Country Information and Guidance Angola: Treatment of Persons from Cabinda Province
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Country Information and Guidance Angola: Treatment of persons from Cabinda province January 2015 Preface This document provides guidance to Home Office decision makers on handling claims made by nationals/residents of – as well as country of origin information (COI) about – Angola. This includes whether claims are likely to justify the granting of asylum, humanitarian protection or discretionary leave and whether – in the event of a claim being refused – it is likely to be certifiable as ‘clearly unfounded’ under s94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Decision makers must consider claims on an individual basis, taking into account the case specific facts and all relevant evidence, including: the guidance contained with this document; the available COI; any applicable caselaw; and the Home Office casework guidance in relation to relevant policies. Within this instruction, links to specific guidance are those on the Home Office’s internal system. Public versions of these documents are available at https://www.gov.uk/immigration- operational-guidance/asylum-policy. Country Information The COI within this document has been compiled from a wide range of external information sources (usually) published in English. Consideration has been given to the relevance, reliability, accuracy, objectivity, currency, transparency and traceability of the information and wherever possible attempts have been made to corroborate the information used across independent sources, to ensure accuracy. All sources cited have been referenced in footnotes. It has been researched and presented with reference to the Common EU [European Union] Guidelines for Processing Country of Origin Information (COI), dated April 2008, and the European Asylum Support Office’s research guidelines, Country of Origin Information report methodology, dated July 2012. Feedback Our goal is to continuously improve the guidance and information we provide. Therefore, if you would like to comment on this document, please e-mail us. Independent Advisory Group on Country Information The Independent Advisory Group on Country Information (IAGCI) was set up in March 2009 by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration to make recommendations to him about the content of the Home Office‘s COI material. The IAGCI welcomes feedback on the Home Office‘s COI material. Information about the IAGCI‘s work and a list of the COI documents which have been reviewed by the IAGCI can be found on the Independent Chief Inspector‘s website at http://icinspector.independent.gov.uk/country-information-reviews/ It is not the function of the IAGCI to endorse any Home Office material, procedures or policy. IAGCI may be contacted at: Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, 5th Floor, Globe House, 89 Eccleston Square, London, SW1V 1PN. Email: [email protected] Website: http://icinspector.independent.gov.uk/country-information-reviews Page 2 of 28 Contents Section 1: Guidance 4 1.1 Basis of Claim 4 1.2 Summary of Issues 4 1.3 Consideration of Issues 4 1.4 Policy Summary 7 Section 2: Information 8 2.1 Security situation in Cabinda 8 2.2 Human rights situation for Cabindans 9 2.3 Freedom of movement 10 2.4 Treatment of returnees 11 Annex A: Email correspondence from the UNHCR Angola, 16 December 2013 13 Annex B: Email from Country Representative working for Search for Common Ground NGO, 13 December 2013 17 Annex C: Letter from Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, Cabinet of the Secretary of State for Human Rights, undated (circa January 2014) 21 Annex D: Letter from the British Embassy in Luanda, Angola, 22 January 2014 23 Annex E: Map of Angola 25 Annex F: Caselaw 26 Page 3 of 28 Section 1: Guidance Date Updated: 21 January 2015 1.1 Basis of Claim 1.1.1 Fear of persecution for persons from Cabinda province by the state authorities because such persons are perceived to be affiliated to the non-state armed group, the Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda (FLEC). Back to Contents 1.2 Summary of Issues ► Is the person’s account a credible one? ► Are persons from Cabinda at risk of mistreatment by the state on return to Angola? ► Are persons from Cabinda perceived to have a political affiliation with FLEC at risk of persecution by the state? ► Is return to Cabinda province / internal relocation generally possible for persons from Cabinda? Back to Contents 1.3 Consideration of Issues Is the person’s account a credible one? 1.3.1 Decision makers must consider the material facts relating to a person’s account of their Cabindan origin and whether their experiences as a Cabindan are reasonably detailed, internally consistent (e.g. oral testimony, written statements) and externally credible (i.e. consistent with generally known facts and the country information, taking account of any personal underlying factors which may explain why a claimant’s testimony is not fully consistent with other evidence). 1.3.2 See also the Asylum Instruction(s) on: Considering Protection (Asylum) Claims and Assessing Credibility Are persons from Cabinda at risk of mistreatment on arrival in Angola? 1.3.3 The Upper Tribunal (UT) in the case of MB (Cabinda risk) Angola CG [2014] UKUT 00434 (IAC) (‘MB Angola’), found that the evidence regarding the treatment of returnees demonstrated that ‘normal security checks’ were conducted at the airport, including Luanda airport on arrival. Such check were likely to be thorough and aimed at establishing the identity of the person entering the country.(para 133) 1.3.4 Persons returning to Angola who are from Cabinda will be subject to normal security checks at Luanda airport. These checks do not amount to a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Right. Are persons from Cabinda perceived to have an affiliation with FLEC and at risk of persecution? Page 4 of 28 1.3.5 In the case law of MB Angola, the UT found that: ‘There is significant evidence of human rights abuses, including within Cabinda and affecting Cabindans, problems of arbitrary arrest and detention, ill-treatment in detention, poor prison conditions, restrictions on freedom of expression, government action against protest and limitations in the legal system and security laws. However, these problems do not render all those returning to Angola or Cabinda to be at risk of serious harm, whether or not they are Cabindans. ‘...The Angolan authorities do not equate being a Cabindan with being a member of or supporter of the Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda (FLEC). ... The evidence fails to establish that FLEC currently operates at a level such as to represent a real threat to the Angolan authorities although they are keen to take measures to ensure that there is no resurgence of its activities. Nor does the evidence establish that FLEC reflects the views and aspirations of a majority of Cabindans, notwithstanding the fact that the Cabindan sense of social identity remains very strong and separation from Angola remains an aspiration shared by many. The Angolan authorities readily understand the distinction between FLEC membership or support and Cabindan self- assertion.’(para 129-130) 1.3.6 The case of MB Angola concluded: ‘A person of Cabindan origin returning to Angola will not in general be at real risk of ill treatment by reason of his or her Cabindan origin. Such a person is reasonably likely to be detained (with the accompanying risk of ill-treatment) only if he or she has a history of active involvement with FLEC (or one of its factions, such as FLEC-PM or FLEC- FAC). Excluded from those at risk are individuals formerly associated with the pro- government FLEC-Renewal (FLEC-Renovada) or Antonio Bembe.’ (para 136) 1.3.7 Persons from Cabinda province will not generally be perceived as having a political affiliation with the non-state armed group FLEC merely because of the fact they come from Cabinda province. Therefore Cabindans who have no perceived links with FLEC are not likely to be at risk of persecution in Angola simply because they are from Cabinda. 1.3.8 A person who claims they are at risk of persecution because of their perceived political opinion and links with the FLEC will need to demonstrate such an affiliation based on the particular circumstances and facts relating to their claim for protection. 1.3.9 A person of Cabindan origin returning to Angola is reasonably likely to be detained (with the accompanying risk of ill-treatment) only if he or she has a history of active involvement in FLEC (or one of its factions, such as FLEC-PM or FLEC-FAC – excluded from those at risk are individuals formerly associated with the pro-government FLEC- Renewal (FLEC-Renovada) or Antonio Bembe). 1.3.10 Where a person has a history of active involvement in FLEC decision makers must consider whether such a person be excluded from international protection due to acts they committed during the internal armed conflict in Angola. 1.3.11 If there are serious reasons for considering that a person was involved in or associated with acts which amount to human rights violations as outlined under 1f of the Refugee Convention, decision makers must consider whether one of the exclusion clauses is applicable, seeking advice from a Senior Caseworker if necessary. Where a person is excluded from protection under the Refugee Convention they are also excluded from Humanitarian protection but if there is a real risk of a breach of Article 3 ECHR or Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive they may be entitled to Discretionary leave or Restricted leave. 1.3.12 See Country Information: Human rights situation for Cabindans (including supporters of FLEC) Page 5 of 28 1.3.13 See also the Asylum Instruction on: Exclusion Is return to Cabinda province / internal relocation generally possible for persons from Cabinda? 1.3.14 The case of MB Angola found that: ‘There are no obstacles in a returnee to Luanda airport making an onward journey to Cabinda.