UK

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 14° London Hi 14°C / Lo 8°C

Immigration judges: 'Afghanistan is not in a state of war'

Ruling paves way for asylum-seekers to be returned

By Robert Verkaik, Home Affairs Editor

A judgment has ruled that Afghanistan is not an unsafe place to return asylum-seekers, despite bomb attacks throughout the country

Rex Features

A judgment has ruled that Afghanistan is not an unsafe place to return asylum-seekers, despite bomb attacks throughout the country

Hundreds of Afghans living in Britain face being deported after immigration judges ruled that their home country's bloody conflict did not make the region an unsafe place to return failed asylum-seekers.

The test ruling opens the way for deportation flights to southern parts of the war-torn country where thousands of civilians have lost their lives since the toppling of the Taliban in 2001.

Three judges of the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal ruled on Wednesday that the level of "indiscriminate violence" was not enough to permit Afghans to claim general humanitarian protection in the United Kingdom. Hundreds of asylum-seekers a year are returned to Afghanistan if they have not convinced a court they are in fear of persecution or that their lives are in danger. The ruling on Wednesday prevents them from arguing that the country is a dangerous place.

Last night refugee campaigners said the situation was much more dangerous than it was being represented by the UK Government and the courts.

A spokesman for the charity Refugee and Migrant Justice said: "It is now going to be very difficult for people from Afghanistan seeking asylum in Britain to win their claim by arguing that Afghanistan is a dangerous country. This decision really does take us back to square one."

Peter Kessler, the UN Refugee Agency's senior external affairs officer in the UK, said: "We are in disagreement with the conclusion that there can be returns during the winter months. The UNHCR has consistently advised that returns should not take place over the winter months (mid-October to 31 March), and only individuals from Kabul with family or other support structures may be returned."

The judges said: "Nobody is suggesting that the situation in Afghanistan is anything but a very long way short of ideal but... the numbers of civilians killed by indiscriminate violence turns out to be a great deal less than might otherwise have been expected."

Turning down an asylum claim by a Afghan man, 20, from Nangarhar, the court ruled that civilian casualty figures were not high enough to warrant protection under European law.

The judgment also made it clear that an asylum-seeker had to show why it was not possible to be relocated to another part of Afghanistan if they had succeeded in proving that they faced persecution in their own region.

Lawyers for the Home Office argued in court that progress by the US military had "yielded results". Evidence submitted by the Government showed that apart from one incident when an air strike erroneously targeted a wedding celebration, killing 37 civilians, there was a reduction in civilian casualties caused by pro-government forces.

In the judgment, the three senior immigration judges observed: "It is very difficult, from reading a number of qualitative reports concerning various incidents occurring in different parts of a country, to get a reliable feel for what is really going on. Many of the incidents are reported more than once, and the political stance of those reporting the incident is not always clear."

Last year 3,800 Afghans, of whom 1,185 were asylum-seekers, were returned to Afghanistan.

*A British soldier was killed by a blast in southern Afghanistan yesterday. The serviceman, from the Royal Military Police, died while on a foot patrol near Gereshk district centre in Helmand Province. Lt-Col David Wakefield, spokesman for Task Force Helmand, confirmed the soldier's death in an explosion. "He died doing his duty and we will remember him," he said.

Case study: Sent back to his death

Abdullah Tokhi, 35, repeatedly pleaded while seeking asylum in Britain that his life was in danger because of a sectarian and political blood feud back home. But the Government at the time decided that Afghanistan was now a safe place thanks to the intervention of Britain and the US, and Mr Tokhi was returned to his village. A year later he was dead, shot while walking in a crowded street in a bazaar.

The account given by Mr Tokhi in his asylum application stated that the family originally lived in Bangarak in the Kalakan region in the north at a time when the ruling Taliban, overwhelmingly Pashtun, carried out widespread persecution of the Tajik population in the area. After the US and British invasion of 2001, the Northern Alliance, predominantly Tajiks and Uzbeks, took control and began hunting down those who had helped the Taliban.

As Mr Tokhi continued his efforts to stay in Britain, the situation in Afghanistan deteriorated, with regions falling into lawlessness. The Taliban moved back into this vacuum. Mr Tokhi's apprehension about his family's safety increased after reports that his enemies had tracked his family to their home in Paghman. Mr Tokhi's application for asylum was turned down by the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, as was his appeal. He returned to Afghanistan in September 2004 and was killed in autumn 2005 .

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Vacation in Kabul
[info]marph45 wrote:
Friday, 23 October 2009 at 12:38 am (UTC)
Free vacation must be offered to this judge with all expenses paid to spend a week holiday in Afghanistan. A very peaceful! country, with plenty to do.
That's why we've just sent 500 extra troops, right?
[info]reinertorheit wrote:
Friday, 23 October 2009 at 12:47 am (UTC)

The finest judiciary money can buy.
And for the rest..
[info]rasmuncher wrote:
Friday, 23 October 2009 at 02:22 am (UTC)
of the 25 million people who have no option but to remain there, they are obliged to get on with their lives while the two groups of criminals vying for power go about it.

What is the solution for the people from Refugee and Migrant Justice, that they should take anyone who wants to leave?

The fact of the matter is that there are twenty countries separating UK from Afghanistan, each able to provide a measure of separation from the the fighting if that is their concern. Boil it down and like most other illegal immigration, it really becomes a matter of economics that has little or nothing to do with security, that is the problem. I have worked in Afghanistan for three and half years on and off since 2002 and have seen IDPs use every excuse under the sun to leave or climb aboard the gravy train. It is dangerous if you are involved.

They can avoid the insecurity by not being involved, the same as the rest of the people who have no option.
Re: And for the rest..
[info]uanime5 wrote:
Friday, 23 October 2009 at 10:41 am (UTC)
Agreed, the Afghans should go to their neighbouring countries if they feel Afghanistan is too dangerous, rather than use the war as an excuse to move to the UK.
Re: And for the rest..
[info]starlingnl wrote:
Friday, 23 October 2009 at 02:16 pm (UTC)
I'd say you have to be pretty desperate to want to move to the UK ...
Re: And for the rest..
[info]starlingnl wrote:
Friday, 23 October 2009 at 02:16 pm (UTC)
I'd say you have to be pretty desperate to want to move to the UK ...
UK Immigration policy - effective or not?
[info]mannygoldstein wrote:
Friday, 23 October 2009 at 03:38 am (UTC)
Ignoring the BNP sideshow at the BBC, is UK immigration policy effective or not?

Given the recent Office of National Statistics report that this policy will result in the British population rapidly exceeding seventy million, primarily concentrated in the south-east of the country, what impact will this have upon British society?

The Cross Party Group on Balanced Migration, chaired by Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, propose to cut the current level of immigration by 75% to prevent the population exceeding seventy million. In practical terms that means restricting entry and enforcing repatriation for those who are refused the right to remain in the UK.

The decision/ruling by the judges above will facilitate the removal of those refused the right to remain in the UK.
What..?
[info]thisanthat wrote:
Friday, 23 October 2009 at 03:39 am (UTC)
Shows what sheltered lives these bewigged wonders lead! Wonder what planet he/she is from???
God, it might be nice to live in a world
[info]steerpike66 wrote:
Friday, 23 October 2009 at 05:53 am (UTC)
where justice won out once in while and where we all didn't have to live in the shadow of pity, horror and guilt all the time. The effort of pretending that this miserable shithole is a nice place is driving pople literally out of their minds, and they're not even the ones who are really suffering!
No more comments
[info]over325one wrote:
Friday, 23 October 2009 at 06:09 am (UTC)
Why are we permitted to comment on this story but not other ones? This newspapers is biased beyond belief. Afghanistan or a horrible UK housing estate. Not much difference really.
Uggs On Sale,Classic UGG Boots,UGG Bailey Button,UGG Lo Pro Button,UGG Classic Cardy|EZUGG,Inc.
[info]forevernumber1 wrote:
Friday, 23 October 2009 at 06:33 am (UTC)
Our greatest glory uggs boots consists not in never falling but in rising every ugg lo pro button time we fall.It is not enough ugg boots to be industrious, so are the ants. What are you industrious about ugg knightsbridge? You have to believe in yourself. That's the ugg bailey button secret of sucess. A wise man never loses anything if he has himself. To be without some of the things you want is an indispensable part of happiness. http://www.ezugg.com/
What a shame....
[info]smarttog wrote:
Friday, 23 October 2009 at 06:48 am (UTC)
It's a great shame that our judiciary cannot bring it self to show some humanity....
Re: What a shame....
[info]rain1950 wrote:
Friday, 23 October 2009 at 07:04 am (UTC)
It's a shame we have been dragged into an illegal war. This war had nothing to do with 9/11
Why: War in Iraq and Afghanistan http://wp.me/p4271-1su in case anyone missed it.
Not at War is the Judge Nuts
[info]rain1950 wrote:
Friday, 23 October 2009 at 06:55 am (UTC)
There is a war in Afghanistan and people are being killed almost daily.
I am confused.
There is an interesting Video about another reason for the "War in Afghanistan".
http://tinyurl.com/yjvx34u

Thought you might be interested in this as well.
British UN nuclear expert may have been murdered, police say
http://wp.me/p4271-1vf

There is a war there I am sure of it.Isn't that where soldiers and civilians have been dieing or have our Governments been joking with us. AUUUUHHHHHHHHH
Ever want to slap someone for stupidity?????
Re: Not at War is the Judge Nuts
[info]smarttog wrote:
Friday, 23 October 2009 at 09:09 am (UTC)
Ask the forces whether they think they are at war or not...
Get a cat, get to stay.
[info]rassendyl wrote:
Friday, 23 October 2009 at 08:28 am (UTC)
Within the last week, there were newspaper reports that an illegal immigrant had been allowed to stay because a judge felt he/she had established a home life here by owning, or part owning, a cat. So we can accept this as a reason for granting asylum but not fighting and terrorism in your town, street, house.....? Somebody should do a saliva test on English Judges and find out what they're smoking or sniffing.
Re: Get a cat, get to stay.
[info]sacster wrote:
Friday, 23 October 2009 at 12:11 pm (UTC)
oh come on, that article was badly misinterpreted. the man in question was given a visa to stay because he successfully established that he was in a long-term relationship with a british person. among the many things used to prove this was a claim to joint pet ownership. it's silly to take that one fact out of context and say 'it was because of a cat'.
WAR WAR WAR!!!!
[info]smarttog wrote:
Friday, 23 October 2009 at 09:29 am (UTC)
When will this cowardly government face up to what they are responsible for??

They started two wars and we are still involved in one of them..

It's not rocket science....Members of our brave armed forces are being killed, Afghans are being killed. While the cowards that started it all hide away manipulating and manoeuvring the facts.

They don't even have the balls to recognise what is going on in Afghanistan and send in sufficient forces and equipment to bring a conclusion to it.

You can't treat WAR zones like a Whitehall departments and cut back when it's all getting too expensive..

Yes Judges we are at WAR, for no apparent reason and it is about time that was recognised.....
Having it all ways ...
[info]john_b_ellis wrote:
Friday, 23 October 2009 at 09:40 am (UTC)
The most depressing thing about this is the facility with which the leaders of our society simply say what suits them.

When it's politic to say there's war in Afghanistan - or indeed anywhere else where we dabble - then they lecture us that we're at war, whether the argument is for keeping the troops there or sending more, or whether it's for the erosion of our civil liberties in the face of the terrorist threat.

When it doesn't suit, then there's no war - or, to be fair, I suppose, that it's only a little war that isn't that significant on the ground!

Nick Griffin is being lampooned just now for his greasy evasions on last night's "Question Time", and rightly so. But he's not alone. Mainstream politicians, and the organs of state, routinely do the self-same thing. If the judges had based their decision on the argument that the asylum seeker concerned had any number of places in which he could have sought refuge on his way to the UK, they could at least have carried some credibility and maintained their integrity.

But the main argument on which this judgement is based is simply ludicrous, and yet another indication of the shabbiness of too many people in positions of responsibility in public life, and the consequent decay of our institutions.
??????????????????
[info]geo32 wrote:
Friday, 23 October 2009 at 10:57 am (UTC)
To the judges living on planet La La land I suppose that all the deaths of civilian and military personnel are either accidental, self inficted or suicides.

Roadside bombs are just kids setting of firecrackers and destroyed buildings the fault of building design and construction.

How can we begin to understand the words and decisions of these senile judges?

Perhaps we should allow them to watch television and read newspapers about what is happening in the REAL world

Another suggestion is ask Thomson Holidays to arrange an all inclusive package and let them enjoy the luxury and of delights of Afghanistan

I am not in favour of huge influxes of asylum seekers or illegal immigrants but at the same time serious consideration should be taken when returning them to war zones as is the case in Afghanistan
Send the immigration judges to Afghanistan...
[info]freddyfresh wrote:
Friday, 23 October 2009 at 11:30 am (UTC)
Then force them to live on the streets so they can see the daily carnage and bloodshed. Our country illegally invaded theirs, the least we can do is look after the people who seek refuge in the UK.
Oh, what it is then, if it isn't part of the "WAR ON TERROR?"
[info]arion444 wrote:
Friday, 23 October 2009 at 05:20 pm (UTC)
Those judges have been weighed, and measured, and in the eyes of Truth, have been found as severely wanting. Do not look for justice from humans. That has never worked...unless people stand in sovereignty, dignity and autonomy and choose their God-given freedom.

More drivel and doublespeak from the bench. Ptah!
That's right. Those are doughnuts dropping from US & NATO Bombers
[info]afghant wrote:
Friday, 23 October 2009 at 07:27 pm (UTC)
The nerve. Afghanistan is not in a state of war. All the Afghan civilian corpses you see are just of people who were so struck with joy at the sight of US & NATO forces that they simply dropped dead. The UK soldiers who died there - that was from drinking tainted water. Those things falling from our war planes and those of US & NATO, they are only crates of doughnuts. Naturally when you drop a crate of 18 tons of doughnuts & candy it will make a bang - and again some people will die of fright. And while we are at it you may as well know that Israel never bombed Gaza. The UN simply lied. All those gory images you saw on the telly of men, women and children torn to bits that was all a ruse by the Palestinians as they covered themselves with Ketchup and played dead. Israel in fact acted out of compassion and dropped exploding bon bons on the Palestinians. That was not Phosphorous in them, it was them chocolates it was too. Of course the Palestinians all died as they killed each other fighting for the goodies. For the record we Brits, the Americans and NATO are in Iraq and Afghanistan as we westerners are full of the milk of human kindness and are only out there giving warm hugs and hot chocolate to all those poor souls.
Lame Decisions
[info]royb55 wrote:
Friday, 23 October 2009 at 09:44 pm (UTC)
? The judges said: "Nobody is suggesting that the situation in Afghanistan is anything but a very long way short of ideal but... the numbers of civilians killed by indiscriminate violence turns out to be a great deal less than might otherwise have been expected."

How did it come to this? What a sad day for England, so much for the right of law let alone common decency. How many "insurgents" do you think this ruling created? and how many industries that want partners will now turn to China to do business. No wonder Great Brittian is losing out world wide.

And why not print the names of judges who make these decisions? Let them be identified with their rulings..

great views, tan by the pool.
[info]lafrance2010 wrote:
Friday, 23 October 2009 at 10:43 pm (UTC)
Fab, when can I book my holiday there?! Afghanistan is truly a really beautiful country, I was going to wait until the war, sorry "war" was over to visit but apparently it's safe now.

uanime5 wrote "Agreed, the Afghans should go to their neighbouring countries if they feel Afghanistan is too dangerous, rather than use the war as an excuse to move to the UK." Iran and Pakistan have taken in a million Afghan refugees each. Indonesia has taken in huge numbers. Australia, Turkey, Greece, Italy, Tajikistan have all been reporting the same for a long time as are the Scandinavian countries.

Asylum seekers receive much the same benefits from the French state as the British. Housing, 350euros/month.

A great article written this week by two journalists living in Kandahar: http://tinyurl.com/FPalex
Deport them
[info]richardm30 wrote:
Saturday, 24 October 2009 at 03:50 am (UTC)
What is it about asylum-seekers wanting to leave their own country and culture instead of wanting to fight for it. The always go on about outsider occupying their country yet at the first sign of trouble they leave - not for China or India - but for Europe. They belong in Afghanistan - they should fight for their freedom there - not simply run away. In reality, of course, they are economic migrants which think that the UK owes them a living. We do not. They should be sent back so they can build and fight for a free and prosperous Afghanistan. It is a good job and the British people did not flee England in the second world war - they stayed and fought and won. In no way are the Afghanis ANY different.

Most popular


Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date