Home Office Response: Country Information Report And Returns Arrangements Regarding UK Based Asylum Claimants From Zimbabwe

Further to a Freedom of Information Request made on 24 November 2017, by Response of 20 December 2017, the Home Office have briefly  responded  as follows:

“Thank you for your e-mail of 24 November 2017, in which you ask for information about country information and returns arrangements regarding asylum seekers from Zimbabwe. Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.


In response to your specific questions:


Have Home Office Caseworkers currently been instructed to pause in their consideration and decision-making of Zimbabwean protection claims pending publication of a relevant Country Information Policy Note in relation to those opposed to the Zimbabwean Government?   




Where internal Home office consideration of protection claims continues, which Country Information Notes are Home Office Caseworkers taking into account when considering claims from Zimbabwean nationals fearing return to Zimbabwe on account of opposition to the Zimbabwean Government?   


See: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/zimbabwe-country-policy-and-information-notes

When will a relevant updated Country Information Note be published by the Home Office in relation to consideration of protection claims from those opposed to the Zimbabwean Government? 


We are planning to update this CPIN early in the new year.


Has agreement been reached between the UK Government and the Zimbabwean Government in relation to whether the Zimbabwean authorities will agree to issue Emergency Travel Documents for non-consenting undocumented Zimbabwean returnees who are without valid national passports?  


No. The UK government has not yet sought to discuss nor review the emergency   travel document process we currently have in place with the government of Zimbabwe”.



It is  clear that in relation to claims from  those opposed to the Zimbabwean government, the relevant Country Information Report  which Home office Caseworkers are currently taking into account is still  the  Country policy and information note: opposition to the government, Zimbabwe, January 2017.   The Information Report  is however  to be updated early in the coming year.  Meanwhile,  negative decisions affecting particular claimants  will be expected to  incorporate  the events of November 2017 and currently in Zimbabwe: the  Home Office can have regard to  other  reliable sources for current background  information.


It is  also important  to note   that it is current Home Office policy to take removal action in relation to  Zimbabwean failed  claimants as  there is no policy against enforced  removals to Zimbabwe. Currently however,   failed  asylum claimants  who do not agree to return to Zimbabwe and are  without valid Zimbabwean national passports  or valid travel  documents still seem in practice irremovable.

Children’s residence in the UK: Facets of the 7Year Rule

A parent may be entitled to stay in the United Kingdom in circumstances where they do not qualify for leave in their own right  but  by “latching” onto the rights of a qualifying child who  has resided in the UK continuously for  over 7years.


The most relevant considerations in this regards are Paragraph  276ADE(1)(iv) of the Immigration Rules and Section 117B(6) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.


Continue reading

Heartless Judgements: Upper Tribunal rejects flexible Paposhvili approach to Article 3 medical condition cases as “over-elastic and ill-defined”

After the ECHR published their judgment in PAPOSHVILI v. BELGIUM – 41738/10 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Grand Chamber)) [2016] ECHR 1113, that most immigration practitioners were seen to  tout this  case   as a  glimmer  of  hope and flexibility in the  approach to Article 3 medical condition cases  is not in doubt.  Paposhvili was variously described as “shedding light”,  “new hope”,  “ a paradigm shift”  and “ a new approach”   to the consideration of human rights  medical condition cases.


Continue reading