UK uses cookies to make the site simpler. Find out more about cookies. Henderson, Counsel instructed by the Refugee Legal Centre. For the Respondent: Mr S. Kovats, Counsel instructed by the Treasury Solicitor. Failed asylum seekers do not, as such, face a risk of being subjected, on return to Zimbabwe, to persecution or serious ill-treatment.
That will be the case whether the return is voluntary or involuntary, escorted or not. The Tribunal identifies one further risk category, being those seen to be active in association with human rights or civil society organisations where evidence suggests that the particular organisation has been identified by the authorities as a critic or opponent of the Zimbabwean regime.
The process of screening returning passengers is an intelligence led process and the CIO will generally have identified from the passenger manifest in advance, based upon such intelligence, those passengers in whom there is any possible interest. The fact of having made an asylum claim abroad is not something that in itself will give rise to adverse interest on return. The Tribunal adopts and reaffirms the findings in AA in respect of the general absence of real risk associated with any monitoring of returnees that might take place after such persons have passed through the airport and returned to their home area or re-established themselves in a new area.
Country conditions have continued to deteriorate but are not generally such as to bring about an infringement of Convention rights for returnees or to require the grant of humanitarian protection. The appellant, who was born on 23rd June , is a citizen of Zimbabwe. She arrived in the United Kingdom in May and was granted leave to enter as a visitor for six months.
Just before that leave expired she applied unsuccessfully for leave to remain as a postgraduate medical doctor. She then applied for leave to remain as a highly skilled migrant.
