This case determined whether there was any requirement that the actions of an asylum seeker be carried out in good faith.
The appellant submitted that the special adjudicator failed to consider whether he would be persecuted for a Convention reason at the date of appeal. Additionally, the Convention does not exclude persons whose actions are perceived to be unreasonable from seeking refugee status.
The Tribunal interpreted the Refugee Convention as ‘requiring, implicitly, good faith on the part of the asylum-seeker. This turns on a value judgment that the Refugee Convention is intended to protect only those in genuine need of surrogate international protection. The Tribunal viewed the appellant’s behaviour as inconsistent with the behaviour of someone who had a genuine fear of persecution. Such a conclusion should follow regardless of whether the activities had come to the attention of the feared authorities or whether the fear of persecution was ‘well-founded’.
The Tribunal further noted that, although the Convention required good faith on part of the asylum-seeker, such a principle should be applied with caution and on a case-by-case basis.
Meaning of ‘refugee’; asylum seeker; post-arrival political activity carried out in bad faith; refugee convention
The appellant obtained leave to enter the UK in April 1985 as a visitor, and obtained successive extensions of stay as a student. He overstayed his leave and received a notice of intention to deport. In 1989, he applied for asylum. The application was dismissed and the appellant was deported from the UK in July 1997.
The appellant returned on the same day and made a second application for asylum which was dismissed. He appealed to the special adjudicator, but the appeal was dismissed because his actions were calculated. The special adjudicator found that he had been involved in “unreasonable conduct” that would attract the attention of the Nigerian authorities. He was involved with the Nigerian pro-democracy movement in the UK from 1995.
The appellant obtained leave to move for judicial review in a renewed application in the Court of Appeal and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal.
The appeal was dismissed.
The Refugee Convention was interpreted as ‘requiring, implicitly, good faith on the part of the asylum-seeker’ which supports the interpretation that the Refugee Convention was intended to protect only those in genuine need of surrogate international protection.