Immigration judges: 'Afghanistan is not in a state of war'
Ruling paves way for asylum-seekers to be returned
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 .
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.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited



Comments
The finest judiciary money can buy.
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.
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.
Why: War in Iraq and Afghanistan http://wp.me/p4271-1su in case anyone missed it.
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?????
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.....
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.
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
More drivel and doublespeak from the bench. Ptah!
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..
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