Key Facts
- •The appellant is a Vietnamese national who was granted asylum in the UK in 2010 after claiming to be a victim of trafficking.
- •In 2015, she was convicted of kidnapping and sentenced to 11 years and 6 months' imprisonment.
- •The SSHD sought to deport her, leading to appeals concerning the revocation of her refugee status and potential Article 3 ECHR violation.
- •The appellant suffers from HIV and mental illness, raising concerns about the adequacy of medical treatment in Vietnam.
- •The case involved consideration of cessation of refugee status under the Refugee Convention and Immigration Rules, and the burden of proof in Article 3 ECHR claims related to medical treatment.
Legal Principles
Cessation of refugee status requires a significant and non-temporary change in circumstances such that the grounds for initial recognition no longer exist.
SSHD v MA (Somalia) [2018] EWCA Civ 994
UNHCR opinions are to be carefully considered but carry no special weight.
PS (Cessation Principles) Zimbabwe [2022] Imm LR 1
In Article 3 ECHR claims concerning medical treatment, the applicant must show a serious medical condition and cast doubt on the availability of treatment in the receiving state; the burden then shifts to the returning state to provide evidence of available treatment.
Paposhvili v Belgium [2017] Imm AR 267, AM (Zimbabwe) v SSHD [2020] UKSC 17, Savran v Denmark [2022] Imm LR 3
Section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 excludes certain individuals from protection under Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention.
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
Outcomes
Appeal regarding cessation of refugee status dismissed.
The F-TT's findings of fact were not subject to error of law; the tribunal considered the relevant circumstances and evidence appropriately.
Appeal regarding Article 3 ECHR claim allowed.
The F-TT and UT failed to apply the correct burden of proof test regarding medical treatment; the case was remitted to the F-TT for a rehearing on the Article 3 issue.