Yes. The argument requires boldness, but goals can be achieved. Removal can be stopped.
The Upper Tribunal did this afternoon, on an urgent basis, grant a stay of removal to a Zimbabwean failed asylum seeker.
The grant was on no basis other than that the Applicant, a Zimbabwean national on seeking an injunction against removal, relied on the argument that it was too soon to return a failed asylum seeker to Zimbabwe due to the volatile country conditions prevailing in that country.
There is no need to complicate the argument.
Separate the wheat from the chaff.
Present the right evidence.
Put forward an effective well researched argument that can withstand a refusal decision.
Advance an argument that will give you enough confidence to vigorously challenge an adverse decision.
A claimant’s safety and life itself is not an experimental field within which to test out legal arguments.
Therefore, get the right solicitor.
Instruct even better counsel.
Lets be clear on this: currently the Home Office have no qualms about setting removal directions for failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe especially for those with valid national passports. The current tone of their communication in response to representations based on arguments in issue is, “ we don’t want to hear it, take that stuff elsewhere, or better still get on that plane”.
Having regard to past recent events in Zimbabwe and the continuing turmoil, combined with the recent grant of stay, submissions wholly on the basis that a failed asylum seeker should not be hastily removed in light of current conditions, is a good enough basis to put forward an appropriate claim.
It is important however to note that grants of stay are not automatic.
Avoid however, hastily packing that bag.
Gird your loins. Sunga dzisimbe.
Stand your ground and legally fight removal, within the available procedures.
*Solicitor: Alice Muzira