Upper Tribunal finds that “the situation in Sudan remains volatile after civil protests started in late 2018 and the future is unpredictable” and the 2009/2015 cases on non-Arab Darfuris stand.
There is a new country guidance case on the situation of Kurds from Iran, called HB (Kurds) Iran CG  UKUT 430 (IAC).
In January 2018, the Home Office issued a new country policy and information note on Afghanistan, dealing with the issue of “Afghans perceived as Western” on return (voluntary or forcibly removed) to Afghanistan.
According to Home Office statistics from August 2017, 85% of Pakistan asylum claims were refused. What is the Home Office’s justification for this?
Country guidance cases are asylum appeals chosen by the immigration tribunal to give legal guidance for a particular country, or a particular group of people in a particular country. The decisions in these cases are assumed to be based on the best possible evidence about that country at that time. Until there are significant changes in that country, a country guidance decision sets out the law for other asylum-seekers from that country.
We are often asked, “Do people get asylum if they are from [x or y country]?”
It’s impossible to generalise about how asylum claims will be decided – although the grant rate for some countries is higher than others, each asylum claim should (in theory) be decided on an individual, case-by-case basis.
This is a guest post by Sara Palacios Arapiles, who has a background in law and currently works at the Nottingham Rainbow Project, providing advocacy and support to people seeking sanctuary.
In July, the Home Office issued new Country Information and Guidance for the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
Just before Christmas, the Upper Tribunal issued the Country Guidance decision on asylum claims by Pakistani Christians.
The country guidance – the AMM case – on Somalia states that the situation in Mogadishu means that Article 15c applies for most Somalis there. An exception to this is the small number of people “connected with powerful actors or belonging to a category of middle class or professional persons, who can live to a reasonable standard in circumstances where the Article 15c risk, which exists for the great majority of the population, does not apply”.