Romo v Immigration Appeal Tribunal

Criminal conduct does not become persecution for a Convention reason merely because the criminal group has political aims or the victim may be regarded as opposed to it. A persecutor may have mixed motives, but the existence of some political motivation does not necessarily establish persecution for a Convention reason. Where the evidence shows that the overwhelming motivation is criminal retribution, the tribunal may conclude that no Convention reason has been established. The same approach applies to alleged criminal conduct by rogue police officers.

The applicant, a Colombian citizen, claimed asylum after alleging that FARC had compelled him to perform errands and that he had subsequently been regarded as an informer. He also alleged that police officers had beaten and tortured him. The special adjudicator rejected the claim, finding that FARC's conduct was criminal rather than persecution for a Convention reason, that the police could protect him, and that any offending officers were likely to be rogue officers.

The Immigration Appeal Tribunal upheld those conclusions, including its rejection of an argument based on actual, implied or imputed political opinion. The applicant renewed his application for permission to appeal, alleging errors concerning mixed motives and the alleged police persecution.

1. Application refused. The Court of Appeal agreed with the single Lord Justice that the Tribunal's decision disclosed no error of law and that the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success.
2. The possibility that a persecutor may have mixed motives, recognised in Noune v Secretary of State for the Home Department, C2669 2000, did not displace the Tribunal's conclusion on these facts. The Tribunal had considered the reasoning in Guitierrez Gomez v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] INLR 549 and the submissions based on it.
3. The evidence entitled the special adjudicator and Tribunal to find that FARC's motivation was overwhelmingly criminal. Retribution against an informer was treated as criminal conduct directed at someone who endangered the criminals, rather than conduct requiring a Convention reason. The fact that FARC might also have political aims did not alter that conclusion.
4. The same reasoning applied to the alleged police conduct. To the extent that the account was accepted, the Tribunal was entitled to regard the conduct as criminal and overwhelmingly likely to have been uncharacteristic of the police, carried out by rogue officers.
5. The order was: application refused; legal aid taxation.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The renewed application for permission to appeal from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal was refused.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: The Tribunal upheld the special adjudicator's determination.
• Special adjudicator: The asylum claim and challenge to the refusal of leave to enter were rejected.