended that the Appellant's experiences did not amount to persecution.
• The Respondent argued that the Appellant had not established a Convention reason for her claim.
• It was submitted that internal relocation within Somalia was available and would mitigate any risk.
• Country information suggested the Midgen did not face persecution merely because of their ethnic origin and that their situation improved in some areas.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court accepted the material facts of the Appellant's account, including the serious physical and sexual assaults she suffered, supported by medical evidence. It rejected the Adjudicator's conclusion that these did not amount to persecution and found that the Appellant established a Convention reason through her membership of the Midgen minority, a particular social group characterized by social exclusion and racial elements.

The court critically analyzed country information, contrasting the Respondent's more optimistic reports with detailed evidence from fact-finding missions and expert reports demonstrating the Midgen's ongoing discrimination, social and economic marginalization, and vulnerability to violence without clan protection.

The court found that the Appellant's experiences in the refugee camp reflected the broader conditions she would face in Somaliland and Somalia, affirming a real risk of persecution and infringement of Article 3 rights upon return. The court further held that internal relocation was not a reasonable or viable option due to the Appellant's lack of family support and the dispersed, vulnerable status of the Midgen population.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED the Appellant's appeal on both Refugee Convention and human rights grounds.

This decision results in the refusal of the Respondent's direction for removal and the granting of asylum or protection to the Appellant. The ruling confirms that membership of the Midgen minority constitutes a particular social group under the Refugee Convention and affirms the recognition of social and racial persecution in this context. No broader precedent beyond the facts of this case and the cited Tribunal determination was established.