FK (SDF member/activist, risk) Cameroon CG

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns the reconsideration of an appeal against the respondent's decision dated 10 September 2001, which gave directions for the appellant's removal following the refusal of her asylum claim. The appellant, a citizen of Cameroon born in April 1973, arrived in the United Kingdom on 16 December 2000 and claimed asylum on 20 December 2000. Her claim was based on political persecution due to her and her family's involvement with the Social Democratic Front (SDF), the main opposition party in Cameroon opposing the ruling Cameroon Peoples' Democratic Movement (CPDM).

The appellant's father joined the SDF in 1990 and died in 1997 following an attack by agents aligned with the ruling party. The appellant and her brother held positions within the SDF locally. After publicly condemning the ruling party, the appellant was abducted and seriously injured in a staged car accident in May 1999, and later detained and repeatedly raped in April 2000. She escaped detention in August 2000 and subsequently left Cameroon.

The respondent refused her asylum application in September 2001. After an initial appeal dismissal in 2002 and judicial review quashing a refusal of permission to appeal, the appeal was remitted and allowed by an adjudicator in 2004. The respondent was granted permission to appeal, and in November 2005 the Tribunal found material errors of law in the adjudicator's decision, specifically the failure to address a significant letter from the British High Commission in Cameroon which cast doubt on the appellant's claims. The Tribunal directed a rehearing of the appeal with further evidence to be filed, particularly concerning the risk faced by SDF members upon return to Cameroon.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the appellant has a well-founded fear of persecution on return to Cameroon due to her political opinion and activities.
2. Whether the adjudicator's failure to address the High Commission's letter constituted a material error of law requiring rehearing.
3. The assessment of the risk to the appellant on return, considering the current political situation in Cameroon and the appellant's individual profile.
4. The applicability of the Refugee Convention, humanitarian protection, and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the appellant's case.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

• The letters from the British High Commission seriously undermine the appellant's claims, indicating contradictions and inaccuracies in her evidence regarding her position and the party's structure.
• The evidence relating to the television broadcasts and dates of detention was inconclusive and inconsistent.
• There was no objective evidence that mere membership of the SDF would place the appellant at risk.
• The appellant's account of events, while supported by medical evidence of injury, was not credible as to the cause and circumstances.
• The political situation in Cameroon has improved, and the appellant's participation in demonstrations in the UK would not be known to Cameroonian authorities or place her at risk.
• It would be safe for the appellant to return to Cameroon.

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant provided a credible and consistent account corroborated by her son's evidence, medical reports, and statements from a senior SDF member.
• Documentary evidence confirms her membership and active role in the SDF, including letters from local party officials.
• The High Commission's doubts were offset by further evidence, including testimony that governmental human rights bodies consulted were unreliable or government-sponsored.
• The appellant's risk arises from her individual circumstances and past persecution, not mere party membership.
• There is a real risk of persecution or serious harm on return due to her political activities, family connections, and association with prominent opposition figures.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal found that the adjudicator committed a material error of law by failing to address the significant letter from the British High Commission, which was crucial evidence undermining the appellant's claim. This omission warranted a rehearing of the appeal. The Tribunal examined the appellant's evidence, including corroboration by medical reports and statements from a senior SDF official, alongside the respondent's evidence from the High Commission and other sources.

The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the appellant's evidence but found them insufficient to undermine her overall credibility, especially given the low standard of proof applicable. The political background in Cameroon was carefully considered, including reports indicating some improvement but ongoing risks for prominent opposition figures. The split within the SDF and the appellant's alignment with a faction critical of the ruling party were relevant to assessing risk.

Applying the standard for asylum and humanitarian protection, the Tribunal concluded there was a reasonable likelihood of persecution or serious harm amounting to a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights if the appellant returned to Cameroon. The history of persecution, ongoing political tensions, and the appellant's personal profile justified this conclusion.

Holding and Implications

The Tribunal substituted the adjudicator's decision and allowed the appeal on both asylum and human rights grounds.

This decision directly grants the appellant protection and prevents her removal to Cameroon. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the ruling clarifies the application of existing legal standards to the appellant's specific circumstances, emphasizing the importance of addressing all material evidence in asylum appeals and carefully assessing individual risk profiles in politically sensitive contexts.