EM (Zimbabwe) v SSHD

EM (Zimbabwe) v SSHD

It is arguable that the immigration judge's reasons for finding the appellant not at risk were inadequate, as the judge failed to assess the extent of the appellant's MDC involvement and relied solely on lack of evidence that authorities knew of her activities.

Parties
Appellant: EM (Zimbabwe); Respondent: SSHD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Asylum Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
permission to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Risk of Persecution, Country Guidance, Failed Asylum Seekers, Activism
Immigration Asylum Risk of Persecution Country Guidance Failed Asylum Seekers Activism

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EM (Zimbabwe)

Appellant

SSHD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Asylum Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant faces risk of persecution on return to Zimbabwe due to MDC activism in the UK
  2. 2 Whether the immigration judge adequately considered country guidance and evidence of regime surveillance

Ratio Decidendi

It is arguable that the immigration judge's reasons for finding the appellant not at risk were inadequate, as the judge failed to assess the extent of the appellant's MDC involvement and relied solely on lack of evidence that authorities knew of her activities.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal granted

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal is granted