Corroborating Evidence in Asylum Applications
Asylum has been headline news with the government announcement of the Illegal Migration Bill and its potential impact on asylum cases if the Bill becomes law and discussions surrounding if the provisions in the Bill are capable of being put in place for legal and practical reasons and enforced.
To immigration solicitors that is a lot of ‘ifs’ but concentrating on current asylum applications there is a recent court of appeal case of help to asylum seekers who often struggle with corroborating evidence in support of claims because of the circumstances of their fleeing their home country.
In this blog, our immigration lawyers look at the case of MAH (Egypt) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 216.
UK Online and London-Based Immigration Solicitors
For advice on asylum and UK immigration law call the expert London immigration lawyers at OTS Solicitors on 0203 959 9123 or contact us online.
Evidence in asylum claims
As immigration solicitors, we often speculate whether those that criticise asylum seekers when they lack corroborating evidence about an aspect of their asylum claim would do any better if they faced the same perils and the need to make rapid decisions that many of those seeking asylum in the UK need to do. It isn’t as if most asylum seekers leave their home country thinking about evidential requirements, most just flee.
In the recent court of appeal case of MAH (Egypt) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 216 the court looked at the issue of credibility of evidence and the need for corroboration and granted refugee status to the claimant.
The claimant, MAH, an Egyptian national who came to the UK at age 14, claimed protection. The claim was initially refused and there was a long history of tribunal proceedings culminating in a tribunal hearing evidence from NAH and again rejecting his claim for lack of corroborating evidence.
MAH’s claim for protection was based on his father’s imprisonment in Egypt believed by MAH to be down to his father’s membership of the Muslim Brotherhood. By the date of the tribunal hearing, MAH’s father had passed away and MAH and his immigration solicitors had not obtained corroborating evidence from Egypt (for example, from the father’s Egyptian criminal law solicitors) on the reasons for his father’s conviction and imprisonment and evidence of his father’s political affiliations.
Based on the lack of corroboration, MAH’s evidence was said to not be ‘truthful’ and therefore could not be relied upon. MAH appealed to the court of appeal arguing that the lack of supporting evidence did not inherently make his evidence unreliable.
Standard of proof in asylum claims
In his appeal to the court of appeal, MAH said that the tribunal applied the wrong standard of proof to his claim and he should not have been required him to produce corroborating evidence in support of his claim for refugee status.
The court of appeal said:
- There is a lower standard of proof in asylum claims. The requirement is that the claimant’s fear of persecution must be well-founded and that the claimant must be able to demonstrate a reasonable degree of likelihood that they will be persecuted if returned to their home country
- An asylum claim involves the tribunal or court undertaking an assessment of risk to the claimant if returned to their home country
- The risk assessment does not require the tribunal or court to make findings of fact on all the evidence as the tribunal or court simply needs to consider credibility after a critical survey of all the evidence and identify the relevant evidence and explain and give reasons for whether the tribunal accepts or rejects the evidence
- There is no requirement to produce corroborative evidence in support of an asylum claim though an absence of easily obtainable evidence could be used to draw an inference on the claim
The court of appeal concluded that MAH’s asylum claim should not have been rejected on the basis of lack of corroborative evidence as lack of corroboration did not affect truthfulness.
The lesson behind the case is that MAH did not know all the detail behind his father’s arrest in Egypt and his political links but MAH did have a genuine fear of persecution hence his arrival in the UK as a teenager. Full detail and supporting evidence aren’t prerequisites for a successful asylum claim.
UK Online and London-Based Immigration Solicitors
For advice on asylum and UK immigration law call the expert London immigration lawyers at OTS Solicitors on 0203 959 9123 or contact us online.
Related Posts
OTS Solicitors Celebrate the 2023 Legal 500 London Immigration Rankings
Business Immigration Solicitor Hans Sok Appadu Nominated for Rising Star Award 2022